Print this post Print this post

Sexual Serfdom

fatpositive2,797 words

Equality and Hierarchy

Every egalitarian movement ends with the establishment of a new hierarchy. As it solidifies, caste and status crystallize on the social ladder until class structure is as rigid as in feudal Japan. Eventually, those of talent, originality, and ambition conclude they have nothing to gain from the system’s preservation. This is how we get revolution.

Today, “privilege” theory is the ideology of the System. Though egalitarian, it pathologizes white male heterosexuals as morally flawed because of their inherent characteristics. The ideology is rife with contradictions – suggesting homosexuality is a matter of choice will result in moral condemnation, while stating the obvious truth that someone is born with a particular sex will result in similar fury from those who tell us that “gender” is actually fluid. Who you decide to screw is inherent and sacred – but the makeup of your body is just a social construct. Race doesn’t exist – except when it does. Still, if there is one sociological truth, it’s that facts never get in the way of Belief and a redemptive social Narrative.

While it was once held that white males could transcend their position in an oppressive society through participation in social justice movements, even this is increasingly untenable. It’s now a cliché that every “anarchist” or “anti-racist” conference will eventually collapse into infighting and vitriol because of the mere presence of these undesirables, no matter how enthusiastically they attempt to cuckold themselves. The Occupy Wall Street rallies quickly abandoned a focus on economic inequality to embrace goofy racial stage theater, making sure that white males spoke last at any of their meetings. Unsurprisingly, after an initial surge, it collapsed as struggling American workers quickly concluded that they would rather be financially raped by Wall Street sociopaths than be represented by self-hating, sexually confused lunatics with graduate degrees in Ethnic Studies who think the best way to raise wages is through unlimited immigration. Of course, what prevents such movements from being entirely made up of “People of Color” is the inability of the more vibrant denizens of the American Empire to self-organize without having their hand held by white or Jewish babysitters.

The Sexual Class System

But if the rhetoric surrounding race is heated, that surrounding sex is bordering hysteria. On college campuses, the testing ground for what is being developed for the entire country, a curious duality has developed.

On the one hand, standards of what were once called decorum and sexual restraint are all but absent at most universities. Co-ed dorms, pornography showings and sex toy exhibitions, and the general prevalence of the “hook up culture” satirized by Tom Wolfe in I Am Charlotte Simmons makes it easy for American college men to obtain casual sex in a business-like fashion.

In fairness, the prevalence of “hook-up culture” among American females may be exaggerated – #NotAllWomen are behaving this way. However, this is of relatively little importance, and what would once have been called shameful or “slutty” behavior no longer has any moral sanction, meaning that enough are behaving this way such that your average “bro” can confidently expect sexual exploits that would have seemed worthy of Casanova to a prior generation. The result is the relative unimportance of the sexual act among an entire generation and the prevalence of various arrangements including “friends with benefits,” hook up calls, and small-scale harems possessed by generally unremarkable men. “Slutwalks” in defense of all this are already clichés in SWPL cities and on campuses, despite the fact that it enables men to view these kinds of women (accurately) as sexually disposable. Anything to stick it to those stuck-up Christians I suppose.

On the other hand, college campuses are practically a de jure (if not de facto) police state when it comes to sexual relations between men and women. From the moment they step on campus, women are cautioned that every man they meet is a potential rapist and the statistic of “one in four women is raped” is widely deployed–even though it’s wrong. Student handbooks are fodder for unintentional comedy, as some schools mandate elaborate procedures to obtain permission before initiating sexual behavior. Sexual assault is defined so broadly as to criminalize innocent behavior. The presence of any alcohol, practically inevitable, can be held to render consent impossible, essentially making a huge percentage of sexual encounters some variety of “rape.”

Any kind of flirting can be technically criminal, and hapless college males find themselves before disciplinary tribunals that ignore the presumption of innocence, deny the right to counsel, and punish the accused even before the truth is established. Every male college student is furiously lectured to never question a female student’s claim that she was raped, but more than one college or even high school student has quickly learned that girls may magically transform a drunken hook up into a “Morning After Rape” on the “Walk of Shame” home.

Filming casual sexual encounters should be considered shameful in a normal society – but men have actually used it to free themselves from false acquisitions, as brave, independent, and strong “rape survivors” are revealed to have enthusiastically participated in group sex before deciding to ruin their partners’ lives the next day. The fact that men are advising each other to clandestinely film sexual encounters to protect themselves from rape accusations speaks for itself.

Beta Males, Game, and Entitlement

Amidst the miasma of slut walks, Women’s Studies, and various women’s activist groups, the wise college man learns to exploit the sexual carnival while taking measures to protect himself. After he graduates, he takes a similar tack in navigating a broken culture. Sexual politics are reverting to a strange combination of the caveman era and Tumblr. Blunt physical attraction is all it takes to acquire sex in most cases, but if any sexual act draws the attention of the media or legal system, a man is instantly condemned, regardless of the truth. Therefore, he reacts with an attitude of amused mastery toward “modern women” and their elaborate rationalizations – taking what he can get and not expecting anything. With luck, he can find the diamond in the rough worthy of marriage – but fewer and fewer believe such a thing even exists or that marriage, like war, is anything other than a racket.

But what of the “beta males” – the so-called nice guys who want one girlfriend to be faithful to, marry, and have children with? We can all think of exceptions who pull this off – but in the modern era, adultery, divorce, and affairs are so shamefully common that our grandparents’ tales of marriages lasting 50 years or more prompt astonishment or even awe. Nonetheless, the beta male still has a certain expectation that this is what women in some sense should do. When he finds that many women are not receptive to his buying dinner and sending flowers and flowery messages, pining can become resentment.

This is the basis of the “entitlement” culture condemned by feminists and the media following Elliot Rodger’s killing spree. Linked to “privilege theory,” the general thrust is that men (especially white men) believe that they are entitled to a faithful wife, ready access to sex, and a middle-class lifestyle simply by virtue of the fact that they are males. According to this theory, the relative loss of cultural, economic, and political power is something that white men cannot deal with, and react to with violence and unacceptable political beliefs. Therefore, we get the familiar canard in the media that members of the Tea Party (or for that matter, White Nationalists) don’t actually care about or understand politics – they are simply acting out their resentments.

Certainly, Rodger’s manifesto reeks with ressentiment. If it were not for the loss of life, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at his indignant moan that girls would rather rut with people other than himself, the “Supreme Gentleman.” Dissident Right commentators including Steve Sailer noted that this resentment was particularly focused at blondes. Rodger did not identify as white and spoke bitterly against whites, especially white girls. Indeed, white advocates such as those at the Council of Conservative Citizens attempted to create momentum behind the meme that Rodger’s attack was just another example of anti-white racism akin to the Knoxville Massacre or the Knockout Game.

Needless to say, it didn’t catch on. Rodger may not have been white, but that doesn’t matter – after all, neither was George Zimmerman. Nor did the fact that Rodger killed more men than women significantly derail the narrative that massacre was just another incident in a never ending war of aggression against women, in which the White Man is the eternal antagonist.

The #YesAllWomen hashtag that served as the moral panic of the week was used to prove that all women – yes, all of them – are the “survivors” of sexual assault via act, word, or institutional oppression. Various apolitical women seized on it, relating stories about how a “creepy” guy hit on them, or someone had the temerity to make a disrespectful comment about their sexual behavior.

The purpose of this was not to establish truth or falsehood. It was to assign women to a victim class designated by their sex (or, presumably, transfer into the gender via surgery). It was to fortify the social hierarchy. As influential blogger Roosh V has observed, feminism is rapidly approaching a point where it will be literally impossible to criticize a woman for anything, be it adultery, slovenly appearance, or even acts of violence, murder, and the utmost cruelty. Even Bill Maher, before he became a tiresome Democratic hack, pointed out this double standard. As he put it, it’s politically incorrect “just to be male.” And, in something he would never say today, “You cannot reform biology.”

Entitlement and Game

For many of us, simple experience wakes us up from any naïveté that all women are somehow innocent victims besieged by sexually voracious and aggressive men. Acknowledging reality means destroying ideas deliberately promoted by both the egalitarian left and the reactionary American Right about the inherent evil of the male sex drive. While the Left praises the female sex drive as good in and of itself (slut walks) and the reactionary Right seems to deny its existence, science suggests it is simply different from men.

In evolutionary terms, women qua women are attracted to those men who appear able to provide them with the most resources and social status (at the time) as well as physical appearance, which is a proxy for genetic quality. In game terms, it means if a man can exemplify (or fake) the qualities and attitude of a man with social standing and resources (alpha), he will reap female attraction. In the biological program running in the background for all of us, men value fertility (youth and beauty) and availability, and women value social protection (social value, money, strength). It’s from these basic biological realities we get some of the most important elements of the sexual marketplace dynamic. This is why women constantly feel the need to create complicated rationalizations to explain away what they are doing (“I never do this, I swear!”) and why other women are the most unforgiving critics of “sluts.”

Similarly, it is also why we get the almost entirely one-sided spectacle of men self-destructing because of temporary sexual urges or the need for simple physical release. It’s easy to think of powerful leaders who spectacularly sabotaged their careers for sex from a women often less attractive than their own wives. It’s extremely hard to think of female equivalents. Can anyone imagine Hillary making the mistake(s) of her husband? And are there any males out there willing to be a male Monica Lewinsky? How else we can explain the behavior of an Arnold Schwarzenegger who betrayed his Kennedy wife for his homely maid?

However, technology and state policy are changing the equation. In a culture where birth control, abortion, prophylactics, and a dizzying array of welfare programs and “advocates” exist for women, many of the consequences of sexual promiscuity are removed. At the same time, laws regarding divorce, child support, alimony, and other aspects of what is still ironically termed “family law” play out in a largely consequence-free environment for women’s sexual choice. The result is the introduction of a class system that allows women to, theoretically, have their cake and eat it too. The legal and societal structure actively punishes chastity, rewards adultery, and subsidizes irresponsible behavior. Is there any more stereotypically “modern” figure than the single mother? Perhaps Dan Quayle’s comments about Murphy Brown were prophetic after all.

While female sexual desire is praised and encouraged to run rampant, male sexual desire is pathologized by the media and academia. Indeed, the shrieks are already upon us that “traditional masculinity must be destroyed.” Of course, it already has been destroyed, and not necessarily because of deliberate social conditioning. Arguably, the nation where this rot has sunk in the deepest is Japan, where young Japanese men known as “grass eaters” abandon even the pretense of masculinity. While it could be argued that even this may be a feature, not a bug, of mass capitalism, genetically modified food, and urban living, we have to consider the possibility that this just may be an unintended side effect. After all, it can hardly be charged that the Japanese political culture is beholden to feminism, mass immigration, and ethnomasochism.

Of course, modern society doesn’t just turn men into Last Men – it turns women into Last Men too. And not everyone wants this. On paper and by the modern standard of the “pursuit of happiness,” there’s no reason for traditional families and households to continue to exist at all – but they do, and they are reproducing more than everyone else. Nonetheless, a formidable system is in place, with all the financial incentives and sinecures that come with it. And any class system will generate its defenders and hack intellectuals, eager to justify the sinecures and entrenched privileges that sustain them.

Science, Tradition, and Sex

But there’s a catch. Chase Nature out with a pitchfork, and you’ll end up alone in a house full of cats in a majority non-white neighborhood. Modern childless women, regardless of their careers, are not particularly happy. This manifests itself in, at best, Left-wing moral crusading and, at worst, insane and pitiable behavior. As for single women, all the SNAP cards in the world don’t substitute for a father, and the grim objective reality shows that a traditional family outperforms strong womyn who think they can “have it all.” The cold tale of demographics suggests that feminism is simply a transition stage between the end of a decadent society and the takeover by a more vital, patriarchal one. The results are in – and feminism is revealed as a failed social experiment sustained only by a vast assemblage of propaganda, subsidies, and legal protection.

Enter feminism, especially its obnoxious online variety. The feminist critique of entitlement is projection at its most crude, as fundamentally modern feminism is about defending ingrained privilege and propping up the crumbling System. Contemporary “strong women” feel entitled to abort their children without the interference from the father, obtain financial rewards after cheating on their husbands, and receive sexual attention even after they grow fat, old, or unattractive.

More than that, a host of television networks, magazines, academic studies departments, and media figures tell them that they are heroic figures for giving in to their lowest desires. Of course, it doesn’t take much to be a hero in modern America, and you don’t have to be particularly brave for the media to call you “strong” – if you are part of the right social class. Women who actually display real strength – the type who bear children, defend their families, and, in the most literal definition of “strong,” lift weights and stay in shape  are condemned as traitors to their sex.

What is occurring is the decadent phase of an outdated social system. In an age of technological growth, social evolution occurs remarkably fast. The low intelligence shoggoths inhabiting women’s studies departments today are equivalent to the degenerate French aristocrats who long since abandoned the life of the sword to indulge in the decadent ideas that would destroy them. Feminists are outdated. As a culture and as a species, we no longer gain anything from their existence, and their presence is a burden to the productive. They are simply parasites, feeding on the social capital they are actively destroying – until they are swept away by the next sexual revolution, or perhaps I should call it the sexual restoration, whose vanguard are the theorists and practitioners of game.


This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Mike Smith
    Posted June 16, 2014 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Great article! What happens to all these strong, independent women after the economic collapse? I try not to revel in the suffering of others, but the thought of a feminist being the sex slave of a Somali warlord makes me laugh.

    • Endangered Species
      Posted June 16, 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

      And there is this excellent essay from blogger, Jayne Gardener:

      (courtesy of the Wayback Machine)

      Women Are Stupid

      By Jayne Gardener – Wednesday, May 30, 2007

      Women are stupid. There, I said it. Does that make me a traitor to my gender? No, the radical Jewish women who comprise the modern feminist movement are the gender traitors. They have succeeded in brainwashing too many women into believing their anti-male, anti-child, anti-woman, anti-family agenda.

      These mostly Jewish, mostly man-hating lesbians would have us believe that there are no innate gender differences, that the differences we observe between the genders (besides the obvious physical ones) are a social construct. What nonsense. The only women who believe this are (dare I say it again?) stupid.

      When my children were young, my daughter wanted a pink, frilly room full of teddy bears while my son was making truck noises before he could talk and was fascinated by cars, trucks, tractors and bulldozers.

      My son was far more aggressive and rough when he played outside with his friends than my daughter ever was.

      To claim that these gender differences are a social construct is to deny what we observe day in and day out as our children are growing up. But women believe it, despite evidence to the contrary.

      Women believe that we can do anything men can do. If that is the case, then why do they have to lower the standards to allow women into non-traditional jobs? Why do they have to lower the standards to allow women into the military? Why can I think of so few outstanding women in the fields of medicine, science, architecture or great literature?

      Women are not as physically strong as men. There is no way around that.

      We are not as logical and rational as men; in fact many among our ranks are unstable, hormonal, emotional train wrecks.

      Women sabotage each other. We hate it when other women are successful and happy. We stab each other in the back on a regular basis.

      Women who work think women who are home-makers are lazy leeches. Women who are home-makers think women who work are selfish, ambitious harpies who put their own aspirations ahead of the well-being of their children.

      What kind of fool would think women in combat is a good idea? What kind of mother thinks her child is better off in a sterile day-care centre instead of being home in the constant care and attention of his/her mother? What kind of idiotic person believes that women can be as promiscuous as men and not pay for it at some point either by way of a loss of self-respect or by way of an untreatable STD or infertility?

      Wake up and smell the coffee, ladies. The modern radical Jewish feminists have sold you a bill of goods that won’t leave you feeling fulfilled and happy. It will leave you feeling empty, unsatisfied and regretful. We can’t be like men because we aren’t men. We are innately and irrevocably different from men.

      Embrace your femininity, ladies. Let men be the hunter-gatherers. Our greatest fulfilment lies in creating cozy, supportive and loving nests where we use our nurturing skills to raise a generation of stable, well-balanced, productive citizens.

      Let’s stop being stupid.

      *** *** *** *** ***

      Well said Jayne.

    • Posted June 19, 2014 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

      “the thought of a feminist being the sex slave of a Somali warlord makes me laugh.”

      Then you would find ” White Masai” pretty funny. The true story of a stupid Austrian woman who decides to move to Kenya to chase down a Masai warrior and become his wife. Wow is she up for a rude awakening. It is not meant to be so, but for a racialist to read the story is a laugh a minute.

  2. Glen
    Posted June 16, 2014 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    “Can anyone imagine Hillary making the mistake(s) of her husband?”

    No, not Hillary. But perhaps the sexual misadventures of “powerful wymyn” are downplayed or not advertised. There was a rumor of an affair between Hillary and Vince Foster, for example.

    Now here’s a list of female school teachers, some of them married, with students from World Net Daily:

    Many of the male students fall into the “homely maid” category.

    “And are there any males out there willing to be a male Monica Lewinsky?”

    I’m sure there are many.

  3. F. Roger Devlin
    Posted June 16, 2014 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Well done, Brother Hood.

  4. S Fowler
    Posted June 16, 2014 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    From the Bhagavad-Gita:
    “Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes; out of the confusion of castes, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the lack of understanding; and out of this, all evils.”

    When an evolutionary system disintegrates all its parts and functions fail; and while those parts and functions retain their energy they lose their purpose and identity. Women have lost their purpose and identity and the deep contradictions between their female natures and “today’s woman” are expressed as manical hysteria.

  5. Catiline
    Posted June 16, 2014 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    Feminism’s purpose was to interdict and intercept the social elevation of “beta” ethnicities. It fulfilled it’s role magnificently. Accordingly, it, feminisim, is eminently conservative. Now that the logic of feminism begins to work against the same groups that promoted it and benefited from it (including, interestingly enough, women) it begins to receive critical scrutiny. Plus ça change….

  6. Sandy
    Posted June 16, 2014 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    This is one essay that is destined to become a classic.

    At the risk of giving the author too much praise I had more than my share of aha moments while reading your essay and the timing of its publication for me at least was spot on.

  7. Andrew
    Posted June 17, 2014 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    An excellent essay and devastating jeremiad against feminism. I was surprised to learn about the Japanese “grass-eaters” and what a “shoggoth” is. However, I do not agree that the practitioners of “game” are very helpful. While learning about women and how to court them while accepting and developing one’s masculinity are of course good things, the “gamers” are typically exploitative, seeking to fulfill carnal desires for selfish reasons, racking up tallies of conquests as opposed to developing long-term bonds with women that would result in children and a new generation for our race. I can imagine that these manipulative casanovas are turning many of their used targets toward the shoggoths as opposing to help normalize them; that is not a net positive for our race. It is most adaptive for us to recognize most European women as beautiful beings with an amazing potential to be fantastic partners and life-givers that can be developed and nourished over time.

    • Endangered Species
      Posted June 17, 2014 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

      Couple of definitions of “shoggoth” found online:

      1. A shoggoth is an amorphous, sentient blob of self-shaping gelatinous flesh, something like a giant amoeba.

      2. As a free action, a shoggoth can give voice to sounds and words sane life was not meant to hear.

      Yes, that fairly describes the denizens of women’s studies departments.

  8. Sorel
    Posted June 17, 2014 at 2:54 am | Permalink

    I am not sure where I identify politically anymore, have issues with “White Nationalism” and identity politics in general, well fairly massive issues ranging from political to philosophical, but I definitely am becoming more estranged from the edifying of the victim in supposedly egalitarian politics, to the point where they may lose one of their most devoted soldiers. Mainly due to a newfound philosophy born out of overcoming my own issues that really would of not overcame if I gave into what I learned in college and what my friends who were dogmatic followers of psychology (to me it generally seems to be a cult idolizing the victim) told me.

    I have suggested for years to my “comrades” that to take on our enemies we have to be disciplined, devoted, and strong, which rules out running around chasing women and getting STD’s from that, destroying ourselves with various poisons, etc. It require we keep our bodies and minds strong, learn how to sacrifice, after a point get our heads out of books and even out of the classroom, etc. This was responded to with various postmodern social science jargons that I also was taught in the equivalent college classes they took. (I majored in perhaps the most postmodern social science in America right now.)

    I have to admit that I was “hooking up” with lots of women while in college just a couple years ago. It actually made me question radical sexual politics because of how easy it was to access sex. Still what I noticed was the most radical sexual “womyn”, who identified as “queer” and whatever else they thought gave their lives meaning, were also after awhile the most submissive and most turned on by my more masculine attributes, which when pressed on they would at first have nothing to say, then mumble out that they were “voluntarily” submitting to me and being turned on by my masculinity. The more brazen of them would try to break down their attraction to me in terms of being “socialized” to like “masculinity”, which always has made me laugh because then why have they then not “deprogrammed” themselves?

    Then since I am a bit older, a lot these once radical feminist gals now are in long-term relationships with fairly weak unappealing men. The “polymorphous perversion” in the form of being “poly”, being in open relationships, having frequent orgies, etc., has been replaced by the desire to settle down and do nothing with their lives. Showing that they are not the revolutionaries because when pressed on what they are doing politically after college, they are working retail and spending time with their boyfriends or “partners” (the more progressive term (I actually have married Leftist friends who use “partner”!)) occasionally writing a blog about some identity political crime they witnessed in some product of culture that should be more criticized for being garbage than the fact it could be perceived as not being PC enough. A recent argument on this front was when I was criticizing popular music, which was retorted to by a “womyn” that various pop artists are politically correct, which I replied “why does that matter if artistically it is not on the same plane as the work of Mozart, Beethovan, and Wagner?” She scoffed at this because I think no one ever responded to her exaltation of low-culture that just happened to have the “right” politics with not only disagreement, but something involving actually being able to defend (and really then appreciate) art.

    So to add to feminists being outdated, I would add they are boring, their revolution didn’t really throw anything forward. I always cite to the radical feminists and other strange deviations of the extremes of faux-humanism (ableism, fat-liberation, etc) before or after the more attractive of them let me “hook up with them”, that we now have women, gays, trans, disabled, etc., people very high up in the most major corporations and our masters are currently a financial elite, sex is easy to get and rarely shamed socially, and in any grocery store we can see women and men barely clothed on the cover of magazines. Have they not won? And if not, do they want to force everyone to be “queer”, fat, and disabled by gunpoint? If so, what is their plan to do this? And well the conversation never gets that far. If it did, none of them have the will, strength, discipline, etc., to actually organize out there, off their computers, blogs, and away from their Masters and PHD’s. And if they did, they be too busy engaging in base self-destructive hedonism to be a threat. Then I would be the first organizing to stop their world (I mean most dont have a vision, but if pushed they have to accept that something like Burgess’ The Wanting Seed be their utopia) and with all the identity-politics Left I have worked with over the years, none really be a threat to me or anyone else. I even propose the idea to these “revolutionaries” that if their idol is Pussy Riot, which for many of them it is, in what way is Pussy Riot doing anything to “modify reality”? Are they not just kind of boring intellectual terrorists who are in no way a threat to anyone? For Pussy Riot “taking to the streets” wouldn’t put fear into their supposed enemies or anyone. Could Pussy Riot take overthrow Russia’s government? Or take down some mercenaries the real elites of the world, if they for some reason feared Pussy Riot, would send at them? In what way are they heroic? Or in what way is a PHD dissertation on “Patriarchal Hegemony” an heroic action?

    And usually the ladies are too busy after weeks of ranting at me some “Theory” they learned that they want me to stop seeing other people and only be with, going against everything they believe, and the whole time being with them openly showing they are turned on that I am not suppressing (and in many ways embracing (blame Jack Donovan and also just what I think is my nature)) my masculinity. Yet, I have bigger things to do than settle down right now like revolution or at least helping in the birth of a new artistic culture (and the burying of the current one and the theories behind it) and this is why I am kind of alright with getting sex when I want it, even if I just learned how to “exploit the sexual carnival”. Is there anything wrong about that? I get from some people standpoint’s we need to keep the civilization going and stuff, but I am not sure how being tied down with kids is going to help in the kind of extreme battles that people like myself should be able to fully give themselves over to.

    • Jaego
      Posted June 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

      Sounds right but as an artist you haven’t been dealing with the hard core who are dedicated Marxists and do have discipline and rise up in the Party. And they are having an effect – utterly weakening our military for example. Some of the Radical Feminist Theorists want men reduced to 10% of the population. Not an imminent threat like White Extinction I grant you, but they bear watching. In any case, they are also in favor of White extinction. So if we can stop that, we will also stop their evil designs on Men.

  9. WG
    Posted June 17, 2014 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Excellent essay. The tenets of “Game,” “Red Pill thinking,” and masculine self-improvement are essential in waking up our young men to the realities of women and relationships. “Game” helps our young men develop confidence . It equips them with the tools necessary for forming and maintaining relationships with women (including Christian marriage). Oddly enough, though, the biggest obstacles to “Game” aren’t feminists, but the priggish Churchians and beta boys who denounce it.

    • Catiline
      Posted June 17, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink


      Astute observation. See my comment above for an insight as to why.

  10. Ulf Larsen
    Posted June 17, 2014 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    As usual, Sweden is the craziest country in the world when it comes to gender theories and feminism. Someone really ought to review, and draw attention to, this 2005 documentary that reveals the sectarian, government-sanctioned gender insanity that dominates political discourse in Sweden – Könskriget (‘The Gender War’), available with English subtitles on Youtube:

  11. Posted June 19, 2014 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    It always disappoints me when otherwise reasonable people go beyond simply accepting the truths professed by the practitioners of ‘game’ to endorse also the behaviour it promotes, namely, the primitive flaunting of social status, which necessarily involves the putting down of one’s rivals in order to establish a top position in the chimp-like pecking order. Some of us have too much integrity to sink so low, and moreover, the inhibition of such impulses is what it means to be civilised. Having to witness old friends – once naive, decent men – swallow the ‘red pill’ and promptly transforming into swaggering, smirking chimps, incites in me an intense loneliness arising out of the feeling that I’m the only one who refuses on principle to act this way.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace