The political left is a paradoxical amalgamation. They’ve built a tent which includes feminists who say that “gender roles” are a societal construct; transsexuals who believe that they were born into the wrong sex; SJWs who scream that all sexual harassment accusations are to be believed; multiculturalists who cover up refugee rape sprees; anarchists who promote violence against police officers; gun-grabbers who want to empower the state; socialists who hate the free market; and corporate slaves addicted to their brand logos and cheap signalling.
They’re an endless mess of contradiction and disagreement, and yet they remain consistent on one thing: attacking, isolating, and destroying anybody who stands against their narrative.
Meanwhile the political right seems to discover a new fractious dispute every week. Despite a coherent and relatively simple set of beliefs which unite its members—individual autonomy and responsibility, distrust of large governments and military-industrial complexes, a respect for family and tradition—the infighting is constant, and it plays right into the hands of our enemies. It’s more than just disagreement and discourse, it reaches the levels of outright strategic insanity, utterly autistic over the need to from political alliances.
Whence does this weakness come from? From the same place it always has. Ever since Adam tried to suck up to his rebellious wife, disobeying God by way of supplication, our race has been cursed with effeminacy and thirst. Any time you see stupidity and discord amongst men of the political right, at the center of it you will find woman; each and every time a right-wing movement fails, it is because of the pathos and sexual desperation of its constituent males.
Each group does this in their own unique way, justified by their ideology, but the result is always the same: infighting, dissolution, and absorption by the political left.
At its inception this rugged, individualistic movement promised political reform; a return to self-sufficiency, fundamental freedoms, and an avoidance of adventurous foreign wars. Since then it has tumbled into “Left Libertarianism,” a group of porn-addicts who think freedom means that abortion and birth control are paid for by the state—in fact it was Ron Paul’s moral (note: not political) opposition to abortion which fractured the base, and undermined any possibility of a Libertarian victory in 2008.
Modern Libertarianism was started through the works of gentleman scholars, such as Ludvig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, powered by the blood and strength of hard-working tradesmen, farmers, and entrepreneurs, but once it achieved its initial success a new breed of male was attracted to it: the callow intellectual.
They sought out the Libertarians not so much because they had rejected the Republicans, but rather because the Republicans had rejected them. These were men who questioned the system out of their own failures to succeed in it, rather than out of an intellectual commitment to curiosity and truth. They brought with them a shallow understanding of freedom, divorced from responsibility, and a subconscious belief in the Sexual Revolution. Women who joined this movement quickly realized just how much attention they could get from these hordes of thirsty, weak men, and so the men began to demand support and comfort for the women; “Make the women feel welcome, try and attract more to the movement!” They completely ignored that age old truth: build Rome, and the women will come.
What little is left of Libertarianism is focused on defending pornography from any sort of censure or regulation, defending a woman’s right to casually sleep with as many men as she chooses (and opening the borders to maximize that choice!), and meekly attacking traditionalists who show any vestiges of masculinity or conservatism.
The goal of the political left is to undermine individual autonomy by any and all means necessary; one of the ways they do this is by eliminating the organic social structures and the web of community ties which are needed for the individual to thrive. They do this by undermining family formation through divorce law, by promoting atheism to undermine religious communities, and attacking the concept of culture and racial identity.
White Nationalism started out as a reaction against this policy of cultural cleansing; it was primarily an American response due to the “mutt race” of whites which form its populace (in Europe nationalist and ethno-nationalist mean the same thing), and while it was occasionally vitriolic, its greatest thinkers acknowledged and celebrated the ethno-nationalism of other races, the right of every people to live as they see fit. They were nationalists, not supremacists, and their ultimate enemy was the forces of globalization and homogenization.
These days it has degraded into neo-Nazi cosplay, and celebrating of “The Beauty of White Women.” When they examine the rapefugee crisis plaguing Europe, they don’t see a population of treacherous feminists who turned on their own men and voted to cuckold them with foreign migrants (albeit, feminists deluded by a global system of misinformation); instead they see a bunch of innocent victims, being cruelly abused by Le Happy Merchant.
The women in these circles play a game of “Let’s you and him fight”; where the Libertarian women want their males to dress up in bow ties, the White Nationalist women enjoy being a permanent damsel in distress, constantly needing a white knight who will save them from those mean, dusky, sexy migrants.
Men’s Rights Activists
In some ways, watching the men’s rights movement fall into leftism and weakness is the saddest of the lot. The others were invaded by weak men, desperate for the attention of women; in the case of the MRAs, from its very inception it was a group of men who were betrayed and abused by society, the walking wounded, primed to receive honeyed words from a serpent’s tongue.
The men’s rights movement was a direct response to the legal activism of second-wave feminists; the heads I win, tails you lose legal regime of marriage 2.0, domestic violence legislation, and the absurdities of affirmative-consent laws. But these men—who had been degraded, emasculated, and described as monsters by the legal authorities—never managed to rebuild their egos. Instead of asserting themselves against the world, they begged for women to defend them.
In some cases those women defended them like big sisters; in others, they came in to police the tone. Ultimately, they’ve fallen into effeminacy and weakness, embracing the victimhood politics of the left, and have begun targeting those on the right.
With game, we find the one right-leaning movement which hasn’t been corrupted, and it’s worth examining why this is.
Game is often criticized as “pussy begging” by MRAs and MGTOWs, and their criticism is not without a kernel of truth. As feminism accelerates from the 1970s shit-test to the outright hatred and betrayal of Western men, game increasingly resembles acting like a clown to keep a woman entertained. “This is emasculating,” they argue, “you’re defining yourself based upon a woman’s approval!” All of which is valid, but it misses two important points.
First, game works. “Pussy begging” describes the behaviour of the cuttlefish; feigning feminine mannerisms, agreeing and sucking up to women, waiting in the friendzone until Harley McBadboy breaks up with her. While game does play to a feminine frame, this is simply an acknowledgement of the realities that the modern man goes up against: women have been indoctrinated by feminism, given a leg-up through affirmative action, and granted a free pass to never be slut-shamed. A respectable job, a mortgage, and a sensible car don’t cut it these days. But while it acknowledges the current frame, it’s ultimately pro-active. It is in man’s nature to analyze and understand problems so that he can fix them on his own; he does not beg or whine, instead he finds a solution. And with modern women the solution—like it or not—is acting like a clown. Do with that what you will.
The second point that the critics miss, is that through game you come to understand the nature of woman. The cucked cuttlefish must rely upon self-delusion. They place women on pedestals, treat porn stars like prophets, and endlessly ignore the daily treachery of the “virtuous maidens” who covertly seeking the attention of dangerous men. Game forces these scales from your eyes.
It is no accident that game. which originated as a movement obsessed over women, evolved into neomasculinity, a movement which celebrates women as a part of life, but is otherwise dismissive of them; while these other movements, which originally had nothing to do with women, have become completely co-opted by the feminine imperative.
Never trust a man who can’t get laid. Sexual losers will do anything for a chance at procreating. In a sensible system—one which we hope to return to—this will involve hard work and pro-social contributions. In a broken system like the present one, it will induce them to gossip, backstabbing, and infighting.
In a different era, the men who read this site would have become the sheepdogs, keeping society safe from predators; but under the influence of globalism and dissolution the sheep are fractious and disobedient. To succeed we must become wolves.
Seek out men of integrity and capability, while ignoring those of venial character, the male gossips, the cuttlefish. When women are a dime a dozen, those who fail romantically do so because they are weak and toxic. Eschew the company of such filth; we are going to replace the current narrative with a song of truth and virtue, and when we do, the rest will get in line.