To broach a delicate subject, I’d like you to cover the girl below with your hand and ask yourself which of these boys is the dominant male?
This photo was chosen to be reproduced in the Soviet press in the 1960s. There is a lot going on in terms of the interactions within the scene and what its publisher wished to say.
The bookish looking chap in the foreground sits square on. Gazing to a source of authority behind the camera, he bites his lip as he concentrates. His inquisitive look and eagerness to please signal dutiful subordination. The boy behind him sits in a masterful, shitlord, repoise – as if he just dropped a lizard into the girl’s satchel. His heavy-lidded stare is focused at you, straight down that arrogant nose.
It is the girl who acts as the catalyst in the scene. I actually wonder whether she may have been ‘photoshopped’ in. Angled away from the boys, she casts a sidelong grin at the beta with a pre-pubescent squee which anyone would have to recognise could culminate – in a few short years – with a steamy tryst in the back of Babushka’s Lada.
Political Use Of The Female
Suppression of culture’s conventions naturally leads to the stark revelation of that to which culture lends euphemistic expression: the dynamics of the sexual marketplace.
Having destroyed religion, class, and the record of history, the great political cults of the 20th century were at great pains to force generations of children into peaceful, diligent subservience to the state. The last major source of human worth in a valueless society is carnal power, so the young female (whose value is infinitely higher than the young male) started to be promoted to supremacy by default.
The problem with a society that uses women to motivate boys is that those in charge of the cultural narrative effectively become pimps. So in order to get round the problem of sexual exploitation, carnal force is packaged in the guise of general sexual liberation. The majority of men don’t benefit from this, of course (80% of the women sleep with just 20% of the men), but are either forced to lower their standards or remain silent about their disappointments.
Meanwhile, an idea of existential nobility and innate brilliance is bestowed upon girls to explain away their otherwise embarrassing natural power advantage. This is how we get ‘affirmative action’ in STEM occupations, boardroom quotas, a general promotion of women into male ‘gender roles’ and, when it all starts to fail, the eventual denial of sexual dimorphism itself.
To understand the source of vile moxie exhibited by the modern urban slut (and a reason for its tolerance by men), look no further than the sassy role models depicted in Eat Pray Love, the most recent Mad Max and Star Wars films, and Atomic Blonde. But it didn’t start there.
By denying that the society is maintaining itself by spending down its carnal capital in a sterile orgy, those in charge of the narrative can also forestall the inevitable collapse of that economic powerbase by broadening the smorgasbord of resources at their disposal (fat acceptance and the sexualisation of children spring to mind here). So while such a society starts to portray attractive women in a professional light (see Susan Mauldin, Elizabeth Holmes, and Jayde Phoenix), it promotes ugly women in a sexual light.
Ultimately, such a society has to find ways to compensate its dejected female victims by holding them up as absolutely awesome in every respect. This is how cults of gynocentrism are born.
Women’s Lib = War and Revolution
Women’s liberation from—and power over—men is the only liberty that can truly be granted by the state, for only the state is impersonal enough not to judge the self-induced private tragedies that arise from it while being able to shift resources to bear the costs of those tragedies. This is why women’s liberation (again, often in the guise of general sexual liberation), is often found at the forefront of the popular agenda for any totalitarian regime.
The end goal is to make the population emotionally and materially dependent upon a bigger and bigger state to support the spiraling cost of maintaining women’s expected value after the true value of their youth has been spent in a publicly funded bimbo-limbo, which prices women out of the marriage market, and the beta schlubs refuse to step up and marry them. It ends with a state-governed sexual contract, plummeting birth rate, distrust between men (who see no incentive to provide for used-up women), nationalised child bearing and child rearing, large scale debt to state backed banks, and an eventual Beta Bux strike which heralds total fiscal collapse.
And to it’s dying breath, whether under the guise of courtly love, romanticism or feminism, such a society will hold up a fantasy of women as the ultimate source of virtue and strength. Any of this ring a bell?
If you really want to see the type who benefited from the sexual revolution in reality, though, you need to look at who protests at its collapse.
Negating the Negation
Here’s why the red pill will always be anti-social: it desecrates the noble façade which society erects to cover its shameful abuse of the sexual economy. No wonder our writers and thought leaders have been shut down and banned from travelling under laws designed to prevent terrorism. No wonder there were Soviet-style attempts to shut down screenings of The Red Pill documentary in Australian cinemas, as well as the ROK meetups last year. By describing the lie upon which feminism is based, we are antisocial. It still doesn’t make us wrong, though.
Society actively promotes the whims of women to the extent that now, men find themselves deprived of responsibility yet burdened with full accountability for the collective behaviour of the entire failing sexual economy. Those who understand the dynamic write like Samizdat hacks under pseudonyms while journalists who support women who make false accusations of rape can leave the offices of national tabloids by the front door in broad daylight. But I’m certainly not complaining. We here have the immense honour of partaking in the push-back against a tyranny so complete that it is almost illegal to speak of its existence.
Our civilised opponents will tell us, with smug scorn, that we can’t wind the social clock back to 1950. Yet, with their next breath, they fatalistically resign themselves to the growth of a foreign culture in our midst that is successfully winding it back to 1300.
The decadence, obfuscation and pretty lies that the West peddles to itself are all about to be weighed up against a real culture of toxic masculinity; a culture that won’t bother to write nice articles to explain their position or suggest that we might allow negative outcomes for irresponsible behaviour or that maybe that feminism isn’t all that great.
These people do. not. care. If they were literate enough to blog about their attitudes toward home and hearth, they would make Return Of Kings look like Mumsnet. They also have more babies than people on Mumsnet.
The Christian Schoolchild
In a way I was lucky, because my introduction to the most horrific and deeply ingrained facets of our deceptive sexual dystopia were revealed to me not through repeated rejection but because, four years ago in my mid twenties, I committed a crime against our social order: I rejected the romantic advances of a fat feminist.
I like to think that what happened next has turned me into feminism’s finest product: a gift to the manosphere, manufactured by matriarchy, courtesy of the fat-acceptance movement, equality for women, autistic screeching, stalking, crony court systems, communism, and all things that Mammon and her lapdog could summon to throw at the boy whose crime is that he will sleep only with his wife and select her himself for her femininity and beauty.
My hope is that, through sites like this, we can succeed in making a solid 5, 10, maybe 20% of Western men as absolutely selfish as myself. What I mean by that is, whether they are soldiers, businessman or politicians outwardly, they must be monks inwardly. Only once independent from self-appraisal based upon what others think can a man choose to be virtuous. Because virtue must flow from a position of personal authority; from strength to weakness.
It will take great courage and virtue to brace ourselves, in whatever we do, to the antisocial vocation of the manosphere: to destroy what the West has become since the Sexual Revolution, but we must each stand our own ground because, even at its lowest ebb, Christendom is still better than the evil that it fails to prevent pouring in across its borders.
Of course, many will use their power only to frolic in the dying embers of the Sexual Revolution. While that may be fun, what lies before the Western hedonist as he skips into his twilight years is what lay before the model Soviet citizen queuing to collect his pension for the last time in 1991.
And the fat feminists are likely to be in that same queue.