Posts Tagged ‘men’s rights’

Interview With Matt Forney

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

When you live under a control-based regime, your brain longs for accurate depictions of reality, because almost everything you encounter is propaganda, whether advertisers trying to trick you into buying useless products, chatty acquaintances pimping their bands and lifestyles, or outright ideological mental viruses beamed into your head by media, government and academia.

Back in the day, many of us encountered a site called In Mala Fide whose author was notoriously pseudonymous, and since that time those who thirst for pragmatic realism have followed the work of Matt Forney, an incredibly talented writer with whom we are pleased to present an interview that must have taken no short amount of time to complete. Please join me in extending a big thank you to Matt Forney, and reading his very deliberate words with a sense of intellectual curiosity.

You have been active for nearly twenty years as a writer, moving from a Men’s Rights direction to a more Alt Right perspective and now, sort of choosing your own path. How did you get into writing, and how did these different outlooks lead to one another and to where you are now?

I got into writing back in 2009 due to persistence and luck. At the time, I was graduating college and moving into an unrewarding civil service job, as well I was coming off a couple of crises in my personal life. I’d spent the past three years obsessively reading books on politics, sociology, and philosophy, and I also followed proto-manosphere/proto-alt-right sites such as Steve Sailer’s blog, Taki’s Magazine, Roissy in DC, and others.

I started a blog called In Mala Fide mainly to vent and talk about the ideas I’d learned about and thought up. I’d attempted to start blogging before several times but gave up because I wasn’t able to earn an audience. With In Mala Fide, I struck paydirt: I didn’t just earn a large audience (peaking at 50,000 unique visitors a month), but an intelligent one, one that was able to help me grow and mature as a thinker and a man. Some of the people I encountered online during that period have become close real-life friends of mine. The site has also been acknowledged by many as a formative influence on the manosphere and alt-right.

I transitioned to writing under my real name in 2012 after reading Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men and realizing that I would eventually have to stop being a pseudonymous shadow if I wanted any credibility. I was also tired of the “Ferdinand Bardamu” pen name and wanted to take my writing in a different direction. Since then, I’ve gone through several different focuses, from travel writing to sex to anti-feminism to political journalism to morality and ethics.

With regards to the different outlooks I’ve had over the course of my writing career, I’ve always been good at studying and synthesizing different viewpoints — men’s rights, white nationalism, etc. — to see the merit in them. In the In Mala Fide days, I had an excessive amount of free time at my job and spent it reading blogs and websites (because reading a book at my desk would get me in trouble), and would link to interesting stuff on my blog on a weekly basis. At NPI’s fall conference two years ago, a reader of mine told me that my weekly roundups of manosphere and white nationalist/alt-right articles were a big influence in driving the growth of the alt-right, because they helped connect segments of the Internet that had overlapping ideas but little contact.

Can you tell us what your worldview is comprised of today? What are your philosophy, religion, political direction and general existential outlook?

I describe myself as a nationalist, full stop. Labeling in the social media era is more about group identity and posing than actual belief: for example, see how “alt-lite” personalities like Paul Joseph Watson used to describe themselves as “alt-right” when it was fashionable, then dropped the branding after the Heilgate incident. The same can be said for anime-watching teenagers who claim to be “alt-right” despite also being Satanist furries or whatever (and claiming I’m not “truly” alt-right even though I started writing before they entered puberty). I describe myself as a nationalist (or more generically as “right-wing”) because it encapsulates my beliefs — white identity, ethnic pride, putting family and nation first — without the baggage that other labels such as “alt-right” have accumulated.

Economically, I have libertarian leanings, but libertarianism as a complete ideology is unworkable because it cannot address the fact that our world is already post-capitalist, as James Burnham described in The Managerial Revolution. It’s because of managerialism that corporations are now enforcers of leftist orthodoxy and Silicon Valley has done an end-run around the First Amendment: big business and government are essentially fused at the hip. At the same time, I’m utterly opposed to socialism, because socialism breeds weak people who are more focused on anal sex and smoking pot than being productive, which is obvious to anyone who’s spent time in a left-wing area.

I used to consider myself an agnostic or apatheist, but I’ve gradually warmed to Christianity for many reasons, one of which is its importance as a unifying force in European and American life. I’ve realized over the past year that a large amount of whites’ problems are self-inflicted, due to our fixation on pleasure and comfort above all else. It’s evident in the mass acceptance of homosexuality, transsexuality, and the 31 flavors of gender in white countries, evident in our cowardly rationales for mass immigration (we “need” immigrants because whites can’t be bothered to have children to prop up failing social welfare programs with their taxes), it’s evident in the way we stick our heads in the sand when the third-world immigrants we import openly hate us and try to kill us.

While the churches of the West have become deeply corrupted (as evidenced by an Argentine communist becoming pope), it’s also true that the only white countries that are actively resisting globalism — such as Poland and Hungary — are overly Christian ones. Atheism is a social experiment that has failed miserably. Ultimately, I believe that a shift towards right-wing and nationalist politics is insufficient on its own to preserve white and European societies; some sort of spiritual revival needs to occur in order to stem social decay. The events of the past two years have (depressingly) borne my predictions out.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve also become more comfortable in admitting that I don’t know as much as I thought I did. Young people are always overconfident in their knowledge and abilities: I can’t look back on some of my In Mala Fide-era writing of mine without cringing a little. This overconfidence is driving a lot of dysfunction in the alt-media (my term for non-mainstream right-wing commentators, including the alt-right and alt-lite) landscape, as people make snap decisions based on incomplete information. For example, see Richard Spencer’s completely pointless and unnecessary anti-war protest in the wake of President Trump’s Syria strike in April. It’s because of this that I’ve pulled away from commenting on day-to-day politics.

Did you always want to be a writer, and how did you break into writing professionally? If you could do it again, would you do anything differently?

I’ve obsessively written privately since I was a kid — journal entries, short stories, the like — so expanding into blogging and online writing was a natural extension of what I was already doing. As Jim Goad put it, “If I don’t work, I’ll starve. If I don’t write, I’ll die.” I started out in college as a journalism major primarily because I wanted to write: a really dumb move, and I ended up transferring out of the program a year later after uncovering widespread plagiarism among my colleagues.

While I switched to majoring in English after that, most of my important writing experience and work came from studying and reading on my own and networking with like-minded people. I spent most of my teenage years reading books by the likes of Philip K. Dick, Hunter S. Thompson and Charles Bukowski; it didn’t help my sad social life, but it paid off as an adult because I knew what separated good writing from bad. I also owe a great debt to Mark Ames and John Dolan; as dumb and pathetic as they’ve become, they were my gateway to understanding the mechanics of good writing and honest journalism.

If I were to do anything differently, I’d have studied how to monetize my writing much earlier. I started In Mala Fide basically as a hobby, and had I figured out how to make money doing it sooner, I’d have been able to get my career going earlier. Alternately, I would have skipped going to college entirely, or majored in something useful like engineering.

You had quite a following as “Ferdinand Bardamu,” but changed direction to write under your real name. What encouraged you to go in that direction? Did it coincide with your desire to write about more than manosphere themes?

As I mentioned above, three years into In Mala Fide’s existence, it felt like I had outgrown the “Ferdinand Bardamu” pseudonym. I started the blog during a time of upheaval in my personal life and it felt like I was being forced to write in a voice that was no longer authentically mine. To paraphrase my friend Trevor Blake, when you need to cross a river, you build a bridge, but you don’t take the bridge with you when you get to the other side. I didn’t feel the need to keep using a name that was tied to a period in my life that was ancient history by that point.

Moreover, while I recognize the value of pen names (and encourage anyone who wants to write in this day and age to use one), the danger with them is that you can develop an unhealthy divide between your private and public lives. Internet anonymity has the side effect of encouraging defective personalities to develop elaborate fantasy lives in pursuit of narcissistic supply. See: all the manosphere dweebs who brag about “spinning plates” and having multiple LTRs, yet still have time to post on r/TheRedPill twenty times a day. When people like this get doxed, it usually ruins their lives, because the gulf between what they claim to be online and who they are in real life destroys their credibility.

Writing under my real name with my real face keeps me accountable. My friends and family know I’m a writer, and I can’t lie or pump myself up online without them calling me on it. While there are haters and critics who will try to attack me for my beliefs, I don’t care because almost none of them are actually reading what I write, but skimming it and filtering it through their own skewed perspectives. For example, I love it when people claim I’m not really an “alpha male” or a “PUA,” because I’ve never once claimed to be either of those things. I’m just a writer who observes the world and tells people what I think.

Do you think there is a particular style in which people have to write for the web, and does it dumb down content ever? It seems to me that you are frequently rebelling against this style… do you have any tips for people who want to push the envelope?

I’m not good at fitting into cliques, and past a certain point, to become more popular you need to join an online clique. That means adopting their look, their lingo, and their beliefs, even the dumb ones. This is plainly evident with what the alt-right has become, with Macklemore whoosh haircuts, gay electronic dance music, and speaking in terms like “normie” and “fashy” now required if you want to be one of the cool kids. Same thing happened with the manosphere years ago: it went from normal guys talking about how to get girls and trying to understand modern sexual dysfunction to nerds spazzing out over “N-counts” and the “feminine imperative,” making it impenetrable for mentally adjusted people.

I think a large part of this is due to the fact that when movements or subcultures become popular, they inevitably attract defective people who want to use the movement/subculture as a substitute for a normal life. While there’s nothing wrong with turning online relationships into real-life friendships — many of my closest real-life friends are people I’ve met online now — there’s something wrong with entirely substituting organic meatspace relationships. I blame social atomization.

The shift to social media as the primary form of online communication has also seriously dumbed down online discourse. When I was starting out eight years ago, Twitter was still relatively obscure and Facebook was basically for keeping in contact with friends. Smartphones were still relatively new. The primary means of spreading ideas back then was blogs and websites. Fast-forward to today and social media companies have a stranglehold on communication. This not only conditions people against deep thought — how much nuance can you put into a 140-character Tweet? — but also rewards mindless attention whoring, due to the Skinner box-like environment that social media provides.

This is evident in how the alt-right and the alt-media in general has melted down over the past year. The constant drive for social media re-Tweets, likes and one-ups drives people to do and say provocative things solely for attention. I’ve also noticed a disturbing trend among young alt-righters and alt-leftists: they’re utterly incapable of communicating in anything other than memes and one-liners. I think this is the result of exposure to social media and smartphones at a young age combined with a lack of meaningful real-world relationships. They’ve sustained brain damage from constantly repeating memes and quips from whatever clique they claim allegiance to. It’s so bad that teenagers aren’t even dating and having sex anymore, because they’d rather fish for attention on Instagram or whatever. The adults in the alt-right and these other movements aren’t providing them with any masculine guidance or leadership, either.

I’ve always strived to grow my audience — egomania is part of being a writer — but I’m not going to blatantly spread falsehoods just so I can fit in with an online community of people I’ll never meet and probably wouldn’t want to. While I’ve engaged in attention-getting stunts in the past, I’ve gradually realized that doing so is self-defeating, because I just end up attracting morons who I can’t stand and who don’t appreciate the nuances in my writing. As a friend put it, when you get together with dysfunctional people who have dysfunctional ideas, you end up with dysfunctional results.

As for people who want to push the envelope, I recommend you don’t get too invested in any online community or political movement. As Common Filth puts it, do not put your faith in man. Get off the computer and interact with people in real life. Hang out with your friends. Get laid. Take up a hobby, like playing the guitar or chess. Gain some perspective. Life isn’t as bad as mental defectives on Twitter claim it is. Stay out of online echo chambers and your view on life — and your mental state — will be much healthier.

How relevant do you think men’s rights is these days, or has it been eclipsed by the overall struggle against false equality?

Men’s Rights is dead and decomposing. I was a men’s rights sympathizer years ago due to the fact that they were one of the few groups that was bringing attention to divorce law, false rape accusations and other major injustices against men and families. However, feminists massively overplayed their hand during Obama’s second term, and the UVA rape hoax, Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz and other massive blunders have woken up much of the population to their perfidy. We now have a Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who is basically implementing the men’s rights program by rolling back overzealous feminist rape policies and more.

Moreover, the men’s rights movement (as well as Men Going Their Own Way) was subverted by the left years ago. Stealth leftists such as Dean Esmay and Bar Bar infiltrated men’s rights organizations such as A Voice for Men and began pushing the lie that men’s rights’ was “beyond” politics and that there was “no difference” between the left and the right, despite feminism being part of the left’s political program. This lead to absurdities such as Esmay accusing the victims of Muslim-led rape attacks in Germany last year of being “liars” and Paul Elam declaring that he would vote for Hillary Clinton unless Trump pledged to legalize marijuana. Men’s rights was effectively blunted as a political force because of this.

Finally, feminism itself is receding in importance in white countries due to the rise of demographic-driven racial identity politics. Feminism is largely a preoccupation of upper middle-class white women: concerns over “manspreading,” “mansplaining,” and nonexistent rape epidemics on college campuses don’t register with black or brown women. As white countries become less white, feminists will gradually lose political power.

We’re already seeing this in Europe due to the migrant crisis: feminists have been ignoring the rapes that Muslim men commit against European women and attacking right-wingers who bring attention to the problem. In the Netherlands and Sweden, Muslim populations have formed their own ethnic interest political parties, like Michel Houellebecq predicted in Submission. Hillary Clinton was the last gasp of white feminism in American politics: future leftist leaders will be non-white and will exclusively engage in racial identity politics.

You have been critical of the Alt Right of late, and so it makes sense to ask: where did they lose the narrative, and what should they be doing instead?

The alt-right focuses on material problems and ignores the fundamental spiritual maladies that have led to whites’ current predicament. As I mentioned above, whites are fixated on pleasure and comfort above all else: to quote Common Filth again, they want to be “veal wrapped in cotton.” Virtually every problem that the alt-right lays at the feet of other groups stems from whites’ own spiritual emptiness, and even if the white ethnostate were to be established tomorrow, it’d tear itself apart in less than fifty years as the same problems reemerged.

For example, the alt-right is correct to criticize Jews for their disproportionate involvement in movements that erode public morality and social cohesiveness. Thing is, the Jews didn’t invade our countries and impose themselves on us at gunpoint: we invited them in. The first country to emancipate the Jews was France in 1791, in the throes of the French Revolution, the birth of leftism. Nobody forced the French to liberate the Jews: they did it on their own. In 1791, the French also legalized homosexuality, again without any prompting from the Jews. Filmic pornography was also invented by whites. Jews are merely exploiting character traits that whites have embraced on their own. The merchant cannot sell what the goyim will not buy.

Similarly, the whitest cities and countries in the U.S. and western Europe are degenerate fleshpits right now. Seattle, one of the whitest major cities in the U.S., elected a homosexual mayor who was forced to resign after he was caught molesting children. Portland, Oregon, is full of bluehairs, feminists, homeless junkies, and the biggest wastes of white skin on the planet. Iceland, which has no Jewish or non-white population to speak of, is the chlamydia capital of the world, is aborting babies in record numbers, has a culture revolving around having casual sex while blackout drunk, and elected a radical lesbian as prime minister.

The alt-right has done nothing to address these spiritual problems and is arguably making them worse. When Richard Spencer is enthusiastically endorsing universal healthcare, a furry is moderating’s Discord server, and so-called intellectuals are claiming that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish,” there’s a major problem going on. As I mentioned above, social media and smartphone addiction has also rendered many young people — including alt-righters — incapable of genuine thought. This is evidenced whenever any right-winger criticizes the alt-right, even if the criticism has nothing to do with politics: “Don’t punch right!” “Don’t counter-signal!” “Don’t purity spiral!” It’s no different than when SJWs whine about being “tone policed” whenever people accuse them of being histrionic.

If the alt-right wants to recover, they should stop acting like the white version of “WE WUZ KANGZ” and start addressing the spiritual maladies of white people. Cast out the homosexuals and other reprobates from their ranks and start encouraging spiritual and philosophical growth. Instead of staging big, ineffectual public events like Charlottesville, focus on building connections and affecting change in their local communities, which are supposed to be the most important part of any person’s life. Yes, the alt-right should bring attention to the problems caused by racial diversity, but they should do so with an eye to exorcise the demons in whites’ souls that led to these problems to begin with.

The alt-right also needs to accept the fact that Christianity will be an unavoidable part of social revival. I have sympathy for neopagans and I’m interested in Greek and Roman mythology, but the only faith traditions that work are ones that are already rooted in peoples’ traditions and communities. Most whites have some connection to Christianity through their families and communities, but vanishingly few have a real, organic connection to Odinism or pagan traditions. Christianity provides meaning to peoples’ lives, a moral framework that is time-tested, and a system of social organization that binds people without reliance on government. Moreover, religious Christians are by far the most receptive audience to identitarian and nationalist ideas (as shown by Trump’s popularity among evangelicals and Catholics and nationalist governments in eastern Europe), making the alt-right’s anti-Christian attitude self-defeating from a practical perspective.

America is changing, and so is Europe. Where do you think things are going? What should people do to encourage this change, and to shape it toward positive ends?

I believe we’re on the verge of a great shift in political perception: what Jim Donald calls a “left singularity,” a period when the leftward drift of politics ends. I don’t know what ultimate form that shift will take. However, it’s clear that the status quo of corporate liberalism cannot last much longer. The problems of diversity, sexual deviancy, social atomization and economic decay have made life for many whites intolerable, which is what fueled both Donald Trump’s election victory and the Brexit campaign. Similarly, non-whites in many Western countries have become belligerent and openly antagonistic towards whites.

We’re likely going to see major upheaval in countries such as Canada and France which are desperately trying to maintain the corporate liberal status quo. For example, Emmanuel Macron, who was feted as the “centrist” antidote to the evil racist Marine Le Pen, has seen his approval ratings collapse after implementing the austerity programs he’d been pledging to implement during the campaign. Islamist terror attacks will be met with vigilante responses and political violence between leftists and right-wingers will become commonplace. The latter is already happening in the U.S. Some countries will be able to stem the worst of it by electing nationalist governments, while others are doomed.

My advice to people who want to aid nationalism and fight leftism is to keep their heads down and work on improving their personal lives. As Jordan Peterson puts it, clean your room. Cultivate your friendships, find a wife or husband, consider having a family. Work on making your local community stronger. If you’re not in a white, right-leaning, Christian community, find one that you can integrate into. Disengage from social media and the 24/7 news cycle; it’s out of your control anyway, so focus on what you can control. If you must get politically involved, keep it on the local level (think city council or school board), where you can do the most good.

How do you think the Right — those on the Alt Right and other non-mainstream forms — can protect itself from the Great Erasure led by Google and other large companies?

I recommend that right-wingers stay away from pointless social media and real-life publicity stunts, such as Charlottesville or the umpteen million dramas that are playing out across the alt-media right now. All attention will accomplish now is earning you the ire of the left’s electric eye without any guarantee you’ll have a positive impact. Focus on cultivating clear thought, purity of soul and real-life networks: past a certain point, seeking fame is detrimental to the quality of your work.

In many ways, we should think of ourselves as living in the Soviet Union or any repressive police state, and adjust our behavior accordingly. Until such time as we can break the stranglehold the corporate left has on online discourse, we should avoid taking dumb risks that result in being deplatformed and unpersoned for little or no gain. The general population is moving in a rightward direction anyway, thanks to the left’s open contempt for whites and white men, so the gains of the past three years aren’t going to be erased simply because we aren’t trolling lefties on Twitter as vigorously as we used to.

You have a large body of work, and it is a bit hard to keep track of. What should people read that you have written, and how should they follow what you are up to now?

Everything I’ve ever written online is archived at, including articles I’ve written for other sites: you can find a chronological archive here. I haven’t been as active lately because I have another job that’s been taking up much of my time, but you can find everything I do there. I also host an infrequent podcast, which can be found on YouTube, SoundCloud, and my website. I’m also on Gab, though I try to avoid social media as much as possible these days. I write for Return of Kings occasionally, and I also recently joined Alternative Right as a co-editor. Along with co-editors Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki, I’m hoping to bring the alt-right back to its original values.

I’ve written several books, but the most relevant for Amerika readers is Three Years of Hate, a compilation of the best writing from my In Mala Fide days. You can buy it direct from or from Amazon and other booksellers. I’m currently nearing completion of a book on the 2016 presidential election based on my first-hand coverage, as well as a compilation of my best articles from the past five years and a series of memoirs about my adventures when I was younger. Follow to find out more about those books when they’re ready for release.

Why men love sluts (or think they do)

Thursday, September 24th, 2015


The selective woman presents a challenge to the male ego: she will demand that he win her, then lead in sexual activity, and may not be so welcoming that the sex act is easy. He will have to keep his erection through his own stimulus alone and pay more attention to her.

A slut — a promiscuous woman — on the other hand offers little resistance. She takes little to win, whether a night of feminist theory lectures or a few drinks at a bar, and then is an equal participant in the sexual act. As he is lunging for her, she is lunging at him, like an opposite version of male. If his erection fades, she will be an active participant in stroking it to life.

Conventional analysis (which is usually political or at least panders to popular imagination, and is therefore wrong) holds that sluts present more of a challenge to the man because of their greater experience. The opposite is true: their greater experience means they are less likely to notice differences in a series of experiences that blur together in memory. Having committed themselves to the act, they see only their own gratification, and so will help him along instead of wondering at the mediocrity. Their need, like that of an addict, is great and therefore they work around little lapses because their own satiation depends on it, where a more selective woman is considering the broader context of the event and will find failure to signal a larger disconnect.

The economic analysis of sluts flatters no promiscuous woman. The law of supply and demand states that products and services of greater abundance are worth less than those which are rare, and conversely, that those things facing less demand are valued less. The slut values herself little, but she values her pleasure more, so she is willing to move lower on the demand curve both in terms of attraction to her and her own standards. A slut has in effect said, “I have an over-abundance of this commodity, and will give it away for less,” signaling her own need as greater than her self-esteem.

Men love sluts — or think they do — because the challenges of a low cost venture are lesser than those of a higher cost undertaking which carries with it the need to have greater quality of the act. Slut sex is easy, not just to acquire, but to have. It is expected to be low-investment and low-satisfaction, which is why it is valued lower and more of it is demanded. This is easier on the man, so if he is low self-esteem, it presents itself as a less dangerous undertaking than challenging his rare commodity, which is self-image.

Most pick-up artist lore consists of making sluts feel comfortable making slutty decisions by bestowing on them small tokens of self-esteem. If they are challenged, that is a signal of investment in their value, as if they were actually difficult conquests. The man still controls the token of their self-esteem, which induces a cult-like slave mentality. If they are flattered — which works less — this serves also like a cult thought process to convince them temporarily that sluttiness, while less valuable, is an “empowering” choice because they are in control. This control is also in the control of the man, who must continue the stream of complimentary behavior or risk losing his attachment.

None of these things were unknown to our ancestors. They saw that injured or weak animals were less selective in mates, and instinctively made the metaphorical comparison to human beings. Only arrogance and presumption could make humans assume that we are above the rules of nature, economics and the mathematics underlying it. It has taken a century of flattery and false self-esteem to wear this down, but only in the easily swayed. The people who achieve not just “success” but whole, full lives tend to still play by these rules, because in order to succeed at life common sense — and not excuses, compensation and flattery — is required.

Bernie Sanders’ comments on women are not as bad as reported

Friday, May 29th, 2015


As reported by MRC, Socialist candidate for president Bernard “Bernie” Sanders once wrote an article about men and women, and it included three quoted lines that seem questionable out of context.

In the interest of fairness, let us look at the full essay:

Man — and woman, by Bernard Sanders

A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their “revolutionary” political meeting.

Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Nero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspapers with the articles like “Girl 12 raped by 14 men” sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?

Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do. Slavishness on one hand breeds pigness on the other hand. Pigness on one hand breeds slavishness on the other. Men and women — both are losers. Women adapt themselves to fill the needs of men, and men adapt themselves to fill the needs of women. In the beginning there were strong men who killed the animals and brought home the food — and the dependent women who cooked it. No more! Only the roles remain — waiting to be shaken off. There are no “human” oppressors. Oppressors have lost their humanity. On one hand “slavishness,” on the other hand “pigness.” Six of one, half dozen of the other. Who wins?

Many women seem to be walking a tightrope now. Their qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism. How do you love — without being dependent? How do you be gentle — without being subservient? How do you maintain a relationship without giving up your identity and without getting strung out? How do you reach out and give your heart to your lover, but maintain the soul which is you?

And Men. Men are in pain too. They are thinking, wondering. What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?

The man is bitter.

“You lied to me,” he said. (She did).

“You said that you loved me, that you wanted me, that you needed me. Those are your words.” (They are).

“But in reality,” he said, “if you ever loved me, or wanted me, or needed me (all of which I’m not certain was ever true), you also hated me. You hated me — just as you have hated every man in your entire life, but you didn’t have the guts to tell me that. You hated me before you ever saw me, even though I was not your father, or your teacher, or your sex friend when you were 13 years old, or your husband. You hated me not because of who I am, or what I was to you, but because I am a man. You did not deal with me as a person — as me. You lived a lie with me, used me and played games with me — and that’s a piggy thing to do.”

And she said, “You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover; and right now where my head is I balk at even the slightest suspicion of that kind of demand.

And he said, “You’re full of ___________.”

And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never ever saw each other one more time.

While some in the media would have us jump all over Sanders for the first two paragraphs, it is clear that he is speaking of a specific man and woman, not all men and not all women, with the figurative characters he conjures. You can see the proof of this later on as he reveals a dialogue between the two. The “a man” and “a woman” from the first two paragraphs become the man and woman, which is a sign that he is referring to a specific pair in those comments.

The contrast he illustrates, between submissive Stepford wives and piggish Lena Dunhams, shows the split that sexual liberation has wrought in men and women. Without trust — a function of chastity — between the two, they are both trying to game each other, each trying to make the other submissive and resisting the demands from the other with piggishness.

From the final two paragraphs, it seems Sanders was heading for Kurt Vonnegut or Franz Kafka territory here. Assessing the quality of his attempt is left as an exercise for the reader, but it is clear that he is not writing a polemic about all men through the example of the man in the first paragraph.

I realize that it is tempting to stoop to the level of mainstream leftist media and become slander machines on the right. However, that leads to nothing but a cheapening of discourse. Wise advice:

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you. — Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Aphorism 146, Beyond Good and Evil

Even though what MRC says — “Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate” — is true, the point is not to stoop to that level. Instead, do away with any media that lowers itself to that standard.

In the meantime, an interesting read from Socialist Bernie Sanders. I don’t know about you, but I learn from history, and pushing around stale ideas like Socialism makes me distrust anyone.

Legalize rape

Thursday, December 4th, 2014


When rape first became a crime, we lived in a different world. Among the middle and upper echelons of society, women expected to be virgins at marriage and to be respectable in public thereafter.

These expectations arose from common knowledge which has been forgotten. Without the bonding that sexual inexperience provided, couples lacked the trust that came with shared exclusive experience. Their marriages also became unions of convenience, not based on the sacred but in business-like negotiations for mutual satisfaction on a day-to-day basis.

Not surprisingly when we abandoned this outlook our fortunes fell as far as marriage is concerned. First infidelity swept through marriages, then divorce became common, and now people simply avoid marriage in the first place to avoid being penalized to subsidize someone else after the inevitable divorce. Marriage is like extended dating at this point.

In saner times, rape ruined a woman. If it occurred before marriage, it made her unlikely to become married; if it happened afterwards, people saw her as being ejected from the throes of marital contentment. (This was for decent people in the upper echelons: peasants, criminals and gypsies rutted like pigs and still do, which creates their ever-expanding numbers and ever-decreasing fortune.)

In our new age however rape no longer carries this weight. No woman is ruined by having sex with one more man, since they commonly have sex with six of them on average that they will admit, but we know that people lie on surveys and the actual number may be ten times higher, some without even knowing his name or spending more than a dozen minutes in his company. At this point, it is farce and injustice to keep rape classified as a crime of violence.

Rather, we should view rape as a form of theft. We know that the woman intended to have sex with someone because she does it on a regular basis; what happened instead was that she had sex with the wrong man. It occurred not by force, since we no longer require that to prosecute a man for rape, but by mistake. She said no and he heard yes, or she said yes and meant no, or (as is most common) both had to get so drunk to engage in the animalistic act that neither knew what the other said and in the haze of regret the next day, she decided it was rape.

But no matter: In all of these cases, the only crime was theft of sexual services. She could have sold that sexual encounter for anywhere from a few dollars to a few thousand. Perhaps it was wrong that he took her as he did, but we have worse physical affronts in car crashes and when people crash their shopping carts into us at Wal-mart. As with an auto accident, we could write him a ticket and slap a heft fine on him, then move on.

It is not as if anything permanent were taken from that woman. She is already accustomed to having sex with strangers. She does not expect to be virginal for marriage, but fears being virginal past age thirteen, as socially that means failure. The only real crime here is that the wrong man ended up having sex with her, or that he did not pay. Our legal system offers many ways to rectify this. If he is ticketed, she can sue in small claims court much as she would if he took her paid parking space for a month.

But what we must not do is use the old punishment and the new crime in the same action. Rape is no longer a violent crime, but a case of mistaken consent, like parking in spot 81 when you rented spot 82. We should not punish it like grand larceny, assault and murder. As the feminists tell us, most rapes are acquaintance rape. And for that, a quick ticket and a sharp fine should do the trick, and we can stop ruining the lives of men for regrets in a sexual marketplace of the lowest common denominator.

Conservatism is realism

Friday, May 16th, 2014


It’s good to see people debating ideas with fire again. I see this on the breaking edge of the conservative front. But it also seems that confusion intrudes mainly because very few have anchored themselves to a taxonomy of ideas.

For any field, there are only a few general approaches. Over time, hybrids emerge, but as time further goes on, those tend toward one of their influences. This is because the different ways to tackle a problem are relatively visible from the beginning.

In terms of politics, there are only a few views, but those are compounded by the question of method. The most common mistake is to read that backward, and read from method into ideal. In fact, the left would like you to do that, as it lets them tar the right as killers, forgetting that the greatest killers were leftists and with the French Revolution, every leftist takeover has begun with execution of ideological enemies.

But this leads us back to the question of what conservatism is. To conserve is a method; thus there’s something that came before the impulse to conserve. Many like myself see conservatives as simply realists. They look at what works because it is logical according to the rules that control the composition of the cosmos. But there’s another dimension, which is a form of idealism based on improvement and perfectability instead of radical differences in method. A conservative finds society as it is, and instead of looking for a different path, just begins clearing and grading the old until it is improved to the point of optimum. Hence a conservative tendency to look for “the good, the beautiful and the true” by applying methods related to improvement, such as conservation and optimization.

A recent article attacked one of my posts explaining how NRx/etc. is basically paleoconservatism. Over at Poseidon Awoke, a defense of neoreaction:

What is conservatism? I think Rothbard nails it in For a New Liberty, speaking of Herbert Spencer’s pragmatic abandonment of the liberalism of early America: “Hence, Spencer abandoned liberalism in practice to a weary, conservative, rearguard action against the growing collectivism and statism of his day.” Conservatism is simply pragmatic liberalism. Conservatives say “I can live with today’s liberalism, but here I draw the line and will budge no further” every day, forever. Conservatism is not a reaction against the left, it is simply its sad shadow, whispering “not so fast!”.

So, is it really the goal of neoreactionaries to jazz up conservatism? No. Neoreaction is not paleoconservatism, it is a genuine rebirth of rightist thought, in direct opposition the the world that the left has created. Conservatism enunciates a set of values that it feels at a gut level, but which it cannot intellectually defend because it can only think in leftist ideological terms.

The DE is intellectual and it is cultured. It understands that human flourishing is the highest goal, and that civilization is the vehicle of that goal, and that civilization can only be preserved by renouncing liberté, égalité, fraternité. No one is equal: deal with it. The DE is filled with children born in a leftist world, who now have incontrovertible genomic proof of inequality of both individuals and populations. They have facility with genomics, evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. Biology and nature are authoritarian — obey or die — and acceptance of that authority is rightest. The left is the domain of liars who believe nature can be conquered with education and social programs, we see their lies and we seek the truth.

I would not rely on Rothbard, as he had an agenda against conservatism to advance. Equally, I would be careful about trying to boil conservatism down to a single method, when we should be looking at its motivations and values instead. Those two mistakes in Rothbard’s analysis have led to his outlook missing out on the radical nature of conservatism.

Conservatism is the idea that all of our problems are known, and the solution to each is the same: people need more self-control and morality, and we need to pick those with the best self-control and advance them above others (similar to martial and athletic competitions) so that those more sensitive instruments can make decisions. This idea arises naturally from the notion of improvement. We don’t need new methods; we know what methods have worked for time immemorial. When we promote good people, and demote bad people, society thrives. To do that, we need a strong moral standard; for that, we need a strong national culture and strong religion. For that, we need a goal and direction. For that, we need a founding transcendent idealism, like the notion of improvement and thus conservation.

NRx/DE/NR are trying to make more appealing this vision by giving it a dangerous, quasi-Nietzschean edge. They overlap with The Red Pill, which is essentially the thinking man’s paranoia about realpolitik and Machiavellianism especially as applied on a interpersonal levels. They also overlap with Men’s Rights and Pick-Up Artist “game,” which is a way of understanding how people manipulate each other and how not to be manipulated. These are big sellers because they appeal to sex and fear, and it’s always good to have them on board, although someone with a literature degree might point out that these have been elements of conservative literature since the dawn of time.

What does make sense is to look at these new conservative movements in the marketplace of ideas. They are all essentially methods of explaining the oldest conservative goals to the newer intelligentsia, who arose after WWII when going to college and being “intellectual” became status objects rather than something one did incidentally, like playing polo, as part of a certain class identity in the Anglo-Saxon hierarchy.

Paleoconservatism is not well understood. If we study it like liberals, through methods and institutions, we see free markets, classical liberalism and a strong cultural identity. If we study it like conservatives, we see an entirely different kind of society, one which does not seek to make everyone safe or to make mass culture accessible. It is an elitist, nationalist, role-heavy, warlike and unironic society in which twee and pandering behavior is seen as unmanly.

When we speak of paleoconservatism, we are including the orbit that comprises the traditionalists, who are those who look toward the following for their guiding light:

“My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”
Julius Evola

Evola built in the house that Nietzsche built by rejecting all of the ideas of not just the French Revolution, but the Enlightenment before it and indeed, all those who would “improve” society by changing its methods.

He in turn built on the notions of Plato, who illustrated through his cycle of civilizations how our desire to “fix” problems led us to increasingly unstable forms of government, and who pointed out that most people by projecting their own intellectual containers onto reality have created an illusory world and how socializing just gives it more power.

The entire heritage of Western philosophy and literature springs from that root, and reveals to us not a new for new and radical movements, but a need to stop doing stupid stuff that became trendy. This is a radical notion: that humanity creates its own problems. That the poor (generally) deserve to be poor, and that “we are all one” ideas like equality, diversity and internationalism are simply sales tactics of sleazy snake oil merchants. That our ultimate guide is to return to our own inner knowledge, and knowledge of nature, and throw out all the “improvements” made by well-intentioned people who somehow invented a role for themselves and thus a subsidy for themselves in the process.

Yes, friends, conservatism is radical. It is the idea that civilization is best achieved by not using civilization as a goal. It is the notion that good intentions are in fact the path to hell. It is a rebellion against all those who seek control through appealing to our baser instincts. This is why NRx and other movements are convergent on conservatism: it is philosophically consistent, where everything else is created in the liberal model and thus is just a collection of methods.


Friday, July 19th, 2013

your_little_princessI ask all young men to indulge in a thought experiment.

Assume for the sake of argument that your life goes really well. You find a career you totally enjoy, meet a woman who floors you and isn’t a passive aggressive parasite like most people, get a killer house in a perfect subdivision, and find a way to practice your hobby in such a way that makes you world-renowned. You’re set, and living the good life.

I know you have doubts about this happening, but everyone does, especially those that it happens to. So you know it’s possible and despite your negativity, which is really your way of defending your lifestyle against the possibility of something that resembles (yuk, spit) “growing up,” you have to admit this could happen.

Say it’s ten or fifteen years in the future.

Somewhere in there, you and the little lady got busy, and had two perfect children. A girl and a boy, both beautiful and intelligent. You love your kids more than anything, and you never thought you’d say this, but you’d rather see your X-Box, record collection, and stash of rare baseball cards go up in smoke than see something bad happen to either one. Even a little something.

Let’s say your daughter is eleven. She is 1.5 years away from menstruation, if she’s an average girl. She is 5.3 years away from her first sexual experience, on average. But that’s not to say it won’t happen sooner. You’ve got a full life, and sometimes the months and years zoom by. Are you ready to even think about this?

The real question upon you is not whether you can ignore it or not. It’s what steps you’re going to take to make it work out for the best. And that requires another question, and this one is a real doozy:

What type of sexual experience do you want your daughter to have?

And as a corollary, what kind of life experience do you want her to have? And what about your son?

People — especially drunk people at college parties — like to pitch to you the idea that all lifestyles are different and there’s no real order to them. It’s just whatever you want. In the adult world, however, the rankings are clearer. Everybody wants to be somebody. Who is that? The divorced career woman? The sexy swinging single? Or what everyone seems to work for, which is the nuclear family with stability and love?

Everything fits into a new context when it’s your kid. When do you want her to have her first anal gangbang? Your princess, penetrated by many penises. What about her first bukkake? Her first one-night sexual encounter with some guy whose name she forgets by morning? Her first anonymous blowjob at a blindfold party? What about her first three-way, and double penetration?

Your little princess. What kind of future do you want for her?

You can hide beyond, “Whatever she chooses, they’re all equal,” for only so long. At some point you realize there’s a number line between the drunk cocktail waitress aging without grace and taking home whatever man she can grab, and the nuclear family with a loving husband and stability and kindness.

But of course, you don’t get that outcome by sleeping around. In fact, you’re mostly likely to get it by being the 31% of American women who have only one sex partner in their lives. When you haven’t experienced others, you hold nothing over your husband or wife. You give it all to them. There is trust and love uninterrupted by fear and cynicism.

The scary thing is that we all know this underneath our cynical outer selves. Inwardly, we long for the fairy tale. The two people without cynicism who meet each other, fall in love, and have a life-long love affair based on selflessness. The happy family, united in belief in each other and uncritical adoration. The people who escape the negative experiences that some thing make them seem worldly and edgy.

You know what you want for your little princess. You’re afraid to say it because it will break a social taboo. But no, all choices are not equal. And you know what you wouldn’t want her to experience, which in turn implies what you hope will happen to her.

Now look at the women around you. Each one of them is someone’s princess. Unless you’re a sociopath, you don’t want bad things to happen to them either. Does this change how you view women, and perhaps, yourself?

Destroying gently

Saturday, April 13th, 2013

gentle_destroyersMost people fear destruction because it involves that roll of the dice called combat. When you step into that ring, you can lose. The other guy can be better or stronger. Or fate can deal a blow.

Somewhere between stupid and intelligent is a zone reserved for people who are clever. They are not intelligent enough to be creative and constructive, but they are smart enough to be manipulative. They specialized in using the goodwill of others to deceive them.

Their greatest deception is pacifism. There are no real pacifists. If someone truly wanted to avoid conflict, they would simply detach. If they want to achieve their ends without the possibility of losing, they become pacifists. That means they work through passive means.

Such people specialize in gentle destruction. Their goal is destruction; they choose soft, gentle, passive, non-threatening means to do it. This means they attack from the details, and don’t go for the main point. Again, they are smart enough to be manipulative but not creative.

Of all their weapons, the most powerful is separation. They separate the multiple results of an act from each other. They separate an act from its consequences. They insist on dividing up time, so we don’t see how things actually work out, only the intermediate step where things aren’t so bad after all.

When sexual liberation came about, it was offered to us through separation. We can remove sex from its role in love and the family, they said. It will bring pleasure to many. There are no consequences; people will be the same, everything will be fine.

And five years later they were declaring victory, trotting out studies that showed things were improved, claiming that “science” proved the legitimacy of their viewpoint, etc. All were lies and remain lies.

The separation of sex from family destroyed the family, and left generations of shell-shocked zombies who believe in their inarticulate hearts that their divorced parents never loved them, and that their existence was purposeless.

Sexual liberation made men and women antagonists, ensured that almost all relationships fail, and encouraged people to hook up at random and then settle for lower options. It has produced a non-stop flow of collateral damage, none of which has been acknowledged by its creators.

Recent research puts another nail in the coffin of sexual liberation. It turns out that being on the Pill does create changes in how women think. Specifically, they stop wanting masculine men, and start looking for more feminine ones. Hormones are powerful stuff as it turns out.

By accepting sexual liberation, and birth control, we did more than just be gentle to our own impulses. We wired ourselves for self-destruction. Perhaps that was the intent of the enemy all along which so hated the family it wanted to use our desire for sexual pleasure to ruin it.

More likely it reflects one of life’s greatest ironies, which is what happens to the pacifist. Unable to act from fear of reprisal, the pacifist becomes an embittered and negative person, sniping after the fact and attempting to sabotage what he could not intervene to stop. The life of a pacifist is entirely after-the-fact regrets.

If we learn a lesson from birth control pills, other than that they’re a good way to make your daughter whore herself for emasculated idiots and finally end up with one that she can later divorce, it’s that those who destroy gently are not gentle. They are parasites and predators both, and their mission is to destroy.

Sexual freedom crushed our souls

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

The great ugly secret about “freedom” is that it becomes a goal in itself. The neoconservatives found this out when, in the name of sharing freedom, they ended up having more wars than they could fight.

Sexual freedom is a form of Iraq and Afghanistan. You can win the battle, but can you win the occupation? The ugly secret rears its head again: freedom replaces the goal, and becomes a new quest like any other “ideological” crusade.

In the case of sexual freedom, the absence of restraints means that there is no goal and thus, no time scale. There is no maturation process. There is no eventual goal to end up as an adult. Instead, one stays trapped in the teenage loop forever and ever.

As a result, the simple idea of “sexual freedom,” of separating sex from any sort of goal such as family or love, creates a mentality of the perpetual loop: act for the moment, and for the self. Do not think of future. Do not experience change over your lifetime.

Elizabeth Wurtzel, who wrote Prozac Nation back in 1994 and should have lived happily ever after, writes about how her teenage loop has led to an unfulfilling adult life:

It had all gone wrong. At long last, I had found myself vulnerable to the worst of New York City, because at 44 my life was not so different from the way it was at 24. Stubbornly and proudly, emphatically and pathetically, I had refused to grow up, and so I was becoming one of those people who refuses to grow up—one of the city’s Lost Boys…By never marrying, I ended up never divorcing, but I also failed to accumulate that brocade of civility and padlock of security—kids you do or don’t want, Tiffany silver you never use—that makes life complete. Convention serves a purpose: It gives life meaning, and without it, one is in a constant existential crisis. If you don’t have the imposition of family to remind you of what is at stake, something else will. I was alone in a lonely apartment with only a stalker to show for my accomplishments and my years. – “Elizabeth Wurtzel Confronts Her One-Night Stand of a Life,” by Elizabeth Wurtzel in New York Magazine, January 6, 2013

She goes on to detail how she fled responsibility at every turn, including sexually. There was never a plan to live happily ever after, but a chance to take someone home for the night. Eventually, the options dwindled and apparently, so did the fun.

The MRM is in freefall at this point because it never really took a stand. “Equality,” like “freedom,” is not a goal but the absence of a goal. It’s like dedicating yourself to not-growing-up or to not-eating-vegetables.

MRAs often talk about how they just want “equality” (and/or “freedom”) for men to be equal to women. This sounds good to them because, despite all their talk of red pill/blue pill, they’re still invested in the dominant narrative of their time.

Since the French Revolution, this narrative has been the hive mind. The individual, dedicated to himself or herself, joins with other individuals who want the same, and they smash down all real goals and replace them with not-growing-up and not-eating-vegetables.

When MRAs talk about “equality,” they’re following the same path. The actual goal is for men and women to have a place where they complement each other, and where they are each sacred and important. This only comes through traditional sexual roles, which have goals beyond the sex itself.

Anything else resembles a fear of growing up:

But when I became old enough to learn to shoot, I took one lesson from my father and then refused to go further. It was a rite of passage, a stage on the way to adulthood. But I did not want the responsibility of handling weapons. And, frankly, I just didn’t want to grow up. And because my parents were a little too liberal, and I was far too stubborn, they didn’t force the issue. So I went out into the world with a child’s salutary fear of guns intact. – “Gun Control & Personal Responsibility,” by Greg Johnson in Counter-Currents, January 16, 2013

Our modern society is based on not growing up because we fear the goal itself. Out of fear from becoming like our parents, who lingered neurotic in jobs they hated and endured marriages they claimed to feel enslaved by, we just avoided all of it. We dated or hooked up, but the second night, went home alone.

Sexual “freedom” crushed our souls. Feminism and sexual liberation were just one of many “revolutionary” movements that mimicked the French Revolution in that they overthrew the goals, and replaced them with personal whims. Like the others, they led nowhere.

This occurred because the absence of something is not a goal. If anything, it resembles a hate movement. If your gender does not feel equal, you might ask whether equality is necessary, or just a talking point. Most likely it’s just the drama of others.

What women (and men) lost was a sense of purpose to their lives. What they gained was a void in which they could project their egos, but which led nowhere but to the endless procession of days of getting up, going to work, amusing oneself with alcohol and sex, and repeating. It’s even more soulless than its antecedent, the grim 1950s “corporation man” and his house with a white picket fence in the suburbs.

Rather than crush our souls with these anti-goals, we should stop giving up on having what nature and common sense would have us possess, namely normal lives in which we mature and learn. Instead, we should crush the “revolutionary” notion that a non-goal is superior to a goal.


Sunday, November 18th, 2012

What defines evolutionary success?

It is spreading your seed, or watching those seeds mature into healthy, intelligent and thoughtful future generations?

The conventional mythos is that men are seed-sprayers and women are child-raisers. In this narrative, men want as many sexual partners as possible and women want as few as possible, because they have different strategies for reproduction.

It turns out that the division between strategies is not one of gender, but of intelligence:

All of the research that we have show that it’s only a minority of guys who have multiple partners per year, and I typically talk about this as three partners a year because that’s the Casanova average. It’s actually a minority of guys who want multiple short-term partners — that even comes up in the evolutionary research. The evolutionary argument basically goes that guys have the ability, theoretically, to produce hundreds of children per year, and they can never quite be 100 percent sure that any child is theirs, so they should spread their seed widely. But what gets left out of that is the fact that if you want your genes to go beyond that next generation — beyond your children to your grandchildren, then your odds are better if you actually stick around and help raise that kid until that kid is old enough to pass on his or her genes. – “Expert: Guys don’t want casual sex!”, Salon, November 17, 2012

In other words, the popular myth that we’re wired as seed-sprayers and nothing more is wrong, because it’s mathematically wrong.

Nature rewards not the casual sprayer, who basically dooms his seed to poverty and dysfunction, but the committed raiser.

This means that those who want their seed to persist, whether male or female, are going to choose the “raising” strategy. It’s not just for women; it’s for anyone who wants to succeed at what they do.

This is borne out in some controversial but enduring research:

The symbols r and K originate in the mathematics of population biology and refer to 2 ends of a continuum in which a compensatory exchange occurs between gamete production (the r-strategy) and longevity (the K-strategy). Both across and within species, r and K strategists differ in a suite of correlated characteristics. Humans are the most K of all. K’s supposedly have a longer gestation period, a higher birthweight, a more delayed sexual maturation, a lower sex drive, and a longer life. Studies providing evidence for the expected covariation among K attributes are presented. Additional evidence for r/K theory comes from the comparison of human population known to differ in gamete production. – “Do r/K reproductive strategies apply to human differences?”, J.P. Rushton, Society for the Study of Social Biology, Fall/Winter 1988

r-strategy and K-strategy are opposite ends of the reproductive spectrum.

r-strategy is semen spraying. Get it into as many wombs as possible.

K-strategy is raising. Get semen into the right womb, which involves natural selection style choosing of a mate, and then raise the kid well so it in turn can prosper.

Across the board and worldwide, r-strategies lead to impoverishment and low intelligence, where K-strategies lead to higher levels of intelligence, health, wealth and beauty.

All men are wired for what again? The error is in the all men. Men are varied.

Good men — men with belief in life, in themselves and in doing right as a form of achieving good results — tend to use the K-strategy and aim toward marriage.

Broken men — raped men, beaten children, or just bad examples of humanity — tend to swing toward that r-strategy and justify it with some hollow self-serving logic about sexual freedom.

The same is true of women. Smart women pick partners carefully, and keep the value of their sexuality high by making it elite. They hand it out to no one except someone worthy of reproducing with. This is a zero-error strategy.

Dumb and broken women pop open the pouch for any Tom, Dick and/or Harry (sometimes simultaneously) and then try to compensate for lack of quality with quantity. They keep popping them out, and demand the rest of us treat their little idiot offspring as “equal” because that way these broken people don’t have to face their own errors.

Which kind of person are you? Basement-dweller, or future superman? Your sexual history reveals your quality. Your sexual choices reveal how much you think of yourself.

You can’t escape it.

Value and values

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

The MRM is pitched to us as a battle between men and women, but really it’s a battlefield of values based on a single value.

On one side are the people who think values are arbitrary and women should be able to do whatever they want, and men should pick up the tab. On the other side is common sense.

It is common sense that traditional values originated in wisdom about the nature of reality itself. Feminists want to argue that values are “social constructs,” and that they’re arbitrary, but this denies the fundamentally practical nature of values from the past.

Right now, of course, values are fashions. Liberalism is a fashion, and it is the parent to feminism, so it’s no surprise that feminism is also a fashion. Modern people project their own behavior on the past, in order to make their own behavior seem less aberrant.

The center of this battle over values is the battle over value. The point of this battle is that there is a value to sexual selectivity if not chastity, and the cornerstone of modern feminism and liberalism is to deny any such value.

As the late (to the blogosphere) Ferdinand Bardamu wrote:

The more dicks a woman has been banged by, the less likely she’ll be satisfied by any particular one. As the number of he-rockets ravaging her she-pocket increases, her ability to bond with a man is accordingly decreased.

This clashes with the modern idea that women should not be idealized, but seen as beings with needs who can’t stop themselves. In that view, it’s acceptable that they behave like nitwits, because all we want out of them is that they be acceptable.

The ever-cheerful Athol Kay echoes this sentiment:

The fewer sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher her marital satisfaction and the sexual satisfaction she has within marriage. You very much want your wife to sexually imprint on sex with you and completely bond to you. The sex is just going to be that much better over the long term. Not to mention no other ex-lovers lurking on Facebook, sexual diseases, bad experiences and regrets to worry about. The harsh truth to the modern hook up girl is that yes indeed every time you sleep with another man, you damage your long term wife potential. Plus the best predicator of future behavior is past behavior and highly promiscuous women before marriage are probably far more likely to cheat on you during marriage.

But how can this be? Our enlightened modern society teaches us that these are all lifestyle choices, and that we shouldn’t find a woman delectable because she’s virginal.

In fact, you’ll hear this from a lot of people: virgins are bad in the sack. Virgins are nervous and a mess. Stay away from virgins, you want someone just short of hooker.

The sexperts at the newspapers and high-ranked blogs will also rave on and on about “sexual experience” and pity those who are virgins, or condemned to date them.

There’s a simple explanation for this: they’re justifying their own choices. They settled for the girl with more than few dents, and now they want you to do the same.

In their distracted little brains, that validates their own choice, even though you have no intention to make any comment on their choice pro or con.

Many of them are even trying to use the moment to brag. “Yo, bro, you don’t want to be with a virgin. Trust me, I’ve had a million girls, and virgins are the absolute worst.”

If you were going to divide humanity by how stable they are, you’d probably have feminists, internet braggers, government experts and newspaper sex columnists on the side marked UNSTABLE. Everyone else goes in the ark.

Values of the past are not based on religion. They’re not arbitrary. They’re based on common sense, which includes basic economics. That which gives itself away too freely has no value. That which gives itself once has actual value.

Modern men are just beginning their backlash against feminism. They haven’t yet figured out that feminism naturally and inevitably arises from liberalism (heck, even the French did it back in their 1789 revolution). They haven’t yet understood what a Men’s Rights Movement would look like.

But slowly, values are changing. We went off on a bender with liberal values, and it created hell. Now we’re trying to retrace our steps, and find a path to not just “acceptable,” but actually good.

Recommended Reading