Why Villains are So Sexy | Girls Chase

Why Villains are So Sexy

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

villains sexy
The bad guy compels because he isn’t afraid to speak truth and break rules. But more than this – he is a product of his zeitgeist.

There’s been a funny trend of late, in film and other media.

The bad guys are sexy. They’re cool. Way, way cooler than the good guys.

Vincent in Collateral. Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. The Joker in The Dark Knight.

And among the coolest guys in cinema who aren’t out-and-out bad guys? Well, the other cool guys aren’t good guys either. They’re anti-heroes, like Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow, Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden, or Guy Pearce’s Eric in The Rover.

The bad guy hasn’t always been cool. In most older movies, the good guy is significantly cooler, more interesting, and more relatable than the bad guy.

Yet in more recent films, the good guy is often... Too gullible. Too naïve. And he stays that way.

You watch old movies, and if the good guy starts off too naïve, he eventually comes to understand the way of the world, yet remain a strong, firm good guy at the end of it. In more recent films, the good guy always finds a way to remain more or less entrenched in his bubble of ‘correctness’, despite whatever pitfalls befall him along the way.

I propose that in topsy-turvy times, when black is white and up is down and left is right, those men who attack and upend the established order of things are those we most intuitively grasp as those who must be ‘correct’. And because they see fit to buck a powerful trend that has most individuals cowed, not only are they correct... they are powerful.

And power, no matter what the era, is always sexy and cool.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his One Date System.



BALANCE's picture

Hey Mr. Bad Guy... Quick Question

You seem to be able to predict the Future, and how the behaviors of Males and Females will change with the times as Seduction evolves - and so I ask you this

As Seduction grows and Evolves, so are other distractions in the world, such as video games, porn, movies, and other forms of entertainment... So do you believe that Seduction is going to get to the point where it's well-known and widely practiced, or do you believe it is growing just as other industries (like Porn, Video games and TV) is Seduction

A) leveling the Playing Field - anyone can learn it by Googling it and finding the GC website and Practice, apply the Skills to get what they want out of Life


B) Lovers will still be the rare Top 5% as the mainstream focuses on the Distractions like television and news and video games - and you only get good at this stuff if you're REALLY focused on bettering yourself and putting in the Work

Where do you believe Seduction is headed towards ?

Chase Amante's picture


Well, at this point, knowledge of seduction is 100% in the Western world. Everybody knows what pickup is. We get a million visitors a month on Girls Chase; half of them are in the U.S. (many of the rest are in the U.K., Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc.). We've had GC authors go on dates and have girls pull up Girls Chase articles on their phones and ask them what they thought of the article, the girl not realizing her date was in the space (and, in one case, was the author of the article she showed him).

There's a big difference between knowledge of a thing and mastery of it, though. Everybody knows gyms are out there, but few guys are really ripped. Everybody knows about kung-fu, but not many guys can execute a rear kick without falling over.

I don't think we'll see a quantum surge in seduction skills no matter how simple we strive to make this stuff for guys until there are risk-free ways to level up. Which means virtual reality training.

At some point, some guy is going to build a pickup simulator that guys can slap on and face tens of thousands of different pickup permutations with all kinds of curve balls and unexpected things and resistance and what have you. And it will train men to be better at seduction.

That's pretty far off at this point. First we'll have fantasy-fulfillment virtual reality, where you go out and pick up a girl at a bar and it's mostly pretty easy, and then the thing turns into the VR porn they're working on where you shag a sex doll with the VR headset on or however it works.

But they're going to use virtual reality for training of all sorts (military, arts, athletics, etc.), and sooner or later dating will become a part of it too. Anything where the costs are high for real life failure (obviously, mess up in military training and you may just get a hole in your skull; just the same, there are military men who have zero fear of battle but are terrified to talk to a girl), there'll eventually be virtual training for it.

I don't think that'll happen until VR training is fairly advanced, for a couple of reasons: a.) most guys who'll bother with VR will just want instant gratification; get the "pick up a girl and shag her!" VR game instead of the "learn how to be a PUA in real life" one, so that's where all the money and development effort will go first, and b.) it's going to be insanely hard to program a realistic, responsive AI that can respond to a man's game and fundamentals and provide variable reactions depending on a girl's own game, fundamentals, mood, and point in life; throw him curve balls like random other guys butting in and girls' friends cockblocking, and have his girl react in realistic ways to both their intrusions and the guy's reactions, etc. Social dynamics are among the most complex and least understood phenomena we deal with, so it'll be a while before a good VR training program comes along, even after the military / combat ones are well established for home users.

(next step after VR training would be Matrix-style "upload the knowhow" training... though hopefully delivered wirelessly, rather than through a massive metal spike in the brain)

Until that happens, I do not predict seduction gaining anything close to critical mass.

It's not that it's too hard to learn - it's not. Just like it isn't that hard to put on decent muscles or learn to deliver Bruce Lee kicks.

Instead, it's more that most people simply do not have the drive.

Even among guys who do study game, most guys who make improvements only learn enough to get a cute girlfriend, too. As soon as they have her, their seduction journey ends. Maybe they come back here and read articles from time to time, but without practice they're only getting marginal gains (in, say, female psychology, and relationship handling). Or they might return after a breakup, improve a little more, then get another girlfriend. Pretty hard to become an mPUA that way though ;)

So, I wouldn't worry. You should be pretty safe in the B.) category for some time.


Atra's picture

Your analysis rings true and I think you are spot on! I loved your article about "How to survive in a time of moral panic" as well! And yes, that's what going on: accuse the other one of being a witch *first* and then nobody can touch you.

Europe is behind the US in its reaction against political correctness, ecpecially in Northern Europe where I'm from, but I feel the wind blowing in a new direction here as well. Now, close friends of mine admit behind closed doors thoughts very similar to the ones you had in your comments in the article "Mind control: How media influence your thoughts and feelings". It is, of course, unfair that those living in Europe are so much more lucky than those living in, lets say, Afghanistan, but I have a general feeling that more and more people think that we cannot welcome an unlimited streem of refugees at once and that much tougher actions will be needed in the future to protect what we have in Europe.

With regard to women being the laggards...As a woman, I feel much more indepentent in my analyses than many men, and at the same time, I feel that I get more punished for being "bad or "mean" than men do, so that I keep silent most of the time not to get socially shunned and ostracized. Any suggestions for me?

Love from a female fan!

Chase Amante's picture


Europe has been much more insular than the U.S. until recently. The U.S. has been trying to be a multicultural paradise since 1965, and has run up against some of the hard limitations of this. Europeans, stuck in their bubble, were surrounded by homogeneuous folk, and assumed everyone else must be just like them. They'll awaken (and as you note, it is already happening), but it'll take some time.

What's fascinating to me is to watch how quick (or how slow) it happens. Also, how exactly Europe handles its various quagmires... I'm hoping for humanitarian solutions, but that's going to depend on how all the different parties handle this transition.

Yes, the problem women face right now is that progressive multiculturalism/globalism is entwined in female values. Values like helping/nurturing others, being fair to others, showing how much you care about others, etc.

One suggestion is to use ambiguous arguments. Like:


Friend: You don't think we should let in more refugees? But those poor people! Look how much they are suffering!

Atra: I think it is very thoughtful we brought so many people here. And we have helped so many. There are 4 million refugees in Europe right now. But the war has ended and our social systems are strained; how many more of these people can we support?

Very hard for someone to accuse you of being uncaring when you start by showing care, yet end with practical considerations.

This is the strategy I'd recommend; it's easiest, and opens you up to the least social risk (well, outside of just not saying anything at all!).

If you want to be more direct, the best way is by painting yourself as the true champion of feminine values, and the opponent as the one in violation of them.


Friend: You don't think we should let in more refugees? But those poor people! Look how much they are suffering!

Atra: What I think is so very cruel is how all these heartless Europeans are using refugees like pets to try to boost their virtue signal points. When what they're doing is terrible to these people. Bringing them into societies they can't fit into, but pretending they do? And then all the people who vote to bring them here don't want to live near the refugee centers. They shun these people and are afraid of them. There is no home for them here, but the people who bring them here don't care - they just want to use them to make themselves look good. Well it doesn't look good to me. It looks very, very selfish. There are so many ways we can help these people, but look what we do instead. It is madness.

Though what I'd really recommend you do, from a pure self-interested social standpoint, is mostly keep tight-lipped about these kinds of views around your liberal friends until others push their way into the national spotlight and make these arguments for you.

At that point, once the arguments for your side are out there, the cultural tide will be turning, and you'll receive a lot more social support when you give voice to arguments like these.

I'd consider, especially from a woman's perspective (since women are punished more harshly than men for not conforming to social norms), that it's probably best to wait until your side attains the social high ground before being openly pro-European. e.g., wait until European nationalists are 60% of the population and antifa / etc. are roundly mocked as backwards-thinking anarcho-communists. At that point you can talk more freely and be seen as a good person instead of blasted as a bad one.


Atra's picture

I'm impressed about how you answer everyone posting here, from some many different places in life, in a supportive and respectful way, like your answer to me!

I usually use either some version of answer 1 or stay silent, like you suggest. I guess that in some time I can say what you suggest in answer 2, which is a reply I really like! And yes, when a majority of people get scared and want the situation to change, they will be happy hear arguements supporting their new point of view and not blast me as a bad person anymore.

Reason's picture


Please use less American jargon and needlessly complicated words; you alienate some readers that way. Readers should focus on the message that the words convey, not the words themselves. Science also says that people who use complex words are seen as less intelligent (this statement can easily be verified on the internet).

Regarding the ten free articles per month, does reading an article two times count as two readings?

T's picture


I don't know where you come from but you can consult a dictionary ;-) . Ok, joke....... :-)
Let me make a shot in the dark..... I think one of your criticism is the use of the word "zeitgeist".
This is a common German word that obviously found its way into the American language (like e.g. kindergarten = playshool or the prefix "uber" what LITERALLY !!! translated simply means "above" )
I COULD translate the word "zeitgeist" with "spirit of time" but that would not meet it exactly.
The word "zeitgeist" comprises the way of thinking at a certain time as well as the behavior and acting at that time. So it makes absolute sense in the context of this article. Hope this comment helps.


Reason's picture

The following words in this article are uncommon to someone more familiar with British English: topsy-turvy, upend, buck, cowed, beaver, sheen, hick. More people know the word intimidated than the word cowed, and overturn more than upend, for example. And this is coming from someone who did very well in British law (you had to be excellent in English to do very well).

You are right than we can use the dictionary (and we do use the dictionary); but, the more breaks we take from the article to use the dictionary, the more the article’s message is lost or more time is spent to read the article. Concerning the latter, I partly read girlchase’s articles to relax (dating should be fun right?!). I do not want to feel like I am reading my university textbooks.

Regarding American jargon, Chase should remember that non-Americans may feel alienated if they think that the articles are more catered to an American audience.

T's picture

Ok, depends on the point of view......
As far as I am concerned as a German who likes it to read English texts to improve his Englisch skills I don't mind to consult a wordbook and hence it makes no difference if it is british or amercan English.


Man-E-Faces's picture

You pose an interesting question which I'll presume stems from your fears and insecurities... Fear of competition, and insecurity over not being special and unique. Well, you are not special BALANCE? Do you wish to hoarde your Game all to yourself?

It was the fear that drove you to Game in the first place. What you fear most is inside of you. You fear your own power. Now you must go inside yourself and face your fear. With Game You have learned to disappear, now you must become truly invisible. Face your fear, embrace it, become one with the darkness... to conquer fear you must become fear... and Men truly fear most that which they cannot see.

Become more than just a man

Motiv's picture

…hoping to conceal it's true identity with the voice of a guardian angel — or the genie in a bottle, desperate to be freed and unleash chaos.

What if game is truth, and we indeed use it to disappear from the black hole that would otherwise consume us with emotional terror?

Agreed, one must become fear in order to conquer it — such is mastered by the dreamweaver. Yet, the power of the dreamweaver lay not in darkness, but the light of simple logic.


She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

Bolt's picture

I think you're right that the Rebel with a cause is going to gain the popularity and be charismatic but in your example I think you have the wrong villain. Trump is the most disliked President ever, and has historically low favorables wheras Bernie Sanders has been the most liked politician for a long time and still is and he's also anti establishment.
Nice theory but wrong villain. Also, in seduction how would you go about saying you're pro Hitler or some other largely negative historical figure and still making that work, unless you're going for a girl who believes in a similar ideology?

Chase Amante's picture


Well, let me ask you this: what do you think The Joker's approval rating was among the citizens of Gotham? Or how popular do you think Tyler Durden would've been had the country known in advance he planned to blow up the credit card system? He would not have been a well-liked man. Even Neo - pretty likeable guy, if you ask me - found himself dealing with almost everyone still plugged into the Matrix trying to stop him.

We're talking 'villians' here - not winners of popularity contests. I think I got the right guy ;)

As for disliked presidents, I suspect Abraham Lincoln might've given Donald Trump a run for his money. He went to war with half the country. Trump is, essentially, doing the same thing... though I hope (and expect) this war will be a far more 'civil' one than the last one was.

All that said, according to Rasmussen, Trump is actually at 55% approval (45% disapproval), right now (38% strongly approve vs. 36% strongly disapprove, so about even there). Despite being an anti-hero (or villain; depends where you're sitting), he's not as unpopular as the MSM might have folks believe.


Motiv's picture

I love this topic – could go on with endless enthusiasm about the the sexy traits of various male hero's and villains! I enjoy attempting to emulate bits and pieces of all of them (both good and evil) to suit each circumstance and my own whim. This can be a LOT of fun!

I'm intrigued by your inclusion of Captain America in the list of anti-heroes. Although he technically rebels against the system in the current story line, he is ironically still a white knight (albeit a special brand of one… or perhaps the truest version). He's super good guy who lives so strongly by his moral code that his goodness comes full-circle back to sexy.

Most white knights (as we call them, or call them out!) only "knight" as a flimsy facade that cows to a female frame. Captain America actually white knight's in a truly masculine imperative. He is mission-driven (but in a selfless manner), non-needy (apparently celibate with very little female experience), and he always stands firm in what he believes. I find this refreshing. A man does not have to be bad in order to be sexy, and he can even be a rebel while still being a good guy too.


*edit* He might even be extremely sexy in spite of having little experience with women…! (supposing he possesses enough other sexy qualities)

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

Chase Amante's picture


Good point; I use anti-hero wrong here. "Good rebel" is more fitting.

I had a definition in my head for anti-hero as "hero operating from outside the system", but a quick check makes clear that anti-hero rather means a "morally ambiguous hero" - which Captain America clearly is not.

So, yes, wrong term. "Good rebel" would be better here! I think I'd still include him in the piece as an example of a likeable guy who takes on the system, largely because were Captain America simply in service of the system in his films, I suspect he'd be a lot less likeable. It's the 'take on the system' element that lends him an air of pluck some of the other Marvel characters lack.


LoverBoy's picture

This is a well-timed article for me. I was just thinking a couple wks ago of the Joker in the Dark Knight and literally how cool he is. Like he's super cool. He owns himself, plays life funly & is free/aware. If it wasn't the makeup/different effect, & just off his persona & badassness, he'd be a hit w/ girls I think.

I don't think it's possible for anyone as a real human being to emulate his persona completely caz then one wouldn't have a job or anything, like to do whatever one wants & just play, because that wouldn't fly long-term in our society. But some of his mentalities & the way he operates in a letting-go-of-the-outcome-in-a-fun-way is something I really like. I wish more people would let go & play life like that.

The world would be better free, even at the expense of society progressing through all these rules, conditioning, systems, etc. people would be happier on a personal level if things were simpler.

What do you think of the Joker, Chase? His character, his mindsets, the movie in general, etc.

Personally he's my favorite movie character of all time & the Dark Knight is my favorite movie caz of him. Ironically, in complete contrast, Juno is my 2nd favorite movie character. I like how real she is. I feel like a lot of guys in seduction might like Tyler Durden in fight club but the Joker is more fun/playful to me. He's a real badass too tho.

Are there any movie characters you really like & have/do strive to pick up qualities from?

- LoverBoy

Jimbo's picture

I don't know if he did this intentionally, but Chase's style and stress on the devil-may-care attitude seem to be derived, almost meticulously, from Hank Moody. Especially if you take into account his advocating the genuine love of women which Hank naturally has and his penchant for literary and good writing*.

So Chase, were you actually inspired by this guy or did you just happen to have similar styles and proclivities?


Chase Amante's picture


Fun clip!

I liked David Duchovny in The X-Files. Never explicitly modeled myself after his performance there, though. Californication didn't come until five years after I chucked my TV, so I never got to see it. That might've been the first clip I've ever seen of it (or maybe the second; have a vague memory of a reader or forum member linking another clip from the show years ago).

So I'd lean more toward similar styles - and/or, perhaps some similar influences.


Chase Amante's picture


If you ask me, the single most attractive quality of the Joker is the fact that he is continually meta. He meta-frames everyone - that is, he tells them what they are thinking or dealing with in colorful ways that cause them to realize things they were not fully aware of before. As such, he seems incredibly perceptive, and someone who's likely already thought of your next move before you have.

The second most attractive quality he possesses is his ability to leverage the Law of Least Effort. One great example comes down to what a good planner he is, without showing it. He serves as an unreliable narrator, of sorts, in that he lies about various things; "not being a planner" (when talking to Harvey Dent in the hospital) is one such example. His plans are the most elaborate in the entire film, and doubtless took hours (or days) to plan out and orchestrate, but he presents himself as someone who impulsively runs around and yet wildly succeeds at whatever he does regardless. Zero planning effort, huge success (in reality, lots of effort for those huge successes, but the effort is "invisible" - partly because he masks it). Other things he does look effortless as well, though again, the appearances are deceiving.

As for me and movie characters, I like parts of Depp's Jack Sparrow, anything with Sean Connery or Harrison Ford in it, and have long been a fan of Val Kilmer's performance in The Saint. I talk about sex symbols some more in this article, if you haven't seen it yet: Old Fashioned Sex Symbols vs. Modern Male Stars: What’s the Difference?.

And here's a breakdown of some of what Kilmer does in The Saint: How to Be Smooth with Girls Every Time.


Bond's picture

Loki is the ultimate villain. I was sincerely surprised when girls in my class always talked about how sexy Loki is.
After this article, it makes more sense. It's not just his spot on fundamentals.

Cheers Chase,


Chase Amante's picture


Oh, yes - he's another great one.

Really is Tom Hiddleston's best role, too. He's the best villain the Marvel movies have had to offer yet.


Anonym's picture

Hi Chase,

thank you for an inspiring article. As a person who is more left-wing than right-wing and in most issues more liberal than conservative I say that your critic of these ideas is one of the best I read on the Internet. However I have a few points:

You described dynamic of social consensus (or dominant ideology/establishment/the System if you want) and its crisis and some consequences. However, the concept of the System is a bit fuzzy and everyone understand it in a different way. For example, Trump proved he is great at making political campaign presenting himself as an anti-System fighter and defender of common workers. It is too early to evaluate his policy. However, what is clear, he is against social-liberal consensus, but his government is totally establishmental (corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs or Exxon Mobile are essence of the economic establishment). We can hardly expect from corporate billionairs that they would particularly care about common workers. Their disillusion is likely.

You wrote: "By the 2000s, resistance was building against a new system – the now-entrenched system of cultural Marxism, centered on silencing the dissent of any who disagreed with the philosophy through the use of labels like ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘xenophobe’, or ‘homophobe’. "
While you are right that these labels are sometimes used to silence opponents, opponents of the proggressives use as well labels like "socialist/Communist/Marxist/neo-Marxist/cultural Marxist" often without distinction of the those different concepts (and sometimes without actual knowledge - like labelling Obama as a Soviet style Communist). The difference is that now in the US liberals are louder and maybe more scared. Mostly labelling is not a conscious political strategy, but just emotional reaction, when people of some worldview with certain consensus feel their values threatened by some group of the Others (i.e. racists, sexists, Communists, cultural Marxists). What is called political correctness is mostly motivated by this fear – and its opponents behave in similar way, they have just less influence these times. While I strongly disagree with labelling all Trumpians as dumb racists, it is clear that truly far right wing and neo-Nazi groups were enthusiastic about him and see him as their man. And there are some reasons for it.
I am afraid you fall a bit into trap of labelling as well, at least with using a term “cultural Marxism” which is label par excellence (see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism ). Or am I wrong?

Good points about the herd mentality, I have always wondered how easily some people change their views, how can they make abrupt radical changes. However if you have strong frame, you should be more resistant, whatever your worldview is.

Anyway it is interesting, how you can connect social development with sexual relationships.


Chase Amante's picture


Absolutely; there will always be shades.

Trump's corporate picks are generally supposed to be anti-establishment as well. Mnuchin, the Goldman pick, for instance, supposedly knows where "all the bones are buried" in Wall Street, which means Trump may be poised to take the banks on at some point. Which of course he wouldn't talk about now if he was, since as soon as presidents start talking about that, they invariably end up shot by lone gunmen. However, if we're talking 'from the establishment', then Mnuchin is going to be a lot more 'establishment' than, say, the founder of Bitcoin.

So it's going to depend on how you define 'establishment', and what is or is not 'establishment' (or anti-establishment), too.

Obviously, Trump would be a lot more establishment than someone who wanted to get into office, tear up the Constitution, and turn the U.S. into a communist state or a bloodline monarchy. Either of those would be a lot more anti-establishment - so degree matters too.

Great point about labeling being an unconscious emotional reaction, rather than a conscious political strategy. What looks like manipulation is often knee-jerk reaction.

I use 'cultural Marxism' to identify anyone who seeks to apply Marxist theory to the sociocultural realm. i.e., the belief that there are different classes, with a parasitic minority unfairly oppressing a productive majority, and that the oppressed, united majority must rise up in class struggle against said oppressive minority. Often this is feminists, homosexuals, and racial minorities rising up against white male oppressors, but not always.

If someone does not believe women, gay men, racial minorities, etc., are engaged in class struggle against oppressive cisheteronormative white males (or any other class),I would by no means consider him a cultural Marxist, even if he might be progressive . Working to improve one's lot in life is the natural order of things. Viewing oneself as a victim of oppressive white male patriarchal (or whatever) class control is something else altogether!


Lawliet's picture

Hey Chase,

I didn't know why, but I always felt villains in movies and media, have a way that the "good guys" don't.
Maybe it's the way they carry themselves?
Or maybe it ties back to "Bad boys".
But it was always there.
Maybe I was suppose to be one ;)

Re: Observations
I noticed that in some social situations, the moves we make aren't necessarily wrong, but a matter of wrong timing.
(exactly described in your "Why it feels off for her")

A good example is "She isn't hooked yet, and we follow with many compliments".
One compliment to open the conversation is good, but continuous showing more interest than her, can come on too strong. I experienced this myself when a guy wanted to be my friend and he showed interested more than me.
If he waited until I was hooked by whatever it is, I would probably not feel weirded out. I honestly thought he was gay (he's not).

Anyway, this tied well into forming my calibration for "To pull her home OR have traditional route".
This was a huge eye opener for my past dating experiences. I'm not expert on this, but it's starting to become more apparent. Intuition, signs? whatever you call it.
She isn't ready (whether it's comfort, connection etc.), then it makes sense to have the latter.
If she's beaming up "OH FUCK ME ALREADY", I couldn't agree more ;)

Thank you for everything Chase! I'll keep thanking you til I've harnessed the top skill.
I am a little disappointed at myself. I had a change in july, but then I didn't improve as much as I wanted.
I have to put more work!

Re: Types
I made a reply on your "Game and types of girls you get" article. Not sure if you saw it.
But it matched the question I had: There are different types of personality in girls and much of the time they show in their appearance and way of talking. What are the things they like? Look for in a guy?

A list of these would be a great guide in maximizing our skill capability!

Re: Covering up
I had a girl in class who sat casually and had her clothes slump, revealing a nice cleavage.
However, when I casually approached (through class discussion), she started to straighten her clothes and pull them over to cover herself.

Makes me wonder, is this a sign of "I shouldn't give this guy wrong ideas" or "I need to make the best impression".
With that said, it's strange. I wasn't looking at her chest and was looking at her eyes, yet she pulled her dress up to cover it while keeping eye contact with me. I decided to chat with her more, and then number exchange. Looks like a dead lead.
Makes me wonder more if I screwed up, or was it lack of interest from the beginning...


Chase Amante's picture

Lawliet- Splendid to see you noticing more of these things. It's a great sign! Noted on types of personality, signs, and preferences. We've done a few installments in the "Girl Types" series; I'm sure we'll do more in the future. Yes, covering up legs or breasts or whatever exposed body parts she has is usually not a good sign. It may be an autopilot response to a random man approaching (e.g., she senses a man approaching, realizes she's dressed to revealingly, and instinctively covers up), but not good, and sets some negative precedent right off the bat ("Oh! I'd better cover up for this guy!"). Can't say I've dealt with that one enough to have a standard response to it. Best I've found for things like this is to just ignore them and pretend they didn't happen (which it sounds like you did). Pointing it out just makes her more uncomfortable and cements the emotion of covering up when you came over in her mind. Chase
James 's picture

I admit, I used to be a nice guy, and I got stepped on. Fortunately, the internet has provide me with many resources to learn from, including this one, where I can become the person I really want to be. Someone who uses fundamentals and game, not only to attract a lot of women, but to become a leader. That being said I can't help but point out the great irony I find in this post. You are saying that a lot of liberals are generalizing conservatives by calling them racists and xenophobes, yet you seem to endorse the idea that the majority of liberals are cucks and white knights, when in reality the majority of liberals want people to be treated equally. Is this why we deserve to be called "uncool" because we stand up for what is right? Are there some that take it to the extreme? Sure. But for every Huffington Post article there is one from Breitbart. Chase, stop shaming people for supporting the rights of the marginalized. Last I checked this was a site for self-development not for political propoganda.

Chase Amante's picture

yet you seem to endorse the idea that the majority of liberals are cucks and white knights

Where in the article (or anywhere else) did I say this, or anything remotely close to this?

when in reality the majority of liberals want people to be treated equally. Is this why we deserve to be called "uncool" because we stand up for what is right?

I don't think anyone has any bones with what you'd call 'true liberals' - people who want equal treatment for all.

The major point of contention in Western civilization right now is between those on your side, who want equal treatment for all, which includes most true liberals and most true conservatives, and the folks who oppose you and everyone who wants equal treatment: those who want equal outcomes for all - the radical feminists, the communists, the forced redistributionists, etc.

These are the folks we're talking about when we're talking about the present System... the folks who run the media, academia, and the like. This is where the battle lines have drawn up in the West: between those who want equal treatment for all (like you)... and those who want to take resources and opportunities from some groups, and give these preferentially to others (unequal treatment, in the service of trying to achieve equal outcomes).

Chase, stop shaming people for supporting the rights of the marginalized.

This entire website is dedicated to turning marginalized men into men who command respect and live lives they want. You seem perhaps to have missed the point.


Concerned Reader (James)'s picture

You have spent a lot of your time over the past decade learning how to attract women. It is a life-changing skill to have and you have the experience to teach it. Or at least we assume. Here is something you can't just assume: information you get from news, hence why widely respected news organization cite sources and are considered credible. Almost akin to the way you cite scientific data in some of your articles. So here is a suggestion from a fan concerned both for your outlook on society (more directly, your influence through the site) and society in general. Read the news daily and maybe educate yourself more on politics and the history of oppression of immigrants, women, Hispanics, African Americans, and the LGBT community. Perhaps when you have learned enough on the history of the white male being oppressive in the US and acknowledge it, we can have this discussion. For now, stick to what you know best, attracting women and sleeping with them. Come back when you have practiced what you preach and read books on the severity of the issues liberals are concerned with.

Chase Amante's picture

Look, I'm not the guy you want to get into race wars with.

I spend a huge amount of time around not-white people. I spend a lot of time in not-white countries. A big chunk of my close friends are not white. I date across the color spectrum. I know more about more peoples, races, and nationalities than almost anyone else you are going to meet.

I'm also not some PUA autist, either, which you seem to presume(?) I am. I'm extensively well-read on history, both modern and ancient, and I've been exposed to all your 'oppression' arguments, as well as their counterarguments. Beyond this, I've seen all these scenarios play out again and again throughout the ages.

Every single argument coming out of cultural Marxism is directly contradictory with another argument coming out of cultural Marxism. It is based upon the inversion of sociology and anthropology by anti-scientific individuals, who have censored entire branches of the sciences, and pushed their agendas through slanted studies with biased designs and rhetorical arguments based not on empiricism but on 'logic', which, as any honest rhetorician will tell you, can be made to serve any argument. The best logical argument comes from not the truest position, but the most skilled (or the most impassioned) debater.

Re: news, after a half decade off it, I'm eyeball-deep in it again. Mainstream news, non-mainstream news, whatever you're reading, I read about it two days ago, before it became news, and I already predicted exactly the strain of sensationalism the news media (such as those "widely respected news organizations" you cite, no doubt) would whip up around it. This is the first major culture shift I've experienced firsthand, and after reading about these throughout history, it fascinates to watch. You are wide off the mark to assume I'm tuned out. The tuned out ones, as one may observe by tuning into any mainstream media production, are those who lean on polls, confident in their correctness, only to stand around with their jaws agape when they find themselves, yet again, surprised (the only thing that's surprised me is how surprised these people are, repeatedly, by the results). The Edward Bernays approach to mass social control (which I covered in my article on media mind control a year or so back) has seen its retrenchment for now, with populist leaders (Duterte, Farage, Le Pen, Putin, Assad, Netanyahu, Trump) who speak directly to the people and tap into the zeitgeist beating the pollsters and PR men.

One final point, perhaps to take under advisement, since you seem to be fairly tied to the progressive movement and no stranger to the use of their tactics: part of the reason the progressive left is losing the battle for the soul of the West is because it's abandoned persuasion and turned toward this shaming, bullying, and moral haughtiness (your "You probably aren't educated, so need to get educated before you open your mouth further" routine here is a perfect example). These tactics breed resentment in their targets, and foment backlash against their users. You look at someone in the middle, like me; someone who surrounds himself with non-white people, who voted Obama in 2008, and some of whose own ancestors remained enslaved in Ireland decades after the black slaves of America went free. And then here's you, attacking this guy in the center as an oppressive white male who must be re-educated, and put in his place.

The backlash the progressives are experiencing is a direct result of their attacks upon not just the most racially proud or most racially supremacist whites, but their expansion of the attack to label all whites morally bankrupt oppressors at birth, simply due to the color of their skin. When you label an entire skin color "evil oppressors by birth" (and conduct the kind of anti-white, pro-any-race-else programs progressives have become so famous for), you back the target race into a corner; you besiege it. And a group of people, backed into a corner together, besieged, finds brotherhood and unity in the corner, as any military unit that's seen heavy action will tell you. And that (a united white race) is, I presume, the last thing the movement you identify with wants. Yet it is the inevitable reaction to the path progressives have put us all on - and instead of back up and let things cool off, the progressives are only pushing this even harder. Just as American Jews remarked that they "did not know how Jewish they were" until Israel came under attack in the 1960s and 70s, a lot of white people are beginning to realize they did not know how white they were until they found themselves hammered daily on all sides by moral, physical, financial, and psychological attacks upon them.

Whether you believe those attacks are justified or not is beside the point; the point is that to the majority of white people, these attacks feel unjustified and incessant, and they will provoke the only kind of reaction they ever could: solidarity, groupishness, rebellion, and defiance.

Quite frankly, I'd recommend progressives hire me for a total brand overhaul. But at this point, they seem to have lost the ability to look in the mirror. These things go in cycles though; sometime back, it was the nationalists who'd lost this ability. Since then, they've rediscovered it, while the progressives have given it up, and the tables, as they do throughout history, have once more turned.


Anonymous's picture

This is a rant that uses rhetoric over substance. You also assert that you are well read in history, and have non-whites as friends. However, your argument should be based on evidence.

You say that you distrust the media. I find this odd, and very similar to Steve Bannon's view. What news sources do you use, if any? You recommend shutting out the 'mainstream media'. Do you think that the entirety of the 'mainstream media' is part of a conspiracy to deny the truth?

You've also previously denied/been skeptical of the existence of man made climate change. However, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community confirm its existence. Why are you a skeptic?

I'm curious what is it that you do not like about 'progressives'? You criticise the way that they pursue their goals. That is a fair criticism. However, do you object to the aims of progressives? For example, helping those in poverty or those that have been historically disenfranchised. Do you object or agree to Trumps ban on immigration from seven muslim majority nations, and his anti-muslim rhetoric? What do you think about Trumps anti-abortion stance, and appointing Mike Pence (infamously anti-LGBT) as vice president? Donald Trump himself compared gay marriage to golfers using 'new putters' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/trump-gay-people-should-n_n_856...).

So, many people were wrong about their predictions on Trump. Does that mean that Trumps viewpoints and actions are right?

Chase Amante's picture

Sure, I've got to set the pace, just to get the basics out of the way. You were very clearly confrontational and agenda driven in your initial comment, and confrontational and agenda driven people go to attack labels as their next option. Traditionally that meant diehard conservatives branded me a limp-wristed liberal while diehard liberals branded me a misogynist, though right now the trendy thing among the far-right is to call people Jew-lovers or Muslim-lovers, while the trendy thing among the far left is to call people racists or xenophobes (and of course, both sides love to call each other 'idiots'; that one never changes).

For a variety of reasons, it is not in my interests to take sides in political fights.

I'm not going to write a list of books I've read, or post a list of links to non-white friends' Facebook pages. Not a good use of my time, and regardless how long or detailed the lists, lists are not persuasive (no one reads them, and those who do just use them for confirmation bias to uphold preexisting conclusions; "This book is biased" or "He hasn't even read X book", for instance).

Unsure if you are American. If you're not, you may be unfamiliar with how partisan American media has become. Americans' trust in their media is very low. A mere 32% say they have a "fair amount" or higher amount of trust in the media (this breaks down to 30% of independents, 14% of Republicans, and 51% of Democrats having a "fair amount" or higher trust in media. I'm among the 70% of independents with less than a "fair amount" of trust in American media). If you'd like to know why I view the media as inherently biased, read my article on the subject.

My prime problem with progressives are the blinders and incivility so many of them display. I've encountered this among some on the far right, but it's worse on the left. When I debate with folks on the far right, I nearly always reach a point where my debate partner says, "Okay, that's a fair point. I'm not sure if I agree, but I can see your logic." When I debate with someone on the far left, it always ends this way: "Nope. Chase, you're wrong. Let me try to explain the truth to you another way, because you obviously don't get it." More mild progressives are cool and we get along fine. But the argumentative ones come at you with moral fire... Which is something I am always going to combat, no matter what quarter of the political divide it comes from.

I view the aims of progressives as noble, but their methods often misguided / impractical. One example is food aid to Africa. This has led to a huge explosion in the population of Africa with no discernible standard of living / economic improvement, and created incredible dependency among the people of Africa on handouts from the West. When at some point the West suffers extreme economic depression or becomes truly xenophobic / ethnonationalist (and history says both things will occur sooner or later, as they always do, in every country, among every people), the food aid tap will turn off, and the suffering in Africa will be enormous. Progressives, operating from only the best of intentions, very often pursue short-term solutions that treat the symptoms rather than the root, concealing the problem and leading it to grow unchecked, leading to far greater suffering later on.

I'm not going to talk about climate change any more than I already have; my position, as stated elsewhere, is the Earth seems to be warming, but whether man's had a hand in that and how great it is, I'm not equipped enough as a non-scientist to evaluate and haven't examined the graphs and charts and whatnot enough to try. Beyond that, all I can tell you is, "I don't know." There does seem to be a distinct doomsday panic / apocalyptic cult around climate change, which is something you see throughout human societies (often associated with ecological problems). These generally serve a real purpose, and contrasting the current extremely clean environment in North America and Western Europe with where it was just 60 years ago (or with China, India, or much of the developing world today) would seem to highlight its utility within the societies its taken hold in. Regardless of its scientific veracity, the panic itself has served a very real social/ecological purpose, so it may be an "ends justify the means"-type phenomenon.

I have no official position on Donald Trump's presidency or actions. Now, if you'd like to talk about the persuasion / seduction angle of these actions, and whether they are good versus harmful for achieving various goals, and their effects on various groups, and why, that's a different story!

Likewise, it is not my place to dictate 'right' or 'wrong' to or about anyone or anything else. Abraham Lincoln and Osama Bin Laden are two examples of men whose actions were very right to some, and very wrong to others. Figures who come to power during divisive times tend to be forced to represent some parties over others; Trump is obviously doing this, and I can tell you from my conversations with various friends that some view him as heroically good, while others view him as diabolically evil. Neither side is incorrect; I assume most people know what is better for them, and actions a leader takes that are positive for one group may be negative for another.


Anonymous's picture

You've used the idea of 'cultural marxism' in this article, and on the forums. What is your take on this? You are aware that it is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory that liberal socialists have taken over the universities and media . It's associated with far right conservatives and the manosphere (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultura...). No one in academia takes it seriously. It relates to criticism of political correctness. It's one thing to criticise 'safe spaces', but getting people to stop using racial/derogatory slurs that reinforced discrimination and racial violence (lynching), and anti-LGBT sentiment; isn't that a good thing. The halloween costumes is up for debate, amongst other issues. But, I don't view talking about 'political correctness' as if its bad thing is appropriate. What do you think is most likely; that the media and academia are engaged in a liberal socialist 'cultural marxist' conspiracy, or that your view point is incorrect when no one other than Steve Bannon's cabal are supporting it?

Could you give an example of what you mean be partisan media. I've used American media sources such as the Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. I also use the Economist, the Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Policy. What do you think of these media sources?

You still haven't addressed why you are a climate change skeptic. I read your article there. "I'm skeptical of climate change, I'm not qualified to do research and have a qualified opinion, and people keep asking me to take a stance which I refuse". This simply isn't an approach that people in society can take. Effectively anything that you don't understand you're a skeptic off? What about quantum physics? I don't understand it, but I don't dismiss its validity. It's one thing to explore the philosophy of skepticism, but I don't understand putting it on a manoshphere blog where it can influence peoples views.

You still haven't addressed the white supremacist conspiracy theory that you've mentioned on this board. Do you believe that lower fertility rates are a liberal socialist conspiracy to commit genocide against whites? Or, do you mention only as a very minor but far right nativist response to changing demographics? If it is the later, what is your opinion on this?

Sure, but you've been pro-Trump before - on the forums. Donald Trump is regarded as a nativist, and generating hate (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/year-ha...). Sure, he isn't 'diabolically evil'. He isn't going to inflict genocide, but he is eroding the media by labelling them the 'enemy of the people' and 'fake news' (I won't accept 'everybody thinks they're partisan anyway'. That doesn't justify further eroding their legitimacy). Numerous Americans have accepted his absurd lies.

I acknowledge Donald Trumps persuasiveness. But, he has clearly been xenophobic. He characterised a number of Mexicans as 'rapists', and made up lies about 'no go' areas. This is called 'demagoguery'

When you said that "I assume most people know what is better for them, and actions a leader takes that are positive for one group may be negative for another." You've just made a judgement about Trump. You've been portraying Trump in a positive light, and your content is clearly similar to Steve Bannon's 'cultural marixism' 'the media is the oppositional party' world view. Peoples opinions of Abraham Lincoln and Osoma Binladen have little consequence. Views of Trump do.

Chase Amante's picture

Obviously I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Come on now. Do I seem like the kind of wingnut who thinks a group of people are sitting behind closed doors rubbing their hands and planning out the SJW takeover of college campuses and the suppression of white birthrates?

Noting an ideology has taken hold in a particular area is different from claiming a conspiracy of this. There is not a conspiracy to make tech workers Indian; Indians just gravitate to tech work. Likewise, there was not a conspiracy to fill academia with progressives; rather, progressives sought out positions in these fields, and gradually made the fields friendlier and friendlier to fellow believers, and increasingly hostile to non-believers. Ask any non-progressive trying to make it in a sociology department (well... if you can find one).

I did not call political correctness "bad". I called it constrictive. Which it is - it seeks to limit speech and, therefore, thought. Whether thought control of the masses by an ideological elite is good or bad I leave to the individual to decide.

Global warming I'm not touching with a 10-foot pole. Come talk to me about it in 10 years and we'll both laugh about that episode in cultural history. Right now it's too hot to touch and not relevant to this site's content.

White genocide I addressed in a comment beneath this one. Reproduction rates fall in every advanced, wealthy society, and this is no different in the West, and it is true across racial boundaries, as well (i.e., not just white people have sub-replacement level fertility in the West; all ethnicities from the third generation on have sub-replacement fertility levels if they live in the West). This is a very consistent trend; the government of Rome tried to correct it by adding large monetary incentives for Romans to reproduce; the attempt failed. No fighting the tides of history.

SPLC - not an organization I take seriously. I'm sure if my profile was large enough I'd be on their list too, for "misogyny", like RooshV. Or who knows what. I'm sure they could find enough non-PC stuff on this site to put me on there for whatever they want. I've never had sex with a man; probably a sign of homophobia, right? ;)

The argument that saying a leader's actions are "good for some and bad for others" is a positive judgment is a non-sequitor unless you're convinced that some leaders are universally bad and others are universally good. If so, well, that's one way of seeing the world, but not one I consider accurate. I can't think of a single leader in history whose actions weren't good for at least some of his constituents, even if not the majority. And in Trump's case, a large portion of the electorate is convinced he is good for their interests. If I said those people are absolutely right or wrong, that'd be a judgment. But I didn't. Closest I came to that was to say I assumed people knew what was right or wrong for them. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and most people are idiots.

Your comment seems to be aimed at getting me "on your side" in the Trump resistance. Yet the side that's against Trump is also vehemently against me (i.e., a white male business owner who likes women). Regardless my own feelings about Trump and his policies, the side of politics that opposes him isn't exactly working its butt off to make being a progressive an inviting place for straight white male business owners to come be a part of things and have their needs met.


Anonymous's picture

I don't know what issue you take with SPLC. An organisation that deals with hate groups like the KKK and neo-Nazi's? Actually looking at RooshV's comments it becomes clear that he is misogynistic. He wrote an article effectively arguing that rape on a mans personal property should be legalised. And, then later he claimed it was 'satirical'. I'm not exactly sure what he is being satirical of; this appears to be used to justify views when it becomes apparent that others find them unacceptable.

I wouldn't argue that people are 'idiots', but I would certainly argue that people are ill-informed and ignorant on many issues (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellect...). I don't see the validity of your argument that if people believe in a political viewpoint it must be justified, because they believe it. Clearly, its possible for a substantial proportion of the population to believe something and be wrong (see the above link on anti-intellectualism).

Yes, obviously I'm criticising you of your pro-Trump stance.

"Yet the side that's against Trump is also vehemently against me (i.e., a white male business owner who likes women)."

This is a misrepresentation of those that are critical of Trump. There have been numerous heterosexual white male businessmen that have criticised Trump, such as Warren Buffet and the tech industry (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/buffett-gates/517833/). I understand the objections to identity politics, but these criticisms don't apply to the well off. They are concerned with the position of poorly educated white males whose concerns are not addressed by identity politics (http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21649050-badly-educated-men-rich-co...). What is about your socio-economic ethnic group that you are concerned about, and that the mainstream media doesn't address. I understand how people disagree with inflammatory comments about straight white males (SWM). However, this does not delegitimize the concerns of social justice and endorse Donald Trump. SWM's are not at risk of hate crimes like minorities are.

Could you outline what view points you believe are being constricted by political correctness. Please be as specific as possible. I'm curious. Could you also please elaborate on the needs of businessmen.

The First Commenter's picture

First of all, Anonymous is someone else. I was born in the US, and I spent my entire life here. Interesting to see that you thought Anonymous was un-American simply because he/she questioned your beliefs. I understand that it is not in your best interest to say whether you support Trump's actions or not. However, the reason why I say that you must read more and learn more is because you seem to want to shift any idea of wrongdoing off of the white race. Even when you write about slavery you choose to quickly divert to forms of slavery in Ireland. Yes, slavery existed in other countries, but that doesn't justify the fact that we did for a very long time. Chase it is very clear now that you simply pick and choose your information. Believe in what you feel and not what is true. Ironic how you so heavily cite the study of scientists in some of your articles, but then respond to the question on climate change by saying you are not equipped enough as a "non-scientist". You may or may not be a racist or a misogynist, but you sure do pick your facts better than you pick up women. At least you seem to respect women, have some respect for the facts. Or you know... you can completely ignore what I say and use this platform, which I would imagine reaches a large young audience, and corrupt their minds with bullshit that climate change isn't real, the majority of liberals are intolerable and unreasonable, slavery was no one's fault because it helped business, and that history repeats itself and there is nothing we can do about it. So that when a leader comes along espousing nothing but hatred and prejudice for people who simply want the same opportunities that others have , you can simply say, " well we can't do anything about this, lets just sit on our asses and be amazed at the way history repeats itself." So tell me Chase how long till another holocaust. Because quite frankly, by the way the country looks, liberals are the only ones who are going to be stopping it from happening during the next four years. They are going to take action not just say "Oh well! History repeats itself!"

Chase Amante's picture

Don't be silly. You stated a 2-to-1 minority opinion (i.e., "the media is trustworthy") for an American, and behaved as if my lack of credulity for what the MSM spits out was some kind of bizarre view you'd not encountered before. (though to be fair, I was still pretty ahead of the curve where this stuff is concerned, probably because I've studied seduction/persuasion so long; I'm a little better at recognizing spin than most folks, I presume)

Saying "I don't know if you're American or not" (and I didn't; how would I know that? If you left clues in your comment, they were not obvious) is very different from calling you "un-American", which I did not and would not. That's a loaded term, and not one I use.

There is nothing in your comment to support your assertion that I and my race are oppressive and need to feel shame for this and make reparations to other races. No new information here I haven't seen elsewhere. You tell me I need to "get educated", then provide only the loosest topics I am supposed to "get educated" on. Then accuse me of being bereft of facts. I'm left feeling only confusion.

Also, did you just trivialize my ancestors' famine, suffering, and slavery? ;)

That, and an entire intolerant comment about how wrong and bad and corrupting I am, arguing that in fact the group you represent is super tolerant, is... well... I mean, it's not exactly refuting the point I made.

Beyond that, there's a bunch of stuff about a leader espousing hate (are you talking about Donald Trump?) and about there being another Holocaust coming, and... I mean...

Donald Trump racist

The MSM lies. Truly. I know you don't want to believe it. Those people at the news desks are bad, bad people. They told you killer bees were going to wipe us all out in 1997. They told you Y2K was going to cause a nuclear apocalypse in 1999. They told you George W. Bush was "Literally Hitler" in 2000. They told you SARS, H1N1, bird flu, and ebola were going to lead to mass pandemics. They told you the Syrian government was evil, even as the CIA armed ISIS to slaughter the Syrian civilians the Syrian government was protecting. They told you we need World War III with Russia because John Podesta opened a phising email from someone in the Ukraine. These people have agendas, and their agendas are not good. They are slave control. It's time to wake up.


Anonymous's picture

Hey, I believe some of the reasons that Donald Trump has been called a racist are because:

-He falsely characterized Mexican/hispanic immigration as being dominated by rapists, criminals and drug dealers.
-He advocated discrimination of Muslims when he called for a total ban on Muslim immigration (discrimination).
-His campaign is a nativist reaction to the white demographic becoming a minority.

First Commenter (James)'s picture

Without a doubt, any news article you read will have some kind of bias. Even if you try an find the most neutral of news organizations there will be some undertone of what they are trying to get across. This is why I read both conservative and liberal news sources, but more importantly absorb the most neutral ones I can find.

I never said you had to make reparations for slavery. Hell, if your ancestry is Irish than I'm sure you know it wasn't easy for your ancestors to assimilate to society. They probably also had their fair share of trials and tribulations, but I think it is important to understand that Democrats are NOT abandoning the interests of white men, but also that the party is at its core representative of people who don't necessarily fit in. Granted a lot of white males in this coiuntry need help finding jobs too, but feeling like the white race is under attack and there is no place white business owners in the Democratic party is untrue. Except for the more radical liberals, which seem to be the subgroup you express the most annoyance with (and trust me I'm not a big fan either), liberals are trying to seek what is best for everyone and not just playing identity politics, contrary to popular belief by those on the far right.

Trump is someone who I hope can deliver on his promises like providing universal healthcare at a more affordable rate, even if it means replacing Obamacare, creating jobs for many Americans who feel left behind, and to help American businesses succeed. Unfortunately republicans have no idea how to efficiently repeal and replace ACA, the loss of low-skill jobs to automation (not undocumented workers) is the real concern, and a populist, nationalist stance will only serve to cloister ourselves from our allies and entice our enemies to take more aggressive stances toward only what serves their best interests. The man needs to stop saying he will unite the country if his speeches always consist of fear mongering, shifting blame, and a blatant manipulation of "alternative facts" to easily target a group of people (Muslims, Mexicans).

As for climate change....
Are big oil companies paying you too?
Man first they corrupt scientists, not you too. Let's just tone down the Alex Jones a little bit, and channel some more of that critical thinking you seem to possess in some of your previous responses.

Mike's picture

I consider myself a free market, isolationist, left libertarian, but agree with Chase more as Ive talked with him more about this.  The MSM dramatizes things Trump does to character assassinate him. Really, the only thing democrats can get him for rn is just being rude, unpleasant, and lying. That he has done. But policy-wise, Trump has done what conservatives have been trying to do for awhile, and with some loose cannon quasi liberal policies, and protectionism.   Trump made the gesture of the homeless person to call someone retarded.  He has done that before with non-homeless people.   He has lied multiple times, and said that some of the Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists, and in general acts like a bit of a rude bully, and by many accounts is not a great guy, but he correctly read and marketed himself to the American voters. I would say his fans and die hard supporters generally arent the most logical decision makers, but I understand his voting base encompasses people with varied priorities. Completely agree with Chase on Hillary.  She has the emotional intelligence of a wet twig.

However Chase, theres multiple instances of evidence that all point to climate change being man made.  The severity of protective regulation however is something thats up for debate. 

Chase youre also conflating progressives with anti Trump electorate.  Thats not fair.  A few republicans are even repulsed by Trumps continual violation of more traditional values and conduct.   Progressives are definitely hurting the left big time, but I wouldnt go so far as to say they represent the majority of left leaning thought (hopefully not yet). Media is a company by company basis. Many lean left if not strongly in news then socially. But sometimes the most vocal are only the most zealous. 

Also Chase, you dont see many conservatives go into sociology additionally because they just dont understand its importance.  Conservatives are generally more essentialist, and can tend to assume a mental model of people being robotic rational actors, when in reality people often act irrationally and make decisions based on emotions.  Conservatives generally have larger amygdalas too and could fall prey to primal fear-mongering arguments more easily. 


Anonymous's picture

I'm curious as to what your position on some of the following positions.

First, what do you think of Donald Trumps ban on immigrants from the seven muslim majority nations? Everyone from those countries is banned for a duration of time. Also, its part of his rhetoric against muslims (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sz0KY-3PbQ).

Second, what do you think of Trumps numerous lies? In one instance he lied about muslims celebrating 9/11 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP1bSHjcSEQ). He also lied about there being 'no go' areas in Britain and France.

Third, what do you think about the concept 'white genocide'. I've seen you mention this in previous posts. Would you characterise the decline of the 'white' demographic in the US as a genocide?

Chase Amante's picture

The seven-country ban plays well to his base, and has overwhelming electoral support (57% for vs. 33% opposed), which suggest it's a good move politics-wise and is what the majority of the American people want. I'll refrain from speculating on where Trump might go from there (reduce the ban; remove the ban; expand the ban), since I don't know what his long-term objectives are and I don't know what his foreign policy experts will recommend. I don't have a personal opinion on it aside from to say if it's what the majority want in a democratic republic, it's probably what the government should do if that government doesn't want to be voted out in the next electoral cycle.

Trump's "thousands celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11" is probably a memory consolidation error, analogous to Clinton's "landing under sniper fire in Bosnia" remark. Both of these referenced emotional events that occurred over a decade prior (for Clinton, 12 years earlier at the time of the remark; for Trump, 15 years earlier at the time of the remark), and likely conflated scenes they'd witnessed on television (sniper fire in Bosnia; thousands of Pakistanis celebrating in the streets on 9/11) with their own personal experiences.

If you've ever kept a journal and looked back on it after 10+ years, you'll be amazed at how differently you remember things after 10 years than what you recorded actually happening at the time, 10 years earlier. Particularly with emotional events, memories get merged and consolidated; for example, something like 40% of people surveyed will tell you they remember watching the first plane crash into the first World Trade Center tower. But in fact, no video exists of the first plane crashing into the first World Trade Center tower. Memory consolidation error.

No-go areas in France are a reality. You can find a list of localities in France, as referenced by local politicians as places police will not go, right here. There do not seem to be out-and-out no-go zones in Britain at this point, so that aspect is not accurate. That's likely a conflation error; France, Belgium, and Sweden all have high Muslim populations, have had radical Islamic terrorism, and have clear no-go zones; Britain has a high Muslim population and has had radical Islamic terrorism, so Trump's mind likely rolled it in as one of the countries with no-go zones. It'd be better if he said "France, Sweden, and Belgium" instead of "France and Britain", but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?) humans aren't computers and we get stuff wrong.

I identified the 'white genocide' phenomenon as a moral panic, as discussed here:

A moral panic usually is an overreaction to a somewhat real phenomenon. e.g., Black Lives Matter is an overreaction to black police deaths. Obviously, there is not a black genocide going on, and no one thinks black lives do not matter, but a certain percentage of the American (and, later, Western European) black population has become swept up in a movement in which many of its members legitimately believe blacks are targeted for extermination by racist white and other non-black race police.

The white genocide moral panic is a phenomenon of this same ilk. White people feel squeezed on various fronts, and have begun to overreact to this by viewing it as a 'genocide'. This video summarizes the beliefs of its adherents well, and why they feel squeezed:

It's obviously as ridiculous to posit there's a genocide of whites as to posit there's a genocide of blacks. The non-Hispanic, non-Middle Eastern white population is the highest it's ever been at any point in history (400 million people), and no matter what numbers you look at as concerns other-race-on-white murders, there aren't nearly enough white people dying to constitute genocide.

Further, while white reproduction rates are somewhat below replacement rate, this is actually true for all peoples that have lived in Western countries more than a single generation. Western blacks, Western Asians, and even Western Hispanics who've been in the West more than one generation have analogous reproduction rates to Western whites.

If you ask me, this growing moral panic is part reactance to the media / academia movement to portray whites as oppressors, whom we should celebrate to see in decline (this serving as the trigger), and in part due to economics (this serving as the root cause, leading to inter-group race-based conflict).

On that first, whites are having minorities in white countries tell whites that whites are about to become minorities in their countries and are in decline. Hearing this from people who are not like you sparks a very real existential fear, same as you'd encounter if you moved a bunch of non-Africans into Africa and began to laugh about how Africans are about to become a minority in Africa, or a bunch of non-Jews into Israel and laughed about how Jews are about to become a minority in Israel. There is a powerful fear of non-existence that kicks in when "The Other" begins to celebrate your anticipated decline or demise.

On the second, the economy has been stagnant for a long time in the West. For Americans, real wages have declined since the 1980s for all but the top 1%, and 100% of new job growth in America since 2000 has gone to immigrants, not Americans. Considering the large numbers of new young Americans who join the labor pool each year, this contributes to the 102 million unemployed working age Americans in the United States (as of 2014; likely higher now). When you have that many people who are stuck on welfare or otherwise unemployed and hopeless, they begin to look for someone to blame. The easiest target is people who are not like you, and race is one of the first things people settle on.

tl;dr - economics is the primary driver for both the black lives matter and white genocide moral panics. Police shootings of blacks has served as the trigger for BLM, while minorities pushing for and celebrating the decline of whites in their homelands has served as the trigger for white genocide, but the ultimate root cause of each movement is economics. If there was enough to go around for everyone, blacks would not be as triggered by police shootings, and whites would not be as triggered by non-whites streaming into white countries.


Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com