>Obviously, I couldn't come up with anything to say, but I returned to my hotel deep in thought. It's a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens ofwomen; others with none. It's what's known as `the law of the market'. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. On the economic plane Raphael Tisserand belongs in the victors' camp; on the sexual plane in that of the vanquished. Certain people win on both levels; others lose on both. Businesses fight over certain young professionals; women fight over certain young men; men fight over certain young women; the trouble and strife are considerable.
Was he right?
>No greater mistake could be made than to think the PUAs are modern Casanovas. Casanova was an adventurer and a man of a hundred talents, HENCE his great success with women. PUAs are just a bunch of losers who spent half their lives unable to get laid, and the other half desperately trying to make up for it. Lack of talents and any kind of adventurousness beyond skirt-chasing are REQUIREMENTS to be a PUA. Casanova, meanwhile, while certainly no philosopher, was a true representative of culture. He even rubbed Voltaire's nose in it at one point. PUAs, on the other hand, are strictly anti-culture. Roosh for example goes to London — one of the greatest cities in the world — and reports back that "there is nothing there". Krauser thinks that Austrian economics are culture. GLL thinks higher education is a scam. Half the others can't think of anything else beyond clubs and steroids. They are against marriage, education, work, art, sports... (and of course against philosophy), in short against anything besides getting laid, against any other dimension of life.
That PUAs try to put themselves forward as representatives and defenders of masculinity is an absurd presumption that one should show no sympathy with. There is not the slightest doubt that LACK of masculinity is precisely the reason the PUAs became PUAs in the first place. If you are masculine you have to fight women off, any masculine man knows this. And what they also know, that still escapes PUAs, is that masculinity is not something that can be taught but something you must be born with (it's called genetics), and that the only people who could be fooled that it can be are, indeed, women.
Was he right?
>The 5-year-old child who suggested that America "kill everyone in China" to avoid having to pay its 1.3 trillion dollar debt to that country. We finally got to the point where the solutions to our problems are literally obvious even to children.
>>7709286
Is it wrong that I want Evola to fuck me in my peasant ass while whispering in my ear about higher realities?
>>7709297
it's not gay if it's metaphysical sex
