Patriarchy Pt. 4: Hypergamy – the Root of Patriarchy

Over a year ago, I devoted three posts to the subject of Patriarchy. The first one was published after digesting the red pill, but before “coming out” with it, meaning I tried to sanitize the post and make it as easy to swallow as possible. Then, I wrote the second – thanks to the inspiration of Janet Bloomfield, aka judgybitch – and ended with the third while I still had some thoughts floating in my head on the subject.

 

I never found the motivation to articulate them. Until now.

 

Last week, I enjoyed a few thousand page views from someone linking the second part of the series, entitled Patriarchy Pt. 2: What if Men Disappeared?, to reddit. I’m flattered they’d do so. I think the article is pretty sound. In fact, if you’ve discovered my site within the last year then you might not be familiar with them. I still think they’re worth the read. Just keep in mind that my writing style at the time was to sugarcoat the red pill.

 

On Patrarchy

Patriarchy Pt 2: What if Men Disappeared?

Patriarchy Pt 3: Women’s Contribution to Patriarchy

 

But I still think there is one more aspect to Patriarchy that doesn’t get talked about much, and never ever discussed by feminists. It can be easily deduced after reading the manosphere and groking woman’s hypergamy.

 

It is my belief that, all things being “equal” between men and women like life choices, ability, opportunity, conditioning, etc., there will still be a Patriarchy.  Actually, I believe there will always be a Patriarchy until the end of time or segregation between the sexes. There may be experimental attempts at other models, but they will ultimately fail in the long run. And it’s not up to me to decide this. It is up to women.

 

Truly, I believe that women, and only women, are one animating force that gives rise to Patriarchy, for it is what they truly want.

 

Hypergamy is the essence of womanhood. It is the instinct that sets all other psychological functioning into a semi-ordered operating system. It tells her that her time and her eggs are valuable, yet vulnerable, therefore she must maximize the benefits gained while mitigating the costs. It is why women test men so thoroughly before they agree to a relationship, and why men try so hard to pass those tests. It is why they second-guess their relationships, poking for holes and ensuring that she still has the best deal she can find. It is why they want gold, and jewels, and (most importantly) a man of high status to attach herself to.

 

To put it simply: women are looking up for their men, not down. She doesn’t want a stone to burden her, but a set wings to lift her higher. That is her ultimate goal in life, and if not a goal then the ultimate fantasy (cough Fifty Shades cough).

 

So which social order do you think satisfies this impulse?

 

Patriarchy.

 

Patriarchy is the social order which ensures men stay at the top of society to run the businesses, government, and families. While this may seem (at least at first glance) to deny women what they want – opportunity, freedom, etc. – Patriarchy also ensures that women can look up and have countless options of men available to pull her into the higher strata. In this world, alpha males are abundant, meaning the vast majority of men are more attractive than an equal or lessor male. There is no need for a woman to climb the mountain herself, for a man is able and willing to lift her up. In the end, this fulfills her hypergamy, her fantasy, her inner cavewoman, etc. It is why grandma stayed married for fifty years. Even working at the saw mill cast grandpa as Hercules.

 

This is the true engine that drives Patriarchy. Women want men at the top because they want their lovers to come from the top, and no amount of egalitarian social engineering will change their innate preferences.

 

But before I bury this horse, let’s have a few thought experiments, holding up Patriarchy to Matriarchy or Equality.

 

Matriarchy is the grand vision for many of the world’s radical feminists. However, women have a tendency to ruin their own good time by not looking all the way forward. A great tangential example by heartiste:

 

“Yes, women want to achieve maximum gravitational comfort within relationships, but women are also strangely their own worst enemies in their quest for eternal love and happiness. Women will work instinctively and incessantly toward neutering and domesticating boyfriends and enlarging their LTR comfort zone until, perplexed and full of resentment, they have lost all desire for their men.”

 

Own worst enemies indeed. In this same sense, women want to achieve all that men have achieved, working hard to acquire those degrees and corner offices and fancy suits and bloated paychecks. However, once they succeed they inevitably look around and yell, “where are all the men!?” The men are there… in the mailroom, and because they’re in the mailroom those men are invisible. Every man who is beneath her simply ceases to exist in any capacity beyond human-shaped robot cleaning her drain or putting down her new hardwood floors. Women don’t want to look down and settle for a man in a relatively lessor position. They don’t want a man to pull her down, as dictated by her hypergamy.

 

This means that Matriarchy is actually anathema to a woman’s instinctual drive. She may be a high-powered CEO, or even the president, but every time she comes home she’ll look at her husband and feel disgust, and she won’t conceptualize why.

 

Equality is better, but only marginally better, and it certainly isn’t optimal. A woman’s gaze can come down to the horizon, allowing many women to settle for guys with equal or similar income/status levels, but settling isn’t optimizing by definition. In an equal societal arrangement, women are still looking up, as are the women below her, and above her. The only difference between this and total Patriarchy is that the pool of men at the top has now shrunk and the pool of female competition has increased. It’s not as bad as Matriarchy, where the vast majority of men become invisible (or valued only as fuck toys), but you instead have a situation where the few remaining men at the top have the lion’s share of the lionesses while half of the men below the average are once again invisible. Obviously, this will cause problems.

 

In my view, the only social structure that can satisfy both ends of the equation – a woman’s innate drive for status and a man’s desire for women – is to ensure that men are at the top. That doesn’t mean that women have to be oppressed or mistreated, but it still means Patriarchy, basically.

 

Of course, if you truly want to defeat Patriarchy, all you have to do is rewrite the female condition. Shouldn’t be hard, right?

 

*

These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

My Twitter.

Men and Women Will Never Truly Understand Each Other

The Manosphere has done a massive amount of research, both in formal study and in personal anecdotes to understand how women operate. There are multiple reasons for this, as some men choose to bed them, others to hold onto them, and all are trying to avoid being taken advantage by them. Similarly, we have looked inside ourselves in order to understand who we are as men. Through these pursuits, we’ve generated what amounts to an entire new field of gender psychology (though I’d call it sex psychology, for reasons I will detail later).

 

(Aside: Here I’d like to point out how the supposedly misogynistic manosphere has devoted so much time into understanding how women function on an objective analysis that tries to get to the heart of the female human condition, petals and thorns and all. Ironic, isn’t it, how we wish to understand them, but feminism has not desired to do the same for men. If we are psychoanalyzed at all by the opposing side, then it is through the lens of sophism, projection, and oppression. But I digress…)

 

Months ago, I wrote:

 

“In its most basic form, the male human condition is about becoming a man worthy of reproduction through demonstrable strength, intellect, and/or dominance. That is a man’s purest quest, condensed. However, the female human condition is about holding onto the things that nature, genetics and circumstance have given her without her control.”

 

What I meant by that is, because nature has given us different means and consequences for reproduction, the life’s story of a boy and a girl are so different that they might as well be different realities.

 

But that only scratches the surface. Plumbing is one thing, psychology is another.

 

As much as we men can understand the computations within the female brain, much like how we understand how a motor functions, we cannot get into the mind of a woman and feel what she feels, sees what she sees, think in the way that she can. We can only observe from the outside and understand where her programming will likely take her, but not the journey. Similarly, women cannot do the same for us. Despite all we have learned, there remains the impenetrable barrier of our inability to understand the other half of the species.

 

That is because our brains are different. There are several main considerations when talking about neurology: density of neurons, type of neurons, structure of neurons, and chemical neurotransmitters. Between men and women, all four are different.

 

“Male brains utilize nearly seven times more gray matter for activity while female brains utilize nearly ten times more white matter. What does this mean?

Gray matter areas of the brain are localized. They are information- and action-processing centers in specific splotches in a specific area of the brain. 

White matter is the networking grid that connects the brain’s gray matter and other processing centers with one another.”

 

Think of grey matter as a computer chip and white matter as an Ethernet cable. Men have more processing power in select areas while women connect smaller patches of calculators over a wider network. Thus, it should not be a surprise that, over time, men have been stereotyped as focused and logical while women have been stereotyped as holistic thinkers. Stereotypes exist for a reason, people.

 

“The right and left hemispheres of the male and female brains are not set up exactly the same way. For instance, females tend to have verbal centers on both sides of the brain, while males tend to have verbal centers on only the left hemisphere.”

 

The white matter neurons (the “Ethernet cables”) mainly run from front to back in males while neural pathways run from side to side in females. This distinction is made all the more apparent when examining the female’s larger corpus callosum – the main bridge that connects the left and right hemispheres of the brain, allowing them to communicate.

 

Consider not only neurons (their type, density and structure), but also the chemicals that allow them to send signals:

 

“Male and female brains process the same neurochemicals but to different degrees and through gender-specific body-brain connections.”

 

Testosterone is the reason why men punch refrigerators when we can’t fix them (and feel absolutely justified in doing so), and the neural structure of women is why they can’t understand why we do.

 

But not only can women not understand men, but men cannot understand women. But perhaps “understand” is not the right word. Men and women just can’t grok each other. Remove a person’s optic nerve or visual cortex and no matter how hard they try to see it simply won’t happen. Remove the prefrontal cortex of one’s brain (which governs behavior and holds back our impulsivity) and they will simply not be able to physically stop themselves from certain behavior. The circuit has literally been cut. We cannot think with brain matter we don’t have, and because men and women are both built and lacking in certain areas of the brain means, no matter how hard we try, we cannot get into the mind of the opposite sex. It just isn’t possible.

 

I personally believe that men and women experience two totally different realities. Not only do we process sensory data and memories differently, but the act of processing information itself is different. I have a pet hypothesis that women literally see the world differently than men. Consider two things: men have a much higher rate of colorblindness than women due to the Y chromosome; while research points to women having higher instances of Tetrachromacy (being able to process more shades of color).

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if the world looks more vivid through a woman’s eyes. Stereotypes abound with women fretting over the color of a salmon dress vs a coral dress. We men think this is stupid because we cannot see the difference as well as they can (it’s all pink to us). Perhaps we truly, physically, can’t. The kicker, though, is that we will never know. We cannot prove it. Giving me a woman’s eyes will not change the fact that my brain would still not be able to process it. You simply cannot compare the experiences of man and woman, side by side. This is not the fault of society or education or privilege, but of biology.

 

The word Gender as we’ve come to use it is a misnomer. The word Gender is a deflection from the word Sex, as Sex in the context of man and woman (and not the act) refers to our biological state, the plumbing, neurology, and chromosomes that differentiate us. It has been replaced in favor of Gender, which tries to take the onus of male and female differences off biology (where it actually lay) and puts it on social conditioning, as if biological differences only apply to our genitals. Obviously, they don’t. However the trend is so ubiquitous and so subtle that academics even make this mistake. The freaking article I cited even calls it “Brain Differences Between Genders“. Uh, hello, we’re talking about XX and XY, biology and neurology. It’s Sex, professor. Once again, another example of the conditioning our world puts us through to render men and women as more similar than different.

 

However the more digging we do in the Manosphere the more we end up realizing that this gap between male experience and female experience is wider than we expected and cannot be bridged, although many will try. As a writer, I’ve come across the same question from many an aspiring young man as to how to write female characters. Every time I give them this information there are at least five people – an assortment of PC white nights and feminists – willfully ignoring these facts as they try to force the two separate human conditions into one, egalitarian-friendly worldview. Feminism’s attempt to close this gap between the sex’s personal realities, or even disavow their existence, leads to horrible consequences for men and women (and really shitty novels).

 

In trying to make boys more feminine and sensitive, and in trying to make girls into alpha males, the result ends up deforming them into something neither man nor woman – an offense not to “traditional gender roles”, but to their own biological being.

 

In this egalitarian view, we’re expected to judge each sex’s behavior and attributes via the same metric. However, judging men through the eyes of women only produces the idea that we are angry brutes that think about sex every 6 seconds (thank you, 90’s). In trying to look at women through a man’s eyes we see only an emoting child who can’t do math or logic (thank you, 50’s). Both of these stereotypes result from trying to define male and female out of context, by the opposite standard. It is pure madness.

 

Part of being enlightened requires you to see something as it is, fully and completely, without mental bias blocking your perception, realizing too the limitations of your own judgment. This means we cannot deny the context in which our biological sex resides. We must see that these human conditions are different and should be judged based on what they are, men as men, and women as women. If not, we force upon ourselves heaps of frustration from our lack of understanding and lay upon others undue criticism for the very same reason.

 

The reality is that men and women simply cannot grok each other, for our mental computers run on separate operating systems. Yes we can use logic to make decent guesses about other’s behavior. We can certainly observe and take notes from afar. But we are trapped within our own minds, and thus within our own worlds. In the end, we might not be able to bridge the gap between the sexes, but we can come to appreciate our respective mesas for what they are.

 

And if those who disagree, asserting that we are more alike than different, my response would be:

 

How do you know?

Gnon Hates Feminism

I’m not going to debate which side of the political spectrum has the facts on their side, which group is more educated, or which is morally superior. I could care less about human rights or equality, or which ideology has the most “good intentions”. I don’t care about individualism or communism. None of that matters to me because what truly matters are results. The results show that Gnon’s cosmic judgment will lay its crushing blow on feminism and leftism because they are not designed to be sustainable ideologies. (If you’re a little late to the party and don’t know who Gnon is, read my previous post.)

 

You see, discussions about economic and social policy are like navigating a ship. They explain where we are currently headed, where we truly want to go, how we should go about getting there. But always remember that if the ship sinks then any questions about navigation are moot, and a ship will either sink or float. There are no other options.

 

All the same, our species will either live or die. There are no other options. Moral, political, economic, social, and even spiritual debates are moot if we’re all dead. Given these considerations, we should ask whether an ideology will make us sink into extinction before we entertain their ideas further. It doesn’t matter if said ideology makes us feel good or that we like it, because much of what keeps us alive isn’t pleasant. Candy will kill you. Vegetables suck but they make you strong.

 

Aside from all the criticism and rants I’ve made about the left, or the social just warriors, or feminism and all the other head-cases in the same basket, what ultimately condemns the ideology is that, if left unabated, leftism/feminism et al will end the human species. I call that immoral, because that is the ultimate sin against Gnon’s only Law: survival.

 

From my experience walking around the city of Boulder, a haven of SWPL liberals, I’ve noticed the men and women on thousand-dollar mountain bikes. I see the parking lots filled with new Prius’ and Subaru’s. Everyone has the money to finance their extraordinary educations and organic living blogs while residing in some of the highest cost of living areas in the state. I get to go into their houses and marvel at the new counter tops and flooring, their expensive televisions and furniture. But you know what I don’t see a lot of? Children.

 

The typical size of the SWPL family is host to usually one child, created by a less-fertile mother later in her life, after she’s “settled down”, and her beta husband who might do cross-fit but can’t use a weapon to save their lives. When that single child follows their parent’s teachings and goes to college to become another disciple, they meet their spouse and have their one child. From four people, go to two, go to one. And if that child meets their spouse and builds a family in typical SWPL fashion, then the eight great grandparents’ bloodline drops to one child. It’s not so much of a family tree as a family pyramid.

 

Now, I’m not saying that this one family’s trend equates to their ultimate destiny, for some later generations of children could change the course of their bloodline, as many generations have in the past, but that just emphasizes my point: the SWPL lineage will either die or convert to another ideology. Sink or float. There are no other options. And while some could say that the left doesn’t intend for this to happen, for there is nothing in the ideology that explicitly states you can only have one child, the fact remains that such is the result. You’d be hard pressed to find a left-leaning family, or left leaning country for that matter, that has more than replacement-level population growth.

 

I think there are two main reasons for this: economy and feminism.

 

We in the west live in an economic climate of relative abundance. The amount of toys that our money can buy for short-term gain vastly eclipses our other options, like starting a family. People would rather remodel their kitchen than raise another child. In short, we’re too distracted with the mindset of the here and now, rather than thinking about our future and the legacies we leave behind which will last (hopefully) thousands of years.

 

But I believe the main culprit is feminism. I mean, there’s so much to cover that many of my readers will know what I’ll say before they even read it:

 

  • The life plan of a girl spending their 20’s to 30’s on the cock carrousel only then to settle down with a beta means they’re wasting their most fertile years while using the last of their womb credit at the event horizon. Increased rates of autism aren’t the only results of a child birthed from their mother’s waning fertility.
  • Feminism encourages sexual independence and a high N count. However women aren’t psychologically adapted to handle multiple lovers like men are, leading to alpha widowhood and regret in marriage. The result: divorce. While the genetic component above doesn’t stand in their children’s favor, this environmental one doesn’t either. Broken homes make broken people.
  • Fat acceptance. No need to say more.
  • Feminism encourages female empowerment – the Catch-22 is that when women get more power, more education, more independence, the opportunity cost for having children grows too. If you’re working in retail or customer service, then you miss nothing by leaving the workforce to have a child. If you’re a CEO then taking even a few weeks off could have disastrous consequences. Not only that, but stress is linked with infertility in females. Hence why high-powered women either have no children, or just one (after spending tens of thousands of dollars at fertility clinics).

 

There’s more, but the individual specifics don’t really matter. What matters is that, when taken as a whole, this ideology turns people with great potential, along with their potential legacies that could be created, and erases them from existence. The ideas expressed by feminism lead to a degradation in both the quality and quantity of the human race in favor of giving a select few women the brief image of happiness (I doubt they’re truly happy, or will be once they reach the retirement home with no one to visit them and no one to mourn them after their deaths). I don’t doubt that the iconic Single Female Lawyer is intelligent and empowered, but none of those qualities will be passed on to the countless daughters down her line because the lawyer decided to pursue her own interests and not have children. All of her talent will be thrown into Gnon’s genetic trash to join with the two-hundred thousand years’ worth of genetic deformities that never were. Meanwhile, the trailer trash treasure will fill the seats of the workforce twenty years down the road.

 

My girlfriend’s peers are a perfect example of what I mean. All these women are great people and I respect them all highly, albeit in different capacities. One has a master’s degree in biology (specialization? I don’t know). One is finishing their master’s in marine biology. One is a state safety inspector, with all the degrees and qualifications it entails. Out of all her friends, the one most likely to have more than replacement-level children is a retired MP from the Army, though at 27 there is still no first child yet.

 

All of these women are strong and independent by feminist standards (and are truly good people), yet despite achieving great things the almighty Gnon will punish them as genetic dead-ends. Is that fair? Well, that depends on who’s terms we’re using. I can put myself into the shoes of any of these women and imagine the feeling of accomplishment I get from serving my country or getting that master’s degree. But, often times, what’s good for the individual isn’t good for the whole. By Gnon’s terms these women are failures, despite the fact that many of us individuals, such as myself, don’t see it that way.

 

This is an area where our morals and Gnon’s morals do not coincide. Unfortunately, Gnon is the keeper of the physical universe, and his morals will supersede our own, eventually. The only thing that Gnon wants is a strong species that can survive anything thrown at it. Survival, in whatever capacity the environment may call for, is the ultimate measurement of success. Things that make us happy are immaterial to the grand scale of the species.

 

Feminism as an ideology is against Gnon’s morality in almost every way, for it enables weakness and dysgenics. The “good” news is: that which is not sustainable will inevitably end, thus feminism will eventually end. The downside is that many good women, who would otherwise send their abilities down the line to a hundred daughters, will also go down with the ship.

 

And Gnon won’t weep for them.

A primer of Gnon and Ethics

In my next few posts I’ll attempt to explain how modern-day leftism, and more importantly Feminism, is immoral in a basic sense of survivor morality. Before I do that, I need to talk to you about where I believe the survival morality comes from: my Lord and Savior, Gnon.

 

If you’ve followed select neo-reactionaries on twitter or their blogs, you likely recognize the reference to Gnon. If you’re not part of the club, or if you just don’t know what the fuck they mean, then I will tell you. Gnon simply means Mother Nature. Gnon is really an acronym of Nature Or Nature’s God, reversed. A reversed acronym indicates how cool we are. And yeah, we are breaking convention to put Or in the acronym.

 

But all you need to know is that when someone says Mother Nature, they mean Gnon. When I say Gnon, I mean Mother Nature. No, Mother Nature (or Gnon) doesn’t actually exist. Rather, they are a fictional personifications of the natural forces we see the real world.

 

It is in the same way sailors call the sea “angry” when a storm is coming. No, the sea as a massive body of water doesn’t have a limbic system, let alone a consciousness, which allows it to “feel” anger. We humans personify the sea as angry to better describe what’s going on. It makes what we see simple and concise enough to tell others easily.

 

You can teach the basics of evolution – that when organisms reproduce their offspring have slightly different characteristics than their parents, meaning some offspring are more suited to survive, and when those survivors mate, their offspring are slightly different too. You can expand this principle for millions of years and add to the discussion the different kinds of environmental pressures these organisms face. Don’t forget the different kinds of selection pressures, the why and how, the roadblocks and the competition trying to evolve beyond their peers. However, digging deeper into the concept causes us to lose the forest for the trees. When we take a step back and examine the system in a wider-scope, we can see a beautiful interplay of life, death, chaos and order. When Creationists see the beauty behind evolution, they call it Intelligent Design, as if species are being sculpted from generation to generation by a higher intelligence.

 

But where Creationists see God, secularists and neo-reactionaries see Gnon. Instead of evolution coming from God, neo-reactionaries have created a fictional God to give character to evolution. We are, essentially, giving the universe a spirit where one doesn’t exist.

 

Here’s a basic overview Gnon:

 

Gnon as a God of Life – we see that, when given the chance, all life will find a way to survive. It will always carve out a niche to stay alive and if there is a void where there is no life, life will colonize it. If given the chance and given no resistance, every single organism in existence, from a bacterium, to a sunflower, to a mammoth, will divide and grow to conquer the universe. Every, single, one. This constant growth is the life essence of Gnon.

 

Gnon as an uncaring God of Death – we see that every creature will eventually die. The universe doesn’t stop in mourning for the dead and the forces of the universe don’t care if it wipes out entire planets through a supernova. Predators don’t care when they eat their prey alive, and no physical force in the universe intervenes to stop this or any slaughter. Thus, Gnon doesn’t care about killing all he has created.

 

Gnon as a God of Conflict – we see every species fight for survival, whether that be against predators, against prey, or against members of its own species in the struggle to mate. There is no Eden in the known universe where there is harmonious peace between all living organisms. Gnon, in this sense, is a God of perpetual struggle and war.

 

Gnon as the God of Change – we see that not only must every creature fight for survival, but they must adapt to constantly evolving predators, prey, competition and environment. The nature of the universe results in the weak and unchanging dying and the strong and adapting surviving, though what constitutes “weak” or “strong” depends on the environment each creature faces. What determines victory or defeat is Gnon’s crucible.

 

Gnon as a God of Sex – we see that sex, or at least reproduction, is the end goal for all living organisms. Without reproduction there is only extinction. This obsession with propagation within all organisms is the influence of Gnon, for Gnon wants continuation above all things.

 

Gnon as a God of Ascension – through the processes of change, evolution, life and death, the result is an ever-ascending species. If there is a continuous end-goal for the universe, Nature, or Gnon personified, it is to create an Apex species, one that has reached maximum survival potential.

 

I hope you’re able to conceptualize what I mean by Gnon. Personify what you see in the universe, and you’ll likely see not a beneficent or maleficent force guiding the it but a neutral deity with its own ends and means.

 

Gnon’s Morality

 

Of course, Gnon, like any deity, has a set of ethics. Gnon’s ethics ultimately come down to this: Questions of morality are moot if there’s no one alive to ask them. Thus, survival is Gnon’s one and only Law. All other aspects of morality that we humans call “morality”, like being a “good person” by not murdering, stealing, etc., depend on the species not dying. Sometimes our moral laws coincide with Gnon’s. Sometimes they do not.

 

According to Gnon, all our moral prescriptions like liberty, virtue, faith, justice, and human rights are variables, not constants. They are contextual, not immutable. There are times when freedom leads to survival, and times when it does not, same for fascism, democracy, socialism, capitalism, theism and atheism. No idea, system, action or choice is off the table, for, as per the Life aspect of Gnon, life will find a way with any tool available. To us, it means that all systems and actions are moral or immoral depending on the outcome: will we live or won’t we? This form of ethics may sound too simplistic, but it is actually complex in that it opens our horizons and gives us possibilities, while at the same time forcing us to make hard choices as to which path we choose and to what extent. Underneath it all is the one Law: survival.

 

Next week, I’ll have a post explaining what I see in Liberalism/Feminism going against Gnon. Stay tuned.

 

Links:

www.xenosystems.net – the-cult-of-gnon

www.moreright.net – capturing-gnon

www.moreright.net – experiments in post-rational religion

Privilege or Oppression?

500px-Yin_yang.svg

From a single action comes evil and good entwined. In every thing there is some darkness and some light. There is never any perfect good and evil. Maybe they those concepts exist purely in the spiritual metaphysics of another dimension, but not here in the real world. When you clear your mind of bias you can then identify the good and evil in all things with just a little shift in perspective.

 

With this in mind, let’s play a game. I’m going to give you a fact of life and your job is to tell me whether that is considered privilege or oppression.

 

Men are physically stronger than women. Privilege or Oppression?

 

Privilege, right? Considering that with greater physical strength means that, in relativistic terms, the world itself and all the objects upon it are lighter and more easily moved, granting men more agency to navigate the world. One would be mostly correct in saying men’s greater strength is a privilege. But you would be only mostly correct.

 

Because of that greater strength, men are now elected and directed as society’s protectors, warriors, and hunters – careers which come with a greater risk of death. Men make up the greatest numbers of workplace fatalities, to say nothing of causalities in war either. Is that true privilege?

 

Here we have a scenario of innate, biological privilege being met with the socially imposed and non-voluntary duty to use it in service of the whole, which some might consider oppression. Just like everything has some darkness and some light, with every privilege comes some sort of balance, whether that be fewer rights, freedoms, or, in this case, forced conscription. So the question for you, reader, do the costs of the oppression balance out the benefits of the privilege?

 

Let’s look at it from the other side. Women are physically weaker than men. Is this oppression of privilege?

 

It’s oppression in the sense that nature itself has left women disadvantaged to a great degree, in defending themselves, in ability, in agency. The feminist would conclude that nature is sexist and that women are oppressed. But just as biological privilege in men is met with social oppression in the form of a duty to protect, women’s biological oppression is met with social privilege. Women are not conscripted to fight in war. The disparity in strength means she has people to fight for her rather than she fight for herself. If a 200 pound man punches another 200 pound man then it is nothing more than a fistfight, whereas if a 200 pound man punches a 130 pound woman, it is a call to arms in her defense.

 

Let’s take another example. Using the words of the feminists themselves, women are the only sex that can “create life”. Privilege or Oppression?

 

Per the female supremacists of the world, the ability to “create life” is a privilege that women hold that men do not. But with that biological privilege (no different than men’s innate strength) comes the social oppression of limiting women’s sexual behavior. In time’s past, societies recognized this power of female sexuality and reproduction, and also realized that some women didn’t know how to control this power from their impulses, creating numerous bastard children, which would then contribute to the breakdown of their little society. In response to this privilege, societies the world over forced women into arranged marriages and controlled their sexuality, thus instituting what feminists would rightly call oppression. However this oppression was a merely balancing act against the power of women’s privilege, just as men were oppressed with conscription for their strength.

 

Similarly, because women had the privilege of knowing knew who their children were, but men did not, society imposed another balancing act against women, requiring them to be chastise. And since men could not bear children, society elected them the privilege of (relative) sexual freedom.

 

When there is an innate, biological privilege that one sex has over the other, society will impose social oppression on that sex. When one sex is innately disadvantaged, or in other words oppressed, society will enact artificial privileges for that sex. Example: men are strong, but they must fight; women are weak, but they are protected. Everything is a trade-off.

 

Looking at how these rights and responsibilities come together, it’s hard to see systematic oppression on one side and/or total privilege on the other. Being born a man or women came with advantages and disadvantages, and as long as there are corresponding benefits to smooth over one’s limitations then the system should work properly. Unfortunately, one has to be intellectually honest to avoid seeing the world as black and white, and the current crop of social science academics has no inclination to see past their biases.

 

This is what feminists, egalitarians and cultural Marxists get so wrong. They don’t understand the other side of the coin because they would rather believe a narrative with a clear hero and clear villain. When looking at society, Feminists see only women’s oppression and men’s privilege, but not women’s privilege or men’s oppression. Their worldview is so black and white that many can’t even entertain the idea that there was once harmony between the sexes. No, women’s sexual freedom was repressed for no reason and without any corresponding benefit. No, men’s strength and ability was encouraged without any responsibility to go along with it.

 

This, of course, is madness. Truly enlightened people do not only see in absolutes, but rather in costs and benefits. That is why, for the feminists and egalitarians, equality in their eyes translates to injustice in the real world, for the real world in ages past might not have been “equal”, as both sexes having the exact same privileges and responsibilities, but it was more fair than this one.

 

Now we’re in an age of imbalance because of this feminist, egalitarian view. Women hold on to their ancient privilege while simultaneously being unburdened from having any and all duty or obligation. Men, however, get to keep all their responsibilities without the corresponding privilege to keep them invested in society. Hence why men are beginning to go their own way and check out of the system.

 

I say more power to them. Until we can recognize the importance of balance over equality, there is no reason to contribute to a teetering, unsustainable system.

Hate in the Era of Social Justice

Something to keep in mind about the human race is that despite the advances in technology, we are still very much cavemen at heart and technology likely won’t change that for a long time. Granted, there are things about the modern age which cross our psychological wires and produce deformities in us cavemen, like facebook contributing to attention whoring and the easy, modern world contributing to narcissism, but these defects are defects for a reason. Most of the time, we humans function with the same wiring as we have for the last several thousand years, wiring that governs love, sex, and, in this case, hate.

 

Hate is a strong emotion that can be appropriate or inappropriate depending on context. Hating something after studying it in depth and coming to the conclusion that it is evil is one thing. Hating something because of the exact opposite, because you don’t understand it, or because you were simply told to hate it, is another thing entirely.

 

We humans are wired for both kinds of hate, and we have hated as such for thousands upon thousands of years. The sudden advent of the modern world, John Lennon’s Imagine and the hippies et al to the contrary have done nothing to stop the emotion from erupting from our deepest, most primitive lobes. The only difference is where the hate is directed.

 

In every era, the establishment has deemed a scapegoat for hate in order to turn the masses in service to the establishment. Whether this hate is justified or not makes no difference.

 

In the past, the establishment, the church, cultivated hate toward pagans and witches. The establishment of the Catholic Church generated hate against the Lutherans, and the Lutherans designed their own hate against the Catholics. Blacks, Irish, Italians, Polaks, Chinese, Jews, etc. were all designated as hate targets at one time or another so the political establishment at the time could benefit by the outrage. The masses took the bait, as they always have, and always will, and proceeded to incite their own witch-hunts, lynching’s, mobs and genocides.

 

We’re fortunate that we live in a world that has grown up and left that hate behind. Or do we truly live in that world? Has the world changed? Have we changed? Unfortunately not.

 

We do not see less hate today because it is an emotion locked away within our most primitive hindbrain. Like sex and hunger, and the fight or flight mechanism, it simply won’t go away even after a few tokes and a kumbaya. We are, after all, still cavemen.

 

One could say that we are more intelligent and educated, thus inoculating us from hate. Problem is, plenty of intelligent people were witch hunters who sent plenty of other people to the stake. If anything, more intelligent people are more adept at justifying their prejudices than people who understand that they know so little.

 

The psychology of the human animal doesn’t change much in a thousand years, only the establishment does. The only reason why we don’t hate Polaks like before isn’t because we’ve become more tolerant of them, but because the establishment has changed and Polaks, Chinese, Italians, etc. are no longer a threat to the Powers That Be. Instead, that level of hate has been redirected once again by the current establishment for its own purpose.

 

That current establishment can be described many ways – liberalism, progressivism, egalitarianism – but no matter what name you use, it is still some form of Cultural Marxism – the belief of human equality, of class oppression, and of racial/gender privilege. In contrast to its predecessors, this establishment wants to put on the guise of tolerance and acceptance to “diversity”, but like all establishments that came before it cannot exist without the masses hating a designated group. However in this era, they cannot hate any particular national, religious or racial group like the belief systems of before.

 

In order to sidestep this hypocrisy, the establishment has elected a new hate target that simultaneously allows the masses to hate in its service while also seeming righteous and tolerant. These targets are now racists, sexists, and the privileged. In other words, white males are the new pagans while the new masses of torch-bearers are Social Justice Warriors.

 

If you read the blogs of tumblr, or wander the social justice twitter feed, or even just talk to one of these people, you will likely notice a psychology of intense hatred. Replace what they say about whites with the word black, or replace man with the word woman, and you’ll see how strong their hate is. And that is being charitable. The way they mobilize a mob to burn down people’s careers and lynch their reputations shows how closely they follow the ancient script. If born in a different era, the Social Justice Warriors would have wielded the torch that set witches on fire, or the bombs that destroyed churches. It’s not as if Social Justice Warriors truly like black people (for example), for they can be just as racist as anyone else, instead they just hate racists and privileged so much more. They don’t like women, they hate men. They don’t like Islam, they hate Christianity. They don’t want to work hard to build something of their own, they just want to tear something down. Their hate is so pure and strong, like their forerunners, and is justified all the same by the establishment’s mouthpieces, whether they be priests or professors.

 

But just as there are witch hunters in every era who follow the commands of the establishment, there are skeptics in every era who are not without reason. These men and women were the ones to reject and question the ideology of their day. They were enlightened enough to balance their feelings with reason, and likely walked away from the mob, or took a stance against to. Today, ironically, these people are so called bigots, and are labeled as misogynists and racists for the crime of seeing reality. They are red pillers who stand against, not with, the Social Justice Warriors and their mob, though the Social Justice Warriors themselves would die before they admit this.

 

It’s sad to see how history repeats itself. The lessons of tolerance were never learned, but instead repackaged and rebranded into another form of bigotry. The Social Justice Warriors don’t realize that they are the useful idiots of another era, the people who absorbed the ideology of their times and are all too happy with dispensing it.

 

Remember. People don’t change. Institutions do.

 

My advice to current and converting red-pillers is to not be like the useful idiots of this or any other time. Don’t let hate guide your life because it’s a fleeting emotion liable to make you a pawn, but don’t try the futile attempt to eradicate hate because it will never happen. Instead, balance your emotions with your reason. Do not focus on tearing something down; instead focus on building something up.

Dealing With the Unenlightened

“They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God’s power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is inflation of the ego to its ultimate — confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten man.”

– The Man in the High Castle.

 

For example:

 

SJWtweet

 

This may sound like an unrelated question, but does this person seem “enlightened” to you? Okay, don’t laugh.

 

No, of course they’re not the pilgrim found at the top of the mountain.

 

But first: what do I mean about enlightenment? You can go back and forth with differing schools of thought on the subject, but here is my personal (opinionated) answer: enlightenment is a state of mind which allows you to see the world as it is. It doesn’t require great intellect, wisdom, or experience, though all of them can help. Rather, the central core which uplifts intellect to enlightenment is the clarity of sight – the ability to observe things without personal bias.

 

The problem is that we all have our biases. These biases are bound to our ego, which attaches to little pet ideologies as comforts and validations. The ego believes it has the powers of God, powers to shape the world in its image. The ego holds on to childish fantasies and cannot stand when someone, or even reality itself, stands in the way of their dreams. When confronted, it attacks with ferocity and insults, like the example above. Ego – that is the tale-tell sign of the unenlightened.

 

I believe we are different. “Taking the red pill” isn’t just about gaining new knowledge, but shattering the ego that held onto the old. We are lucky that our misfortune came with wisdom (or that our fortune came with a price, depending on how you look at it). And while we haven’t reached the apex of complete understanding, we have taken a step beyond most people. Granted, there are still some drama queens kings in the comments sections of heartiste and RoK with much learning to do, but for every comment posted I’m sure there are a handful of unseen guys who know better.

 

Finally, here’s my suggestion on how to deal with the unenlightened: treat them like children. The divide between the enlightened and the unenlightened is as wide as the gap between a parent and a child. Does a parent scream at a child the way a child screams at them? No, so let the unenlightened rage while you remain calm. Does a parent hold their child’s naive views as equal to their own? No, so let the unenlightened speak but don’t think you’re required to listen. Does a parent feel obligated to entertain the tantrum? No, so ignore them, go your own way.

 

There were times in the past when I got so wrapped up in youtube debates that I would think about what I’d say, what my opponent would likely respond with, and how I’d counter that response while I was at work or dinner, or even trying to sleep. My heart would race when I’d go to check my email, because I expected to see their username with one new comment. At the end of the day, what did all that accomplish? For the handful of people that I might have swayed, it cost me too much in personal anguish. I did that because I needed the validation. I needed something to do with my time. In the end, it wasn’t worth it and it made me a pathetic person from the constantly checking and validating of my ego.

 

Now, I couldn’t give a shit. I don’t view the comments section on youtube, and rarely anywhere else. Only a handful of times a year will I even write my own comment on someone else’s blog. Even though I’ve remained largely silent and observant, I have become far happier and far less invested in finding validation for my views.

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 2: Ruining Dinner Parties… And Everything Else.

A friend of mine is an assistant professor at a very liberal school in a very liberal town in a fairly liberal state. He teaches Marxism for fuck’s sake, and yet he is still my friend precisely because we have unspoken lines regarding certain discussions that we do not cross. Any political or religious debate between us would only harm our friendship, and so we mutually avoid those topics for the good of our relationship. Most sane people understand this and would prefer to never know their associates’ political or religious orientations, whether they be friends, family, or coworkers.

 

What you don’t want is to make politics, or religion for that matter, a primary focus for an organization that has no political or religious purpose. For example, people go to work not to have debates, but to actually work. Any injection of politics in that scenario would only divide the workers/management against each other, make them less productive, and harm the organization itself. Whether this is your business, your family, your fiction or even your video games, we’d all prefer to leave unnecessary, galvanizing topics out of the mix. Broaching those topics requires a specified time and place, and clear ground rules.

 

And this is precisely why Social Justice Warriors suck so much, and should be met with almost universal scorn, even from people of their own political orientation. Unlike everyone else who would rather keep these stances private, or left in the voting booth, the Social Justice Warriors want to inject their cocktail of politics into every medium and organization that doesn’t adequately stop them at the door. They are driven by self-righteousness moralizing, and so they see every parcel of media as a new opportunity to spread their ideology.

 

Folks like Larry Correa lament the intrusion of SJW’s into science fiction. In an ideal world, science fiction is meant to entertain, first and foremost, for if you have no story as part of your storytelling, then you are merely writing an awkwardly-constructed essay. Politics and religion are only means to an end – to give the story character. To make politics or religion the focal point in fiction and force the story into the backseat is to undermine the ends for the means. However, the SJW sees this as an opportunity to spread their gospel, and so they write politically-correct fables set in space yet can’t conceive why their sales plummet. Must be the internet or video games or something taking peoples’ attention.

 

Speaking of video games, have you heard of Zoe Quinn? Right. Enough said. Moving on…

 

It won’t just end with Video Games. They are merely the latest casualty. Comics, movies, television are eroding bastions for social justice. Where once these things were treated apolitically so that more people could enjoy them, unified in a common attraction to those genres, titles, or forms of entertainment, they are now being divided by the politics of the Social Justice Warriors. Games must showcase not only a rainbow coalition, but must acquiesce to the Perpetually Offended. Heroes must be gender-bent, racial-bent, with ambiguous sexualities. It is no longer about the entertainment itself. All media must teach a code of Social Justice. And once the power of political correctness has made the region toxic, the Social Justice Warriors will move to the next opportunity to “educate” the masses.

 

They are the leftist equivalent of the church lady who brings up religion at every casual gathering, or the evangelical who is obsessed with proselytizing at every opportunity. Imagine if we were in a dimension where every comic hero had to reference Judeo-Christian values, and every video game had a Christian message. What if every science fiction story was a quasi-biblical tale where plot was sacrificed for message? What would we think of that world where such media not only merely existed but that most media was that way, and the crowd pushing those values wanted more without end, attacking anyone who stood in their way as a heretic?

 

We would clearly see the intrusion for what it was – a divisive measure used to propagate certain views. We would distance ourselves from it. We would react against the proselytizers.

 

That is why, in this world, we need to react against the Social Justice Warriors. In their quest for tolerance, they produce hatred. In their quest for inclusion, they produce separation.

 

This is not a right/left issue, but an issue of personality flaws. Honestly, there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to solve problems of injustice, by whatever metric one tends to view them. What’s toxic is the psychopathology, the egotistical desire behind them which will ruin all institutions that harbor these people, whether they are the hipster indie game dev conning their way to produce the banal Social Justice Quest, or the bible-thumping preacher found smoking meth in the men’s bathroom. They are merely different manifestations of the same psychosis.

 

This obsession with trying to change the world in your image must be reversed. Until that happens, there’s no point in getting mad or being surprised that the infection has spread.

 

*

These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 1: Characters Without a Story

Take a man born to a mother and father who struggled through the depression. Give him a rifle and send him to war to see the faces of his comrades go pale as they succumb to their mortal wounds on some no-name pacific island. Take a girl raised in the dust bowl and give her a job in the munitions plant, so that at the end of the day she can buy some rations for her family. When the troops come home, the man and woman find each other in a postwar world of sudden abundance. They start a family, and the living is easy. They want to give their children a better life than what they faced.

 

Those children grow up without struggle and conflict. The streets are safe and their family is relatively well-off, thanks to America’s economic boom. However, their easy lives don’t give them true challenge, and thus no true meaning. They live without knowing who or what they are, until they are given a university education and are told of the oppression in the world. Up till that point, their lives are an uninteresting story with no upward arch, but with this narrative their lives could finally have validation. They define themselves by fighting oppression in the racial conflict, in the battle against the patriarchy, in the fight against poverty, in defense of the planet. They, the baby boomers, are the first activists, the first Social Justice Warriors. They assumed the roles of power in the universities, media, and government, but their greatest power would come from having their own children.

 

The children of the baby boomers live in a world with no major wars. The greatest threat to the west ends with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They too are born into a playpen without struggle and thus without definition in their stories. After incorporating the teachings of the elder activists, they then perpetuate the cycle further and push the policies of political correctness into new territory. They propagandize the media and sanitize the discourse, setting the stage for their descendants.

 

Now, their children live in a world without physical struggle. They have no great depression or a great war. Every convenience and entertainment is bestowed upon them without cost. They have ingested the politics stuffed into them by the two previous generations, and so their zeal outshines their parents, but so does the void in their heart. They live without struggle in America’s middle class, raised by parents who lived without struggle in America’s middle class, raised by parents who, also, lived without struggle in America’s middle class.

 

Their lives have no story. No one will talk about them after their deaths. They are average nobodies in a faceless crowd, and part of them knows this. They search for some meaning or some way to differentiate themselves from others. But in this world of abundance, the only supposed conflict is the narrative of oppression. In order to avoid looking at the emptiness in their lives, they’ve that cast themselves as the protagonist of their own movie, fighting the good fight against the evils of the world. That is why they fight so hard, with so much zeal and hatred and loathing against their make-believe villains. It is all an attempt to make themselves a hero and give themselves a story. It is the only thing keeping them from complete existential annihilation.

 

All Social Justice Warriors, from the hippies of the 1970’s to today’s Tumblr activists, are all searching for some reason to live. While their grandparents and great grandparents found meaning from overcoming the odds and antagonists against them, these children only have their role in the narrative.

 

The Social Justice Warriors believe the problem is the world, when, in reality, the problem is within them. The problem has always been within them. If only they realized that if they simply filled the void inside themselves then all would be made right. Their fears and hatred would dissipate. They would find happiness. And they would be truly defined, maybe even enlightened.

*

These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

Dildocracy Defined

(I didn’t invent the term Dildocracy, but it’s missing from the manosphere lexicon.)

 

Dildocracy: a social, political and/or economic system that seeks to replace any negative feelings, pain, or inconvenience with expedient pleasure without significant cost.

 

There are three heads to this beast: the social dildocracy of activism, the political dildocracy of vote-mining, and the economic dildocracy of consumerism.

 

1: Social Dildocracy – ex: Feminism

 

Every activist crusade from the social justice camp ultimately seeks one goal: the elimination of discomfort. They are all Utopian, which means they seek the a state of Dildocracy, of all pleasure, no oppression. While Feminism isn’t the only culprit, I’ll be using Feminism in this instance because it is the best example from our perspective in the manosphere. The ideology is our main antagonist, after all.

 

If you look at Feminism’s main advocacy-points without the lens of the Dildocracy then few things about the ideology are consistent. Why would Feminists advocate for female empowerment but attack the means to empower women? Check out this post from Larry Correa. It’s old news, but it is illuminative of such an inconsistency. In short, Miss Nevada gave some practical advice to stop rape: learn to kick some ass and carry a gun. Feminists rallied behind her to support her message, in some alternate dimension that, sadly, isn’t this one. In this world, they became outraged and offended, as always. But why? Surely carrying a weapon will reduce (though not eliminate) the dangers of rape, and not only rape but assault, robbery, and murder too. Their contradictory stances make no sense, without realizing the Dildocracy.

 

Rape makes people feel bad. Feminists feel bad in particular if this happens to women. So they’re against rape – not a controversial opinion. However, the Left (Feminism included) regards guns as no-good-very-bad-things because guns kill people, like children. Learning to shoot a gun means getting out of your house, learning a skill (with a deadly weapon no less) in preparation for facing future danger. That’s just compounded layers of badfeels. At the same time, carrying a weapon doesn’t eliminate all rapes, or murders, robberies, assaults, etc. so there is still danger out there thus why Feminists are still angry, because some danger remains. The only consistent position to hold as a Feminist, in a Dildocracy, is to be both against rape and against shooting someone to prevent rape. The only “rational” decision for the Dildocratic Feminist is to rail against both from the safety of one’s locked apartment, hoping that telling men not to rape (a unchallenging, masturbatorial activity at best) will be society’s saving grace.

 

The Dildocracy doesn’t tolerate “oppression”, because it is a barrier to constantly feeling good. At the same time, the Dildocracy doesn’t want people to confront their “oppression”, because that doesn’t feel good either. The tumblurists, the feminists, the anti-racists and all other activists sit at the center of this inconsistency, wanting their ideal society, but lacking the balls to exact change. Once again, this doesn’t just apply to Feminism. The underlying motivation for the march of progressivism is the elimination of pain and a utopia brimming with dopamine. For those of us who have been made into better men because of pain, this view is seen as a formula for disaster.

 

2: Political Dildocracy – ex: Democracy and Political Correctness.

 

When you strip the concepts down to their core, Democracy and Dildocracy describe the exact same process. In my opinion, they might as well be the exact same term.

 

Democracy is just another word for popularity contest, and popularity contests aren’t won by those swinging the flail of hard truth, facts, and logic, because reality itself cares not for feelings. The honest politician who dispenses truth will dispense offense, and offending the constituents is the quickest way to finding a new career. The politicians of the Dildocracy were the ones to spawn political correctness. No matter how true a fact is, if it offends then it must be removed from the discourse, by the torch and pitchfork if necessary. To win, politicians must gently pluck the feels of the masses, conjuring hope their own pet ideologies and rage against their opposition. It is a delicate melody that avoids offense at all costs, one that never says, “no, you can’t have [X]”.

 

If one defines the “greater good” as giving the voters anything they want, then the Dildocracy is the perfect system. However it’s hard for me to believe that the goodfeels of the masses will coalesce into a perfect and sustainable central plan for society. As we are seeing now, the Dildocracy leads to political ruin.

 

3: Economic Dildocracy – ex: Consumerism.

 

Tell me, what about our consumer economy is designed to go against the dynamic highlighted above? The whole purpose of the market is to fulfill demand, or, putting it another way, desires. No company would be profitable doing anything else, which isn’t necessarily a problem outside of a Dildocracy. If the economy is young and still growing then innovation is usually focused on greater productive efficiency. However, when you have an economy like ours which is focused on consumption for the sake of consumption then every product is made to feel good, to stroke the physical and emotional sensibilities of the populace while mitigating any inconvenience from their lives. Essentially, dildos.

 

Plugged in, drugged out, overfed and unchallenged are ultimate outcomes of the economy because they are the path of least resistance in the human psyche. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not blaming the market for working as it’s supposed to; it is merely an expression of human actors. However, I am saying that the unnatural process of reducing all human action to goodfeels is a natural part of the market, given enough time.

 

Conclusion

 

The Dildocracy is antithetical to everything the manosphere/reactosphere stands for. We are about improvement; the Dildocracy is about dumbing down. We are about truth and insight; the Dildocracy is about feelings over facts. We are about leaving the comfort zone; the Dildocracy is about making everything the comfort zone. We seek challenge; the Dildocracy eliminates it.

 

Struggle by definition isn’t comfortable, but the challenge gives us the opportunity for personal growth, whether in victory or defeat. Pain is an essential tool which tells your body and psyche that something is wrong. Criticism and offense can hurt sometimes, but they are necessary components of development. All of these things and more lead to a better person, and better people.

 

The Dildocracy’s fundamental premise is to remove these things for temporary pleasures. It renders all things, both virtue and vice, into a Brave New World of never-ending, artificial dopamine injections – meaningless experiences without context or challenge – and it must be opposed. We must fight against Utopia.