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 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.

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: – the-cult-of-gnon – capturing-gnon – experiments in post-rational religion

Politics and Pathological Altruism

Pathological altruism occurs when a person’s sense of beneficence extends to such a radical degree that their actions inevitably cause harm and suffering for both themselves and the beings they’re trying to help.


The crazy cat lady who takes care of too many animals is easy to recognize. When the targets – the altruistic supply – are animals, we can see plainly that the “caregiver” hasn’t the mental faculty to allow something to survive on its own.


However when humans are in the equation, we never question the motives or psychology of the altruist. Could caring for our fellow man not signal some kind of psychological depression in the do-gooder just as it does with the animal hoarder? In fact, I would be more skeptical of the humanitarian than the animal hoarder because at least the animal hoarder is trying their best to care for real, actual beings that they can see and touch, while the humanitarian desires to help people they have never met, people who live in far-off lands, people that exist as an abstract character in the realm of the mind and outside the territory of the monkeysphere.


So if someone says they care for Africans while living in the first world then I can only conclude that the speaker is posturing and they don’t really, truly care (which indicates narcissism), or that they do indeed care for beings they’ve never met (which indicates hyperactive/pathological altruism).


While Anonymous Conservative has made his mark by studying the link between narcissism and leftist politics, I believe there is a similar link between pathological altruism and the left because both narcissism and pathological altruism originate in the same place – the deficient ego – but manifest differently.


The leftist pathological altruist, that is to say the human animal hoarder, is fueled between two main motivations: status signaling, and care-giving as a means to relieve emotional pain. In the former, the altruist wants to extend their care to all the animals (or humans) in the world in order to climb over the average pack of humans to become an exceptional (and transcendental) moral being. In the latter, the altruist feels a deep loathing, or deep sadness, or more likely guilt inside themselves that only the care for others could possibly relieve. Add to that the notion the left holds that people are all connected, that all humans are human, that we are all citizens of the Earth and that no one is an illegal alien, and the world suddenly opens up to become the altruist’s psychological supply (not all that different than the narcissist’s narcissistic supply). The targets of the altruist don’t even have to be real, living humans. The altruist only needs to believe these humans exist.


In truth, thousands of humans, even human children, die every day by disease and starvation. No sane person would weep for each individual the way they mourn their own parents, or siblings, or children. Thousands of lives are born and die and the vast majority of the world carries on with business as usual. It would be madness to do otherwise. The image of a child, dead on some foreign beach, is supposed to trigger the altruist, but it should not evoke anything from any normal person. Why? Because, relative to us, that child did not even exist the day before – none of us had even heard of him, let alone met him. These people are fictions, because they only exist in the realm of narrative. Unless you can talk to them, see them, touch them, then they might as well be characters in a movie.


I can’t treat every human being that crosses my path as my own family, unlike the cat lady who can treat every stray as her pet. I have a mental territory, my monkeysphere. It has boundaries.


The left will not draw these lines because it means people will die, and their altruism will not let that happen. Turning away people at the border means that some of them will die, just as turning away wild animals means they too may die. Cutting off the single mother once she’s had her Xth child, or cutting off the drug dealer, or criminals, means that some people will fall through the cracks and possibly die. The left doesn’t like this reality. They don’t want people to experience needless pain, so they make no barriers and they will never turn their back on others. In their view, everyone must be taken care of, no matter who or for how long. Their universalist, one-species-one-people ideology, however, turns the Earth into a glorified animal shelter, and like any overcrowded animal shelter, it will result in needless pain for those who run it as well as those who within.


When that lady on animal hoarders looks around at the walls painted with cat urine and reduced to splinters from the clawing of a hundred paws, she is told that the world she’s made for her pets is a living hell, both for them and herself. She is told that, had she never taken them in, they would have fought to survive on their own, that many would have died, but the far-reaching consequences for both them and her wouldn’t have been as dire as this. They would not have become dependent. They would not have lived in overcrowded squalor. They would have not gotten sick, and many wouldn’t have needed to suffer.



If the results are so painfully clear to us, then why stop at cats?


I believe the same is true in the artificial state of man’s civilization. What we need is a little dose of sociopathy for the human animal, while at the same time not losing our empathy for those we value.


The key as usual, is found in the wisdom and delicate balance of multiple concepts.


Roosh the Reactionary?

Roosh made a post earlier this week regarding cultural collapse. Not only did he hit a home run in my book, but he split the bat. His post reads like the quintessential political reactionary. Because of that, I am happily surprised. Roosh is a great manoshpere entrepreneur with a wide audience, which has even garnered him some mainstream attention. His previous focus was only really on Game and anti-feminist commentary, so my initial criticism of him was that he was scaling the ladder of enlightenment, taking ever more red pills, but only got so far because he was shackled by Game – a hedonistic past-time. Chasing skirts is all and good, as a phase, but it has a very short horizon. At some point, he needed to step off that ladder of Game and masculinity onto a higher plane. Now, I believe Roosh has attained a far-reaching vision, and now perhaps others in the Game community can do the same. Here are some highlights of his post that I think really hit the mark.


On Religion:


“Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.”


As an Atheist, there is nothing I can disagree with here. Religion is not only individual programming but the operating system of society. The postmodern Atheist thinks this is a horrible, no good, very bad thing. Not me. As a traditionalist, I know they couldn’t be further from the truth. If you take away society’s values and philosophies then all you have left is mindless self-indulgence and a dumbed-down, almost religious exultation of science (which, if the modern Atheist had ever done any actual science, they’d know it’s a tedious, slow, and frustrating process).


We must understand a crucial maxim of the universe: that which is old has survived for a reason. The fact that religion has existed throughout all of history means that there is a beneficial component to it. The fact that there has not been a truly secular society in anywhere on the Earth is very telling of how unstable it is. The religious outbreeding the secular indicates that our stereotypical postmodern Atheist is an endangered species. The past always belonged to the religious. Once our present collapses, so will the future, and in that future the USS Enterprise will have a chapel on every deck.


On Women and Careerism:


“At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.”


Once again, remember the maxim: that which is old has survived for a reason. Men ruled the world because as soon as women became statesmen or captains of industry they stopped having babies, and no babies meant a dead society. Not only is Patriarchy the optimal sexual-social organization, but it is the only sustainable one. If the west wasn’t in the process of bringing in scores of immigrants, the sounds of empty classrooms and abandoned playgrounds would be deafening. As it stands now, the increasing numbers of blacks and mestizos in America are offsetting the population crash that is going on beneath the surface. In every other European and Asian country, there is no denying the decline.


In the grand, evolutionary scheme, career women are biological failures. Families with one child are failures. Hell, any family with two children is a net zero.


That’s harsh to say, because I know many career women who are really good people, and I can’t fault people for being responsible with their reproduction. It’s a sad fate that the west is under at the moment. The incentives are all mixed up. The memes are backwards. The best are being replaced by the mediocre.


Oh well. Not only am I an Atheist, I’m also a Nihilist. Perhaps the collapse will bring about a better world. Or perhaps our species will forever be stuck in this limbo. There’s nothing I can do about it so I might as well enjoy the decline as best I can. Now where’s my cigar?


On Cultural Decline:


“With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.”


The modern world and all its mass media has already rendered local culture a thing of the past. Every TV station is owned by a handful of corporations and media is crafted to appeal to the widest audience possible. There can be no differentiation in local culture when everyone else is talking about the same thing, reading the same gossip, listening to the same music, and watching the same shows all across the country. This is where I disagree with Roosh, because he thinks collapse will happen as a foreign culture consumes the host. However, I don’t believe a foreign culture needs to be in the picture. The host culture can be degraded as the population assumes a mass, manufactured mind. Not only could this happen, or is likely to happen, but it is already happening.


Watching the networks in Portland or Huston really doesn’t matter. All the same shows are broadcasted from coast to coast and their messages are all the same. The Avengers 2 will play in every theatre across the country and we will all see the same damn thing. This makes media the perfect vector for political correctness and an erosion of national identity. Looking at it this way, we can see that Roosh is a bit behind the curve. The Cathedral is already doing what he thinks the immigrants might.


For the English-speaking world, we’re basically finished. The media-industrial complex is too expansive and too entrenched to fight. Even if they do what Roosh assumes and attempt to trade one culture for another, it effect will only be cosmetic against the backdrop of the decline.


My one ray of hope is that I predict the smaller European nations will weather the decline better than US, Canada, and the UK. My reasoning is that language barriers will act as a wall against mass media coming from the English-speaking, progressive world, insulating the smaller nations against cultural degradation. It is in those places where you see the greatest alliance with the land you were born in and the culture around you. The only thing these nations need to fix is their immigration problems and birth rates. Once they do, they’ll have the groundwork needed to thrive.


In the future, not only will the USS Enterprise have chapels on every deck, but the captain will be an Icelandic strongman.


Give the rest of Roosh’s post a read, and check out We Are Nothing More Than Distracted Sheep in the Real Game of Power. It’s interesting to see Roosh’s personal views evolve into something grander.


Democracy as Theocracy

Inspiration for this post was brought to you by Moldbug. Unfortunately, I can’t find his particular post on the subject. Waa waa.


I want to propose a strange idea: democracy does not really exist in the modern age, representative or otherwise.


The idea of democracy is the people’s choice in representatives determines the shape and scope of government. Ideally, this means that the government is not an outside entity which solely acts upon the people, but rather an extension of the will of the people. Sounds great on paper, but, then again, everything does.


So there are lots of problems with democracy: rational ignorance; concentrated benefits, dispersed costs; the tyranny of mob rule. If you’re here then it means you should know some of this stuff already.


Thing is though, the critique usually ends there. The cornerstone of democracy is the idea that the masses get to choose their fate as it pertains to government. But there’s a deeper question. Is voter choice the end of the equation, or is there something else behind it?


Loaded question. You know I’m going to say there is something behind it.


Your genetics determine your tolerances and dispositions, thus it controls how you make your choices. Your environment gives you the feedback, positive, negative or otherwise which also shapes how you come to decisions. Every human mind is rational, excluding the verifiably insane. The differences only come about by and which pieces of information a person is exposed to. This means that the mind can be swayed by persuasion and coercion, depending on how you change the variables. Thus, to have public choice as the foundation of a governmental system misses the reality that people can be manipulated into making certain orchestrated choices.


To put it another way: the will of the people decide representatives. So what decides the will of the people? The will of the people is based on their beliefs, beliefs that can be engineered. It is the prevailing beliefs of our day that sway public policy, and the people who engineer those beliefs are the ones who hold actual power.


The central pillar of power in America is not the government, or the will of the people, but the memeplex which manipulates the voters. What it comes down to is that your “choice” in a democracy is as predictable and malleable as your consumer preferences. For if you can persuade people into buying useless crap, or convince them to pursue a particular lifestyle, then you can change the minds of the voters and thus change the course of government. It’s the ideas that matter most of all. Belief trumps everything.


To consolidate this concept into a sentence (or two): we do not live in a democracy; we live in a quasi-representational theocracy.


Our theocracy is not wrapped around a particular religion, or code explicitly from a religion. Our theocracy is bound up in the ideology of political correctness. Equality, diversity, and “tolerance” are the new commandments. Privilege is the new original sin. Racism, sexism, homophobia are the new heresy. Regardless of whether a politician is Democrat or Republican, both sides have to pander to the dogma of the official church.


In a modern democracy, aka a secular theocracy, the universities are the church while the media is their megaphone. They craft the religion, what is “science” and what is not, what is acceptable discourse and what is not, and who are saved vs. who are damned. This ideology is then handed down to their disciples, which then carry the message to voters, which then determines public policy. The public themselves are merely the middle man, a proxy to give legitimacy to the manufactured belief structure.


The number one reason why the left constantly pushes for more democracy is that the left controls the institutions which shape thought in the west. They know that they have the true beachhead secure, and it’s why libertarians constantly fail in economic policy, and conservatives fail on social policy. Focusing on the voters or arguing about economic theory doesn’t damage the source of the religious belief. Unless media and academia can be undermined or wrestled out of the left’s control, or the left’s religious dogma is attacked as dogma, then there’s no way to win. The good news is that understanding this is the first step toward true change.

The Top 5 “Enlightenment” Fictions


In Buddhism, the concept of enlightenment is analogous to seeing. One must open their eyes to notice the truth before them, however the path to attain clarity of vision is a long and arduous one that calls for the wisdom to defeat bias. Enlightenment is not necessarily collecting knowledge of more and more things, for knowledge by itself means nothing if you don’t have the wisdom and vision to discern what is real and false. Enlightenment has little to do with faith or metaphysics, because the question of how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, or the nature of the afterlife, doesn’t concern the path to seeing.


Which is why I find the historical time known as the “Enlightenment” rather ironic, for it was no true enlightenment at all. Enlightenment thinkers came up with concepts that do not adhere to the east’s vision of enlightenment, which is about breaking down mental fictions to see the world as it is without bias. Instead “Enlightenment thinkers” created some new, fantastical mental fictions that block one’s path to understanding. The Enlightenment was no step forward, but rather a creation of barriers to stop people from actual enlightenment.


In no particular order, these are five hurdles of the enlightenment that currently plague our modern day.




The biggest offender, Equality is the notion that we are all equal, or equally human, or have equal “rights”, or that we should be considered as equals, or that economic equality creates utopian conditions.


It’s mystifying how this meme could exist in reality when reality is anything but equal. No organism is equal to another, even bacteria, because each is differentiated by tiny (or large) changes to its genetic code. Even if two organisms were somehow exactly equal, the fact that they take up different areas of space-time means they are not in perfectly equal environments.


Hierarchy, not equality, is basic to nature, as producers are eaten by consumers, which are eaten by stronger, more powerful predators. There is even stratification within a species as the alphas out-compete the omegas in a winner-take-all contest of strength. No species seems to buck this trend.


But the concept of Equality is usually reserved for humans and not for animals for no other reason than the Egalitarian couldn’t possibly or reasonably defend the equality of animals. The egalitarian will state that we are all human and therefore all equals. Even if one points out that all of these supposedly equal humans do not have equal abilities, the egalitarian will state that we are still all equally human in an unending tautology. If really pressed, they will give up on equality for equality under the law.


But that, of course, would be foolish. There is no equality in justice because what is just punishment for one is not just punishment for another. Circumstances inside and outside of the crime dictate what is appropriate punishment, and it takes wisdom, insight, and reason to figure that out, not an absolute like equality. Should a grandmother of 80 get “equal” punishment as an 18 year old when it comes to manslaughter resulting from a car accident? Should an expecting mother get “equal” amount of jail time, in “equal” conditions as a young, single man? Any practical application of equality under the law will only result in injustice. No one in their right mind would advocate for that, but given this is “Enlightenment” social and political philosophy, right minds are in short supply.


And do I really need to go into the universal failure of enforced economic equality?




This “Enlightenment” concept is not as damaging as “Equality”, but it is far more widespread, encompassing all leftist political thought and even seeping into some of the “right” wing (Jesus I am using a lot of quotation marks).


Natural rights, inalienable rights, God-given rights – I’d hate to break up the party but “rights” don’t actually exist in physical reality. Like Equality, they are metaphysical concepts that we attach to certain sets of behaviors that we really, really, really strongly feel that we should be allowed to do, and/or they are temporary privileges granted by our governments.


But get away from everyone else and their constitutions, and the state of nature has no rights. Animals don’t respect or even understand our abstract fictions. If a meteor takes the lives of the dinosaurs, does it matter if they had rights or not? They’re dead. If a virus brings a child near death, do the rights of the child or the rights of the virus triumph? Obviously when the antagonists are other animals or objects, the discussion is inane. Well, the inane-ness doesn’t stop if humans are doing it. What do your rights matter if a barbarian takes them with a blunt axe to your cranium? “Well the UN declaration of human rights…” is not a magic incantation that protects you from someone who doesn’t give a crap about anyone’s rights.


If there are any rights at all in this world, then it is might makes right. Moral discussions of good and evil don’t matter in the face of someone stronger than you. Call yourself good, call them evil, it means nothing if you lose and they win. Power – that is the only right at the end of the day. No right to education, healthcare, property, or life, at least not in the face of an enemy that defeats you.


That’s the reality, but the “rights” concept is virulent. It infects everyone of almost every political stripe, and is one of the hardest to argue against without looking like a total asshole. But, reality is an asshole. True enlightenment is found in knowing this.




Close on the heels of “rights” is the concept of Liberty, and it’s not hard to see how it’s appealing. Everyone wants to have unfettered agency to do what they want with no one to control their lives. Like children, we all want to be free.


But the question few ask is: can I even handle freedom? The world is full of traps and pitfalls which can render a life wasted – drugs, scam artists, irresponsible decisions, etc. Many people navigate the choices well enough and a few can even thrive in it, but that isn’t reserved for everyone. We must understand that people aren’t equal, and so they do not have the equal ability to make good decisions. Either they lack the foresight of longer time preferences, or their values (or lack of vales) leads to self-destruction. Advocating for Liberty and extending it to everyone as a blanket absolute only means more people will fall into those traps, traps that, in our modern world, are increasing in number. Even the most hardcore libertarian will readily admit that total freedom to do whatever one wants is unacceptable because it violates certain standards, such as the non-aggression principle. Where I differ from them is simply the placement of the goalposts. In the absence of personal insight, it is reasonable for a third party to lend oversight, the justification being that the detrimental effects of limiting their freedoms is far less damaging than their mistakes.


In the abstract, people like the concept of liberty, like they appreciate “equality”, or “rights”, but in practice no one wants the societal chaos of unfettered freedom, and, if they do, then few know how to use it correctly.


Tabula Rasa


Tabula Rasa, or blank slate, is another Enlightenment gem that complements the whole equality fiction quite well. In a nutshell, it is the belief that people are born without any mental blueprint, no psychological/genetic disposition to anything. It is the idea that our minds are completely, 100% malleable and the product of our environment.


Fortunately, anyone with a slight degree of psychological knowledge can spot how false this belief is. Human psychology is both a product of our innate genes, because these genes code for the neurological connections that make up our brains, and a product of our environment, which then shapes those connections. Our brains are adaptive, but they are also hard-wired (and hard-wired to be adaptive). The complex associations of neurons aren’t some homogeneous soup that forms with exposure to culture or society, but follows a definite blueprint. The APA, for example, puts heritability of I.Q. for adults around the 75% mark, meaning the majority of your intellect is the result of your DNA.


Things like personality, propensity to aggression, susceptibility to psychological pathologies, time preference, etc. are just a few examples of heritable traits.


Of course, this erodes the notion of Equality, which must assume that people are perfectly equal at birth, and any discrepancies are a result of their environment, for if people were born inherently different, then there’s no way people can ever be equal.


Can never be equal indeed.


Noble Savage


This one has fallen from grace in the face of more modern anthropology, but it still pops up in Hollywood movies and liberal status circles from time to time. The belief is that outside the realm of modernity and civilization, primitive man lived in a state of peace with his neighbors and with nature. In the past, progressive anthropologists the world over then spent their careers confirming this bias by pointing out how harmonious and placid a native people’s culture was, only for the next set of anthropologists to have to run back to their boats.


“Recent studies have confirmed that mortality from violence is very common in small-scale societies today and in the past. Almost one-third of such people die in raids and fights, and the death rate is twice as high among men as among women. This is a far higher death rate than experienced even in countries worst hit by World War II. Thomas Hobbes’s “war of each against all” looks more accurate for humanity in a state of nature than Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “noble savage,” though anthropologists today prefer to see a continuum between these extremes.”


Even though *some* anthropologists are trying to save face and state that it’s a continuum, there is no doubt in my mind that tribal people were, and still are, far more violent than civilized people. True enlightenment is seeing how civilization civilizes, as the term would suggest, but that would be politically incorrect, i.e. racist.


The quintessential example of this backwards thinking is the movie Avatar, which portrays a primitive, alien, and pre-civilization tribe living in peace with nature, literally becoming one with the animals and planet through their braided ponytails. In contrast, mankind and its technology are displayed as corrupt, artificial, and barbaric.


Yeah, I got it, Dave, Africans Pandorans were living in perfect harmony until the colonialist Whiteman spaceman came and ruined it all. It wasn’t all that subtle.


In reality, civilization brings peace and stability, and far more nobility than living in the Stone Age. Duh. Thankfully, the tribal obsession has fallen out of the mainstream as a cultural guilt bludgeon, but it’s still there in a few places. Time will probably kill this meme off, but not soon enough.




A great deal of intelligent men, far more intelligent than me, mind you, spent their entire lives inventing impressive equations to explain the planetary movements of a geocentric universe. Unfortunately, all their effort was for nothing because they did not see the actual relation of the Earth to the Sun. All their theories rested on an assumption, a mental fiction that the Earth was the center of the universe, which kept them from going any further. Instead, they simply dug themselves deeper and deeper away from the truth with ever more ridiculous justifications. But like I said, those men weren’t dumb. Similarly, if you’re smart, you can employ many impressive mental gymnastics, feats of “logic” and statistically “researched” conclusions for your pet concepts, but it matters little if the root of those concepts are mere fictions, like the geocentric universe. The five concepts I listed above are simply different forms of the same lack of proper vision.

Jujitsu the Narrative



The forces against you are far more powerful than you will ever hope to be. The media controls what ideas the populace will be exposed to and how reality itself is framed. The government will not listen to your pleas and your capacity to influence it by voting in a democracy of millions borders on the effectiveness of homeopathy. Even the politicians have such a limited hold on the function of their own government, since most of the control is in the hands of the unelected civil servants.


This sounds like disconcerting news… at first. However knowing this reality frees you from the futility of fighting back in direct conflict. Society and politics are trending ever leftwards, and, as I said in my previous post, the left cannot be taken on directly because doing so reinforces their position. Why mainstream conservatives push back on every issue is anyone’s guess, but I believe it has something to do with the notion of controlled opposition.


So the left can’t really be attacked, but that doesn’t mean that it will continue unceasing.


When dealing with the PC-left, it’s important to note that they will get more radical as time goes on, because each leftist along the line will try to out-do the other, less leftier leftists so they can gain status among the group. Think of it like a holier-than-thou vegetarian being outdone by an even greater holier-than-thou vegan, who is ultimately outdone by the upmost holier-than-thou fruitarian, except replace meat with privilege and there’s your malfunction. Then, to the degree that leftist problems get “solved”, smaller problems will have to be inflated and given the spotlight to continue the ideology’s momentum. The left must make mountains out of molehills to stay relevant, and with every mountain the ideology will further break from reality. When the whole machine functions in such a way, the trajectory will turn downward for an inevitable collapse. There is no way around it, since salvaging it will be construed as opposition, which then only gives the narrative more power.


In my view, the purpose of the reaction is not to take control of the reigns and save the PC-left from its own demise, but to give the current trajectory a push even further downward, sometimes even mashing the accelerator for good measure.


I foresee two effective strategies in doing this: 1 – humor as a means of redirection, and 2 – amplifying the privilege narrative.


The more victories an organization attains, the greater chance it has of gaining some hubris and making a mistake. When that happens, send out the internet memes. Getting a person to laugh at your joke means that they’ve understood your position and frame. Whether they realize it or not, you’ve got them to grok what you grok with a little touch of dopamine. Secondly, highlighting the absurdity in political correctness puts its adherents on the defensive and off-balance as they try to justify their position to the bystanders.


chanty.binx.young.and.crazy.bitchA good example is the case of infamous feminist “Big Red”. If you’re part of the manosphere then you know who she is, but do you even remember what she and the old MRA were debating? Does it even matter? No one will remember what his talking points, or even the purpose of that MRA conference. What was important was her behavior – how vulgar, aggressive and downright irrational she was. Feminism made the mistake in not bothering to watch its image. She made the mistake in not thinking that thousands on the internet would see her behavior. Debates? Feminism vs Men’s rights? The jesters aren’t concerned with the dialectic.


As far as amplification goes, well, privilege is like sin – everyone has it. On the internet you can call out anyone for their privilege no matter what it is, and you can shield yourself from reverse-accusations by taking on the persona of a poor, black, lesbian, Jewish, transgender, mascul-showing, obese woman on some kind of psychological medication. In other words, you can always flip the privilege script against the liberal and avoid blowback with anonymity. If the PC-leftist submits and flays themselves for the sake of the narrative, then you’ve won. Conversely, if their bleeding hearts clot over and they reject your accusation, then you’ve won by forcing them to reject the privilege narrative. Heads I win, tails you lose.


In the meantime, a counter-narrative based on strength and virtue can flourish in the underground, and it will have to stay in the underground lest it be squashed before it can gain critical mass. Your work as an individual is to make sure you avoid the blowback and ride the decline the best you can while simultaneously keeping yourself and your allies strong.

Man, Family, and Society


I’ve touched on this aspect in my Post-Scarcity/Space Barbarians piece, but I’m going to expand the idea a little more here.


Hat tip to Masculine by Design, who did a followup post on this topic as well.


Because a man works, perhaps in building a bridge or maintaining a car, society is better off from the fruits of his labor. For that work, he gets paid money, which he brings home to support his family, primarily his children, who will follow in his footsteps to continue society. Both ends of this transaction – the work he does and the money he makes – go into supporting society in two vital ways.


However, a man needs incentive to willingly put himself in this position. If a family doesn’t respect him, if he feels as if he has no control over it, or if he feels as if all could be taken at his partner’s whim, then there’s no reason to become part of the transaction. If there are no jobs for a man to work, or if those jobs pay low wages, then there’s no means to make that family.


Traditional Patriarchy seemed to provide the incentive for a man to stay in his position. A father was put as the head of the household to entice him to contribute to it, and because his contribution was so vital. Patriarchy ensured that men would be at the highest echelons of the workforce so they could have the resources needed to support their family. That was the system that kept advanced civilization going for so long, but in our age that dynamic has been undermined.


While the risk of starting a family has decreased for women, it has only increased for men. Women are disproportionately granted custody in divorce proceedings, which are initiated by women most of the time. There is no insurance policy for men when it comes to protecting his investment in his family if it can be taken away by someone else’s whim. When a man loses interest, the duel-benefit from his work evaporates.


But the other side of the transaction – employment – hasn’t held up either. The economic decline hurt everybody, but it hurt men in manufacturing the most. Governmental mishandling of economic policy has turned what was once a strong production-based economy (which favors men) into a service-based, consumption economy (which favors women). Add to that the preferential treatment that women receive in higher education and employment (especially government employment), and you have even greater male marginalization.


On their own, this is enough to contribute to a society’s decline. Low marriage rates and birth rates, combined with alternatively high divorce rates and birth rates out of wedlock point to a social malfunction going on.


But not only are both sides of the reaction crumbling, but the center of the reaction is also being attacked. While obligation and responsibility have been lifted from women because such things were seen as oppressive, men have only received increased burdens and vilification through political correctness and the privilege narrative. The opportunities and respect men once received have completely evaporated. Men, young and old, are now left wondering what place they have in this system. Some find respite here in the manosphere, by rediscovering ancient knowledge or personal strength, while others find comfort in seduction and increasing their social standing through other means. But, the way I see it, those are merely temporary adaptions in the face of a larger problem.


The truth is, men just don’t have a place anymore, for if they did, I would have no need to write this and you would have no need to read it.


If there’s comfort in any of this, it is in knowing that the current social situation is unsustainable. Men and their effort are critical to the continuation of civilization, no substitutions, no exceptions. It is only a matter of time before our society finally fixes male marginalization, or meets its inevitable collapse. There really are no other options. In either case, things will return to equilibrium, eventually. In the meantime, it is up to us to hang in there and stay strong.

Opponent vs Enemy


When I think of the word opponent, I imagine someone in a gi on the other side of the mat, about to kick my ass. For whatever reason, they stand in my way, but they don’t necessarily want to kill me, and I don’t necessarily want to kill them. They are merely my antagonist, and I theirs. I might not want to eliminate an opponent completely because the continual sparring will make sure my strategy is precise or that my strength is adequate. An opponent will show me when and where I’m lacking so that I may correct myself and become stronger. And likewise, I will do the same for them. Whoever is stronger, or more intelligent, or closer to the truth, will win, but one will also be changed from the conflict itself. This is the dialectic that is created between antagonizing beliefs. Each side evolves against one another, and perhaps a greater truth or experience is found as a result of the struggle.


The word enemy, however, comes with an entirely different connotation. When I think of an enemy, I image a horde of barbarians breaking through the gates. They seek only my eradication, because an enemy’s conquest is a winner take all scenario. There are no rules, there is no tapping out, there is no understanding, and the only resolution comes from one side’s complete domination of the other.


It’s important not to get the two confused. Some beliefs or political orientations are our opponents. We do not agree with them and they do not agree with us, and the two stand against one another. Perhaps one must win, but the other doesn’t necessarily need to be erased, for they serve a useful purpose to check our strengths and weaknesses.


I’ve had a few civil discussions with Marxists on the internet and, while we disagree, there wasn’t a sense of assimilate or die. There was no hatred, just disagreement. The Marxists saw things that I didn’t and I saw things that they didn’t. Socialism, libertarianism, traditionalism, left-wing vs right-wing economic and social policy are opponents to each other to varying degrees but I wouldn’t call them enemies. They stand against one another, but each functions as a way to check ideas. Ultimately, people are simply trying to institute plans that, by their view, will make a better world. I personally oppose some Socialist programs but I wouldn’t want a world completely devoid of Socialists, for the Socialists may have a point.


However that’s not to say that every political ideology or worldview is an opponent. Political correctness is an enemy because it treats all antagonists as enemies in its effort to purge all forms of sexism, racism, discrimination, privilege and oppression from society, no exceptions. That means that anyone who holds those beliefs or has any sort of privilege is to be attacked and shamed without respite until total PC’s domination ends the conflict. There is no middle ground and there are no bystanders. There is no room for compromise or discussion. The only option one has is to submit to the ideology, lest you lose your friends, your job, or your business to the rabid furor of the witch hunt. In my view, the appropriate response is to treat political correctness the same way it treats you.