Choosing sides

Recently, buzzfeed attempted to generate a fake scandal about a home improvement television show. (Which also happens to be my mom’s favorite show, which we will come back to later). Basically, Joanna and Chip Gaines are a couple who fix up crappy houses for clients. They are believing Christians and attend a church which does not support gay marriage. For the Cathedral, this is an outrageous spiritual sin against the progressive faith. It is conspicuous how often the new sins of the cathedral are so often completely inverted polar opposites of similar sins in Christianity. A sort of anti-Christianity. A grotesque reflection of the original in a circus mirror. Bloomberg ran a quite sane op-ed in response which I suggest you read. Its pretty short. But here are some important excerpts:

Over the last few years, as controversies have erupted over the rights of cake bakers and pizza places to refuse to cater gay weddings, the rights of nuns to refuse to provide insurance that covers birth control, the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions, and the rights of Christian schools to teach (and require students and teachers to practice) traditional Christian morality, some Christians have begun to feel that their communities are under existential threat.

The response from the left has (mostly) been that this is so much whining, clinging to a victimhood belied by Christians’ social power and majority status. No one, they have been assured, wants to touch their freedom to worship, but when they enter the commercial realm, they have to abide by anti-discrimination laws, whatever their private beliefs.

The attacks on Christians in the last few years have been both obvious and egregious. Contrary to the public proclamations of progressives, this has very little to do with helping “disadvantaged” people and everything to do with forcing unprotected classes under their control. Even if you aren’t particularly religious, it would still be in your interest to side with Christians in these cases. The attacks on Christians are just one subset of a broader assault on freedom of association in all spheres of life. Forced integration of schools and government subsidized diversity in white towns are devastating attacks on freedom of association and a huge negative development for white communities. It also happens in video games where an almost exclusively male hobby is forced to pander to the erroneous preferences of women who don’t even play games. I am sure you can think of plenty of additional examples in any number of seemingly unrelated areas. No area of life seems to be off limits in our eternal current year. This is not just a problem for Christians, it is a problem for everyone.

“The government won’t actually shut your church down. But the left will use its positions of institutional power to try to hound anyone who attends that church from public life. You can believe whatever you want — but if we catch you, or if we even catch you in proximity to people who believe it, we will threaten your livelihood.”

They fear that the left is out to build a world where it will not be possible to hold any prominent job while holding onto their church’s beliefs about sexuality. Discussions I’ve had in recent days with nice, well-meaning progressives [editorial note: this description is somewhere between excessively generous and a complete fabrication] suggest that this is not a paranoid fantasy. An online publisher’s witch hunt against two television personalities — because of the church they attend — validates the fears of these Christians.

These sorts of things have happened quite a bit. Brendon Eich of Mozilla is probably the most famous example. It isn’t only done against Christians, either. Trumped up charges of being a secular racist or sexist can lose you your job just as rapidly as a Christian belief in the sanctity of marriage. If you accept their demands to keep your job, then you are forced to be surrounded by degenerates and incompetents which is a hard sell. So the left employs harsh punishments for non-compliance. The left would like any resisting non-conformist dead, but since that is illegal, they will work very hard to at least make them homeless and penniless. And if some mob of morons kills the unbeliever, all the better. The blood is spilled and the virtue signalers face no consequences for their important role.  They will make up lies to make this happen. These people are evil and do not deserve mercy.

The Bloomberg article notes correctly that freedom of religion, a subset of freedom of association, was included in the constitution due to the tendency of religious fanatics (the ancestors of today’s progressives) to initiate a war for spiritual purity. Successful or not, eventually those who are tyrannized return the favor in kind with their own holy war against the virtue signalers. The result is cycle of blood as different factions get their revenge for past wrongs. The reformation was a recent memory for the original Americans and it was their goal to prevent a repetition. Though they didn’t really succeed all that well, the fanatics just adapted their strategies, it was at least a good idea and desire.

There’s a reason that our constitution was written to enshrine substantial religious liberty, an uncommon idea at the time of the Founding Fathers: We had many different groups who thought that their spiritual victory had already been foreordained, and allowing them to seek total annihilation of the errant losing side would end up in the same ugly politico-religious wars that had roiled Europe for centuries.

The authors of the U.S. Constitution had learned from that history that religious beliefs are a primal force, even harder to dislodge by the sword than by the sermon. Eventually both sides of those religious disputes noticed how fragile their victories were, how easily the swordpoint conversions were reversed when the fortunes of war shifted, and how devastating their own subsequent losses often were. They decided that it was better to live uneasily together than to try to stamp out the other side.

With America seemingly dividing into two countries, riven by intractable value differences, this is a lesson that culture warriors on both sides need to relearn. Really, what is the cost to society if two HGTV hosts are allowed to thrive without disavowing their pastor’s comments on same-sex marriage? The far greater risk comes from trying to compel them to do so, whether through hard government power or soft private coercion. We can tear windows into the souls of others only at the risk of others tearing holes into us.

Indeed, the rise of anti-progressivism in the last few years is a clear indication that the tyrannized fly-over region is getting ready to return the favor and return it good and hard. The risk of a neo-reformation and its attendant wars is as high as it has ever been.

When you think that you may shortly see your church’s schools and your religious hospitals closed, and your job or business threatened in the private sphere by the economic equivalent of “convert or die,” you will side with whoever does not seem to set its sights on your conservative beliefs.

And this captures the new zietgeist exactly. There are many, many people who would love nothing better than to just live their lives in a state of complete myopia. Fixing their cars, playing their games, drinking with friends, whatever. There is no properly serious philosophical or spiritual pursuit in their lives and if left to their own devices this would not change. The progressives aren’t going to allow that state of affairs any more. People are going to have to pick a side. Are you going to choose the side of control, lies, and anarcho-tyranny that is progressive political correctness or are you going to choose the side of truth, reality, and freedom of association? Many people are being forced to confront this choice as never before, and in many ways this is a good thing. Gamergate was a perfect example of this. Confronted with progressive encroachment on their apolitical hobby, many young men were forced to polarize. Forced to take a side. Fortunately most of them chose the side of reality and freedom. All of a sudden new and magnificent understanding of the world was made available to people after being broken free from their haze of self-absorption.

Many in my own family have only very shallow understanding of the ongoing culture war and prefer to ignore it if possible.  However, when presented with an example of progressive social control that directly affects them they often also experience a positive transformation. So was this case with this home improvement show. It is my mom’s favorite and when she was made aware that it was under progressive attack, and might potentially be canceled as has happened in the past, she started red-pilling very quickly. I daresay she almost hates the prig-progs as much as I do now. Events like these are mana from heaven. These catalysts wakes people up and gets them to actually understand the world beyond their little bubble. Make as much use out of them as you can.


Share Button

Reversing the Demographic Winter

I found this documentary via reddit which found it via thinking housewife. It discusses an issue of deep concern to the dark enlightenment and that is the issue of population decline. For what I guess is a mainstream documentary, it is refreshingly frank with regards to the negative consequences modernism/post-modernism is having on our culture and subsequently population. Big factors in this decline and identified by the doc are feminism, the break down of sexual continence, divorce friendly laws, and promoting careerist women (mostly discussed in part 2) All of these things work together to destroy the family and set off a runaway effect of ever decreasing fertility. Watch it, it is pretty good:

Part 1

Part 2

As the documentary shows, it isn’t just white Europeans that are having fertility declines even if they are are most advanced in said decline (with the exception of some Asian countries). Even the countries which supply the current batch of immigrants to the west may not be able to keep that up if the same trends advance in their countries and they are only lagging by maybe 20-30 years behind the west. The whole white genocide meme put forward by identitarians may end up needing an overhaul and be redefined as human genocide. Actually, I think it is better called human suicide than genocide as it is mostly a voluntary action. Not to discount the fact that it is intentionally inspired cultural marxism, but people do assent to its ideas more or less voluntarily. It is an interesting idea to think that the immigration issue may be resolved by fertility drops in the rest of the world, though I am not holding my breath on that one. Lots of people worry about Muslim fertility, myself included, but Iran for example has one of the worst fertility crises in the middle east. Clearly this isn’t a European only problem. It is a global problem with various groups merely at different stages of it and with a few particularly disturbing exceptions to the trend. Though most of that population will probably remain confined to their current locations.

Of course,  I have written several posts tangentially related to this. Of Madonnas and whores is one, shrug is another. The first is on how a culture which has a healthy fertility rate is structured and the other is on how men should respond to the current horribly designed structure. It occurs to me that these two posts probably appear on the surface to be at odds with one another because one attempts to reverse the problem while the other attempts to exacerbate it. However, there is a method to my deep and frightful madness. I refer you to the analogy of a frog in boiling water. If you put a frog into luke-warm water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will swim merrily and make no attempt at escape until it is too late. However, if you drop the frog into water that is already very hot it spends its few remaining moments among the living desperately attempting to escape. (I have never actually attempted to boil live frogs, so maybe they don’t act as described, but the analogy creates a vivid picture anyway and is thus rhetorically useful.)

The analogy demonstrates that it is the nature and speed of the transition which is the governing force of the response to the change rather than the destination of the change itself. A jarring transition spurs reaction, while a slow transition results in docile acquiescence. The purpose of articles like shrug is to create such a sudden and uncomfortable transition in our culture that it becomes fertile for introspection and ultimately action. Well, hopefully the correct sort of reaction like that described in Of Madonnas and whores and other articles. By magnifying the problems faced by both family destroying women and the state, you may, just may, catalyze some pragmatic thinking. Not to mention sparing as many individual men from the machinations of the state as possible.

Of course I am just some trivial blogger who very few people read. : ( My articles are likely to be quite inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Or maybe not. There are a lot of men in positions which make them quite receptive to a new and sympathetic view of their situation that not only successfully diagnoses their problem, but also suggests some sort of solution. It is that last part that is most important. Men naturally want solutions. If there is a problem in their lives, they are much more likely compared to women to take some sort of unilateral action. Even if there are downsides to that action in this situation, the alternative is something akin to slavery. Worse maybe because of the culture of contempt directed towards so-called “dead-beat dads.” Therefore, the level of acceptable costs and downsides with respect to the working of the divorce industry are quite high. Even more, many men are likely to accept a great deal of problems if it means they can ensure that the state and the parasitic ex-wife come up empty handed merely as a result of well-deserved spite.

However, there is one last piece of this puzzle which must be dealt with before men shrug en masse and inflict a painful jolt on the system. Men have to be ideologically deprogrammed. Both social conservatives and the cultural marxists demand sacrifice from men for the sake of women and children and indoctrinate them accordingly. Sacrifice of men for those groups isn’t so bad when it is paired with the rewards and assurances given them in a traditional context. It was merely a more or less fair contract. The dominant culture on the left and “right” have decided that they can get away with taking those rewards and assurances away without any consequences. Well, we already know that didn’t turn out to be true, but even with the current consequences things seem to be accelerating leftward rather than reversing. Perplexing that. It seems that the consequences haven’t been severe or blatant enough which is why it is probably still the time of creative destruction rather than direct building (outside of individual properly patriarchal families, a difficult thing to achieve today even for the most skilled). Acceleration towards the left singularity has continued unaltered because of the so far effective ideological indoctrination men face from both the left and “right.”

The incentives that should result in men exiting en masse are already well established and have been for a long time. The only thing keeping them around is the tiny thread of cultural mind control; a thread that is ripe for the cutting. This indoctrination mainly revolves around questions of what is and isn’t moral. So long as good men believe that exiting from the unfair arrangement is immoral, they will be loathe to do so regardless of the cost to themselves. In shrug, the question of the morality of exit is directly addressed, although briefly:

I can think of the obvious objection [with respect to exit from alimony and child support]: “Won’t someone please think of the children!” Well, I am. I am thinking about children (and the whole family), but I have escaped myopia and took a view that extends all the way to the horizon. Children are done a huge disservice by easy divorce. It is a fact that they are better off when their parents stay together until at least they grow up. So long as the system exists in the current state, the only thing we can be sure of is that millions more men and children will be caught in its clutches in the future. Suffering will only increase and increase. Anything that lets the system of easy, no-fault divorce with the concomitant asset division last even one week longer than it has to is immoral.

In a properly functioning society, going after fathers who shirked their duty is a just imperative. We don’t live in a properly functioning society. These days it is rare that family breakdown is caused by men unwilling to be fathers. Worse, they have absolutely no power to prevent the destruction of the family that causes so much suffering to everyone, especially children. When family breaks down, it is not their fault. Such men are thus morally guiltless for leaving. As much should be explained to them and they should be encouraged to shrug. The men who willingly continue to pay into this system are essentially complicit in its perpetuation, at least once they understand how it works. They are just like Hank Rearden who through his diligent efforts kept the morally bankrupt society going that much longer than otherwise had to be. He did this despite emotional torture by his ungrateful family and incrementally increased injustice towards him by society. By keeping the current system solvent, today’s men ensure that more men in the future will be dragged into it. By shrugging, they bring the day of its collapse closer and ensure that less children will ultimately be caught up in it. Continuing to pay into the system, judged by the number of future men and children who will be dragged into it by its continuation, is thus itself the height of immorality.

In other words, it is the demands society place on men without compensation or assurance that is immoral. Men not only have a justification for exit, they are morally obligated to demand their dues for their sacrifice because if they do not they are dooming future generations to the perdition caused by incorrigibly capricious women and the ever more greedy state. If they are not given what they are owed, they must exit as a moral imperative. The elucidation of pragmatic morality here cuts the thread of indoctrination and prepares men psychologically for the difficult decision to pursue exit as the difficult solution to their involuntary servitude. The sting of mass exit would then ultimately facilitate some move back towards tradition.

At least this is the theory. Why should anyone listen to someone like me? Well it seems that at least one person has. Though I am not a MGTOW myself, I subscribe to the subreddit because they sometimes have interesting links. If anything, MGTOW philosophy will just make the demographic winter even worse so ultimately it has no promise as an effective strategy for a better future. Anyway, I stumbled on this self post which stated:

Frankly, we need to be very specific here about a certain aspect of going your own way. I’m looking for that direct insider info strictly speaking of alimony and child support obligations and uprooting and leaving it all behind.

Has anyone up and left, and the consequences be damned? Like, as in – I Don’t Give One Single Fuck what the ex, or the courts are gonna do to me type of attitude.

Seriously looking into this, if the statistics of non-payment of child support are such that “billions of dollars have gone uncollected” Then I must be living a delusion that I will in-fact go to jail for non-payment, and this can all be managed in a way that we can call their bluff and move on with our lives.

So speaking of what did you do, how far did you move? Out of county, out of state, out of country? How far did the legal system pursue you in your new found location? What and who did you leave behind? What would you have rather actually kept and/or sold or left behind? What legal ramifications were the result of leaving your “free-range prison” behind? (Think alimony, child support, garnishments, mortage, etc.) Were you able to successfully break free forever? Or did you come back and have to pay the piper? How did you hide assets like a home, or your money from being legally stolen from you? Would it have been a better idea to keep the home and rent it out while away, or sell the home because of the headaches, ramifications and hassle while gone? How have your children taken the change, and have you managed to keep in touch? Has the ex held them back from keeping a relationship with you because you are no longer paying for the extortion known as child support? Has she kept the children from relatives while you are gone? How much better was the new life compared to the old life? Any other comments or words of wisdom we could all potentially glean from you that aren’t covered here?

We are not discussing the morality of such decisions, or how you came to get to this point. We all come to our own point of no return, and I for one, and you yourself do not deserve to be ground into dust with no recompense for the rest of our lives.

Of course this reminded me of my shrug article so I told him about it in a comment to which he replied:

You have a really great website! I’ve read that article before too, and re-read it.

Flattery aside, I feel a bit like I may have opened pandora’s box (it was bound to be opened eventually by someone). If we take the 1% rule seriously, then there may be at least 100 more men out there somewhere who read that article and took it to heart and are seriously considering implementing the suggestion. That is assuming I have seen every instance of a re-post of this article, which I probably haven’t and would mean there are more than this. Of course, even if they don’t act on the idea it is in their head and they will think about it regularly because they will be faced with their burdens regularly. They will also likely spread the idea to other men (with or without linking back to me) and some of those men will act. The redefinition of appropriate moral response to the current divorce regime could eventually have significant repercussions and things will get worse generally before they get better. I have, in concert with the efforts of many others, engaged in black magic. What is and is not moral is changed to be a more accurate representation of reality. Moreover, from what we know about moral signaling behavior this redefinition could spread quickly and rabidly if it becomes entrenched in some dedicated minority. Considering the current incentive structure, such a result might be expected. People will fall all over themselves to do the right thing in the eyes of their peers, especially if they have overwhelming personal incentives rarely present in other moral signaling games.

All I can say is that I hope my appraisal of the situation is correct and that this action brings closer the light at the end of the tunnel. If I’m wrong about this, though I don’t think I am, then the spreading of the idea could result in some difficult to reverse consequences. Either way, what is done is done and the lid can not be put back on the box. At the very least, progressive culture will suffer mightily for ignoring gnon. Most importantly, though, individual men will be more likely to free themselves from involuntary servitude and that is a positive moral change even if that is the only positive change that results.


Here is another self-post titled “How to shrug at the family courts and evade slavery.” Though I didn’t ask him if this had anything to do with my article in my comment, the wording suggests he had read it.

Share Button

Chastity, once lost, is forever gone

I am not sure, but my impression is that most neoreactionaries do not like or use reddit. Either that or they use names not associated with their blogs. I can understand this because it is true that 99% percent of reddit is a progressive clusterfuck with no end in sight to thought policing. Still, I think the only difference between a progressive sub and a reactionary one is that of proper moderation. It isn’t like these progressive subs don’t have to deal with the more generic type of trolls on a regular basis. Every forum has that problem. Anyway, one place I like to lurk is /r/redpillwomen because I am just curious to see how relatively reactionary ladies think. I almost never post in there because I view it as their place to do their thing. However, there was one recent thread which I couldn’t help but comment on. Essentially, a girl who had been fairly promiscuous, racking up 8 partners by 21, had realized her mistake and wanted to turn things around. That is nice and everything, but I don’t really buy it. Once a slut, always a slut.

Now, I am not a Christian. I happen to agree with a lot of Christian traditionalism because a rational analysis of society combined with a consequentialist attitude ultimately brings thoughtful people to a similar value system as tradition. If more people were thoughtful, we wouldn’t need any of this codified in a religious law at all. Of course people aren’t thoughtful and they are never going to be at any scale so religious law is better than the alternatives. What I noticed about the reddit post is that the sentiment is suspiciously similar to the whole “born-again virgin” nonsense that has become popular in some Christian communities. The idea being that if a girl repents her actions she can be forgiven and it will be like it never happened. Maybe this can be justified by verses in the bible, and maybe it can’t. Certain Churchians certainly made a persuasive stab at it. Not being a Christian, I will let you know you can save your theological arguments. As far as I am concerned, if this can be justified in the bible, then the bible is wrong. If it can’t, great. If some people can be legitimately and understandably confused on whether the bible supports this then Christian Traditionalists have a real problem. Even if it can be demonstrated through some convoluted means that “born-again virgin” isn’t a Christian concept, ambiguity here is a very big fault with using the book as the basis for the traditional family. That being a slut can’t be taken back should not be ambiguous in any way in the foundational religious document of a society. Chastity, once lost, is forever gone.

Back in my more red pill, less reactionary days it was widely known and accepted among my group of friends that the “born-again virgin” girls were easy prey. And yes, we occasionally went to “singles” church events to find these girls despite not being religious. Lots of them were single mothers. Most would get drunk and have premarital sex with you Saturday night before stomping off to church Sunday morning in hopes of tricking some poorly advised Christian beta into paying for her and her bastard children. The “born-again virgin” status of these so-called “Christian” women is a complete fabrication. Their facade is a purely Machiavellian attempt to maximize their Alpha Fucks/Beta bucks mating strategy. And like the rest of society, the Christian community is far too credulous of these girl’s crocodile tears of repentance. Worse yet, they gladly throw the legitimately Christian men under the bus by pressuring them into dating and marrying these skanks. No wonder men are leaving the church in droves. I would too if I was given shitty advice like “marry the sluts”. I would leave any such organization which thought that way and I would laugh when it was completely destroyed, as it justly should be.

That rant lasted longer than I thought it would… Anyway on to the comment. I don’t have much advice for what a girl should do in this situation, but at least I could relieve her of the childish happy talk which women prefer over all other things and she probably finds herself surrounded by.

At the risk of hurting your feelings, I am going to pass on a red pill man’s perspective of this situation. Men by and large aren’t sentimental naturally. For example, every male in my family has agreed that we aren’t going to buy Christmas presents for each other because we don’t care, we don’t like shopping, and like saving money. At most we will buy some beer for each other the day before and get drunk a few times. I made the mistake of trying to arrange a similar situation with a female member of the family and she practically started crying. Well, didn’t expect that. Oops.

We for the most part apply the same mentality to most decisions in life. Without sentimentality, there is only cold facts and numbers. Make some (figurative) charts, add up everything and if there are more pros to settling down fine, if there isn’t don’t. The one (evolutionary) exception which clouds our ability for logical decision making is if a man encounters a girl he perceives to be a Madonna. A Madonna being a chaste, pleasant, virtuous woman likely to make a good mother and worthy partner. One that he can be sure is birthing his own children. Now, it is best for such a woman to capture a man’s commitment when he is young, because that is when he is most naive. I can confirm, men are much more naive (socially) than women, especially when young. Although our skills with tools, building and mathematics generally makes up for that and then some. However, such naivete doesn’t last long in the school of hard knocks we are subjected to. There is no such thing as “You go boy!”

No one coddles and babies us when we feel bad and we quickly learn that the only way to advance ourselves is through convincing people we are correct through cold, inescapable truth. And so it doesn’t take many bad experiences (or lack of experiences) for this mindset to benefit from the cad training provided by the red pill. And of course there is no lack of bad experiences for men. What we learn in such training is that girls with many sexual partners do not make reliable partners (something I don’t think is a problem for men). The probability is higher that a promiscuous girl will either trick us into raising another man’s child that is the product of infidelity, hence the innate (and proper) male aversion to commitment to promiscuous women. Also, it is much likelier that she will prematurely end the relationship regardless of the costs born by the husband and children. That is bad enough by itself, but with the current legal regime, that is a risk no rational man should ever take.

So when I look at your post, I see the ultimate nightmare. A girl with enough partners to suggest a 72% probability of divorce (social pathologist link) and who also has baby rabies. If that doesn’t say divorce rape, I don’t know what does.

If I knew you personally and was considering you as a possible partner or if a naive buddy of mine was, I would advise them to stay away emphatically. I would treat you as if you were totally, 100% responsible for your situation. In a sense you are. People who can’t think of the future or think independently of a degenerate culture should be held responsible for their failure. Red pill men are certainly trying to train younger men to have this mentality (as I proudly do). Women as a whole, despite their greater social acuity, failed to punish the most extreme agitators among them and unfortunately they will now all have to suffer for that mistake. Men may be easily hoodwinked in the social sphere, but after a delay, when we realize as a group what is what, we apply cold and uncaring logic to the plight of those who previously reaped unfair rewards. Not only do we not care, but seeing a bit a suffering results in a bit of schadenfreude.

To be fair, not all, maybe not even most, of your problem is from your personal decisions, or you as an individual. There really is a systematic, society-wide problem in the west. Whoever taught you being slutty was OK is certainly at fault. In addition, if in cases of female relationship irresponsibility, the courts sided with men and didn’t give her the children or other financial benefits, men would be much more likely to take risky cases like yourself on. After all, in such a scenario he can retain his earnings and just find a new girl and not be much worse for wear. The current legal regime in most western countries makes taking a chance on girls like you a much larger risk than it would be otherwise. A risk that no rational person could consider justified.

I tell you this so that you are as informed as you possibly can be. To overcome your situation it helps to know the nature and magnitude of the problem you face. I can’t offer much advice for redemption of your past, but more knowledge doesn’t hurt. Hopefully the women here can help you find a way to move past the dismal statistics all of us guys are looking at.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I fully agree with the traditionalists that their kind of society is the right kind of society. But the method for achieving that kind of society does not mean catering to the feminine imperative’s demands for universal happy talk and the outlawing of truth. It does not involve the pussification of institutions like the church. And it does not involve throwing men trying to do right by scripture under the bus.


In reading the wikipedia article on Crocodile tears, it seems like the phrase was originally popularized as a Christian morality tale by the theologian Photius in his Bibliotheca. It looks like English translations of this are pretty scarce, but something tells me that Christians would gain from getting re-acquainted with it. If anyone knows of an English translation, I think it would be pretty interesting to skim through. Please leave it in the comments.

Share Button

HL Mencken Describes Hypergamy

I have heard of HL Mencken, called by some the greatest misogynist of all time, talked about in a number of different places in the manosphere and in neoreaction. Specifically, the book “In defense of Women,” written in 1918, was recommended to me and so I decided to go ahead and order this book and read through.  I can’t say that I agree with everything he states in the book (when I am sure it is serious, rather than hyperbole). However, a few things he mentions are deeply insightful. For example, the book contains one of the best descriptions of hypergamy I have read (before the phrase hypergamy was even coined):

But here I rather depart from the point, which is this: that the average woman is not strategically capable of bringing down the most tempting game within her purview, and must thus content herself with a second, third, or nth choice. The only women who get their first choices are those who run in almost miraculous luck and those too stupid to formulate an ideal—two very small classes, it must be obvious. A few women, true enough, are so pertinacious that they prefer defeat to compromise. That is to say, they prefer to put off marriage indefinitely rather than to marry beneath the highest leap of their fancy. But such women may be quickly dismissed as abnormal, and perhaps as downright diseased in mind; the average woman is well-aware that marriage is far better for her than celibacy, even when it falls a good deal short of her primary hopes, and she is also well aware that the differences between man and man, once mere money is put aside, are so slight as to be practically almost negligible. Thus the average woman is under none of the common masculine illusions about elective affinities, soul mates, love at first sight, and such phantasms. She is quite ready to fall in love, as the phrase is, with any man who is plainly eligible, and she usually knows a good many more such men than one. Her primary demand in marriage is not for the agonies of romance, but for comfort and security; she is thus easier satisfied than a man, and oftener happy. One frequently hears of remarried widowers who continue to moon about their dead first wives, but for a remarried widow to show any such sentimentality would be a nine days’ wonder. Once replaced, a dead husband is expunged from the minutes. And so is a dead love.

One of the results of all this is a subtle reinforcement of the contempt with which women normally regard their husbands—a contempt grounded, as I have shown, upon a sense of intellectual superiority. To this primary sense of superiority is now added the disparagement of a concrete comparison, and over all is an ineradicable resentment of the fact that such a comparison has been necessary. In other words, the typical husband is a second-rater, and no one is better aware of it than his wife. He is, taking averages, one who has been loved, as the saying goes, by but one woman, and then only as a second, third or nth choice. If any other woman had ever loved him, as the idiom has it, she would have married him, and so made him ineligible for his present happiness. But the average bachelor is a man who has been loved, so to speak, by many women, and is the lost first choice of at least some of them. Here presents the unattainable, and hence the admirable; the husband is the attained and disdained.


I have used the phrase, “in despair of finding better game.” What I mean is this that not one woman in a hundred ever marries her first choice among marriageable men. That first choice is almost invariably one who is beyond her talents, for reasons either fortuitous or intrinsic. Let us take, for example, a woman whose relative naivete makes the process clearly apparent, to wit, a simple shop-girl. Her absolute first choice, perhaps, is not a living man at all, but a supernatural abstraction in a book, say, one of the heroes of Hall Caine, Ethel M. Dell, or Marie Corelli. After him comes a moving-picture actor. Then another moving-picture actor. Then, perhaps, many more—ten or fifteen head. Then a sebaceous young clergyman. Then the junior partner in the firm she works for. Then a couple of department managers. Then a clerk. Then a young man with no definite profession or permanent job—one of the innumerable host which flits from post to post, always restive, always trying something new—perhaps a neighborhood garage-keeper in the end. Well, the girl begins with the Caine colossus: he vanishes into thin air. She proceeds to the moving picture actors: they are almost as far beyond her. And then to the man of God, the junior partner, the department manager, the clerk; one and all they are carried off by girls of greater attractions and greater skill—girls who can cast gaudier flies. In the end, suddenly terrorized by the first faint shadows of spinsterhood, she turns to the ultimate numskull—and marries him out of hand.

This, allowing for class modifications, is almost the normal history of a marriage, or, more accurately, of the genesis of a marriage, under Protestant Christianity. Under other rites the business is taken out of the woman’s hands, at least partly, and so she is less enterprising in her assembling of candidates and possibilities. But when the whole thing is left to her own heart—i.e., to her head—it is but natural that she should seek as wide a range of choice as the conditions of her life allow, and in a democratic society those conditions put few if any fetters upon her fancy. The servant girl, or factory operative, or even prostitute of today may be the chorus girl or moving picture vampire of tomorrow and the millionaire’s wife of next year. In America, especially, men have no settled antipathy to such stooping alliances; in fact, it rather flatters their vanity to play Prince Charming to Cinderella. The result is that every normal American young woman, with the practicality of her sex and the inner confidence that goes therewith, raises her amorous eye as high as it will roll. And the second result is that every American man of presentable exterior and easy means is surrounded by an aura of discreet provocation: he cannot even dictate a letter, or ask for a telephone number without being measured for his wedding coat.

Mencken has a lot of good passages in his book as those two listed above, so I highly recommend reading the whole thing (free online). I think his discussion casts a lot of clarity on the relations between the sexes. It may be that many readers might object to average men being described as romantically idealistic numbskulls, but keep in mind that it is unlikely that the the average man would have made it to the point of browsing neoreactionary blogs and reading HL Mencken in the first place. He isn’t describing such above average men (you my dear readers), but strictly the average, and I think his description is accurate.

At any given level of intelligence, it is likely that the women excel at social engineering and manipulation relative to men of similar intelligence. Men’s talent advantage tends to express more in mechanical fields at the cost of social acuity. However, what we see is that the greater social acuity in women does not result in their increased happiness, but in increased dissatisfaction in their romantic lives. That they are keenly aware and constantly comparing and contrasting the men who make up their potential partners even with fictional characters leaves many women in a state where they simply cannot be fully satisfied with whatever man they happen to actually attach themselves to. This is a moral failing which many, if not most, women are susceptible. Through most of the book, Mencken regularly highlights the greater cunning most women demonstrate in their social dealings but the implication is that these gifts are used in devious and disingenuous ways; ways that cause problems for both the men and women involved and for society at large. More often than not, women are just as much a victim of their own cunning and deception as the idealistic men that get manipulated. This is the source of the controversy about whether the book is one in favor of women’s rights or a tongue in cheek criticism of the moral failings of women.

The old standards of marriage were to a large extent designed to mitigate the hypergamous tendencies of women since they often extend past the point of pragmatism into irrationality and immorality. As is readily apparent by the divorce rates and laws that exist today in the west, it is quite clear that women can’t be depended on to act loyally towards their husbands (all of which are “second raters” compared to flights of fancy) or for them to willingly accept the weight of responsibilities that should be concomitant with their vows of marriage. Even the system of arranged marriage starts to look better as it prevents the mechanism of hypergamy inherent to women from playing any role.

EDIT: Here is another good discussion of Mencken.

Share Button

What is Misandromasochism?

Misandromasochism is a combination of the words misandry and masochism.

Misandry is the hatred, dislike, contempt for or ingrained prejudice against men and/or boys

Misandry itself is a combination of old English Mis which means wrong, bad or erroneous and Andro which is Greek for male. Misandry therefore literally means bad men.

Masochism is a bit more interesting. It was coined by Richard von Krafft-Ebing to describe the perversions of author Leopold von Sacher-Masoch; Masoch being the root of masochism. Leopold liked to be sexually submissive and treated like a slave by women wearing furs among other things. His most famous piece of his writing, a venus in furs, described in detail this preference of his and was representative of his real life experiences. Unsurprisingly, the effeminate Masoch was also a utopian, a socialist, and a feminist.

While writing the post on missing links that connect Christian theology to modern day attitudes, I mentioned the similarities between total depravity and ethnomasochism. I suspect that Misandromasochism is a related phenomenon. It is absolutely true that many men have unreasonable burdens thrust upon them by the state. However, there are also a significant number of men who still support this system which is clearly against their own interests.

In addition, I have met men in in my personal life who when faced with divorce and the theft of their children, willingly give large sums of money to their ex-wives without any compulsion of the state. In one representative example, the ex-wife got a court order demanding even more wealth transfer after already receiving a significant amount of money each month. The court did not even consider the previous money he had already given her so he had to pay twice for that time. I can’t describe this man’s behavior prior to the court order as anything other than misandromasochism. Men who succumb to the pressure of “man up” (even from the right) and act in ways that are detrimental to themselves (usually for the benefit of women and children) are misandromasochists. Men should only sacrifice their interests when society provides them the incentives and rewards that are due for that sacrifice. Misandromasochism should be resolutely rejected as a organizing cultural principle.

Share Button

Of Madonnas and Whores

There is a lot of discussion in the manosphere about the Alpha/beta dichotomy. It is usually phrased as “Alpha fucks/Beta bucks”. Actually, it is a central tenet of red pill understanding and has been verified by evolutionary psychology. In short, it is a description of instinctive female mating strategies. All women want to have children by and investment from the top tier, highest quality men.* All women having children by top tier men is more or less feasible, but all women getting investment from the same is mathematically impossible. Women who, for whatever reason, aren’t able to secure the commitment of a top tier man must employ a compromise strategy if they want both commitment and good genes. They will get impregnated by the top tier man, but secure investment from a second rate man. This can involve outright deception and persuading the man to believe the child is actually his. Alternatively, if a woman is unable to hide this from the provider male, she may also have some children by him to sweeten the deal. However, his resources will be equally spread over all her children including the ones that aren’t his, which is a bad deal for him. In short alpha = good genes combined with low commitment and beta = bad genes combined with high commitment. The alpha/beta dichotomy mating strategy is employed by medium to low quality women to get the best of both types.

What isn’t talked about much, and should factor heavily into neoreactionary thought, is that men have a mirror dichotomous mating strategy. The mating strategy is called the madonna/whore dichotomy. Understanding the concept of whore should be obvious since we are surrounded by vast quantities of them in this decadent age of decline. Basically, a man can never be sure a child of a whore is his since she sleeps with so many different men, so he has a high probability of wasting his resources by investing in her children. A man will bed whores because it doesn’t cost him much to give her his genes so long as he can make himself scarce afterward. Men shouldn’t marry or commit to a whore, ever, because those that do usually lose the evolutionary game. This is so important that men have naturally evolved the instincts to objectify and even feel disgust towards such women as a mechanism to prevent commitment. Lust might push a man to sleep with a whore, but after all is said and done men often can’t wait for the whore to get as far away from them as possible and never return. This isn’t an accident. Men are protected from wasting their resources on children that aren’t their own by these feelings of anti-commitment. Contrary to popular opinion, disgust toward the idea of commitment to whores is the correct attitude for men to have and it should be encouraged.

The madonna on the other hand is quite rare, at least in the wake of leftoid destruction of society. A madonna is a chaste and loyal woman who a man can be reasonably sure bore his children. Men instinctively know that their children stand a better chance if they stick around, but they can only risk staying around for a woman of high moral character. A Madonna gives him the opportunity to invest in his children with low risk of paternity fraud. This is a good opportunity for him because the chance of successful reproduction of his children in turn is much higher if he directly invests in them. If a man meets a woman who he perceives to be a madonna, he will correspondingly develop feelings for her and try to commit since among all the possible mating strategies, that gives his genes the greatest chance for further reproduction in the next generation. In short Madonna = high paternal confidence combined with high commitment; whore=low paternal confidence combined with low commitment.

Humanity benefits greatly when most men engage in the madonna mating strategy. A man’s investment in his children is not affected by the law of diminishing returns. The more he can invest, the more fit his children are. Therefore, he has a very strong incentive to be much more productive than he otherwise would be and to look for any method or technology that might increase that productivity further. The increased productive labor and technological development of the entire population of men combines synergistically to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Everyone benefits from a productive and prosperous civilization that can only result from the combined cooperative efforts of all men.

Tension arises between the contrasting alpha/beta mating strategy and the madonna/whore strategy because whores gain tremendously if they are incorrectly perceived as Madonnas. Deception in mating thus offers a very large reward to individual women. This results in a population sized prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone benefits significantly if women as a population are faithful to whatever man they can actually get to commit. However, individual women can gain tremendously on top of the benefits of civilisation if they can have children by a high quality man while convincing another to invest in them. The problem is that should a large enough percentage of women cheat, men eventually figure it out (or evolve) to be more reluctant to commit and without enough men working past their individual needs civilization falters. In essence, this is a free rider problem in which women want the benefits of civilization, but do not cooperate with the needs of the group to make civilization possible.

Addressing the problem of female free riders has thus been universal to all human cultures that have developed civilization. Usually the prescriptions for chastity and commitment have come associated with religious or spiritual belief. Religious and moral systems are the cultural solution to an intractable biological problem. Since the reward for cheating is and always will be high there is no scenario in which evolution could naturally eliminate the trait, therefore cultural methods for suppressing free riders must be omnipresent and strict. Anything less and civilization becomes unstable. I can’t help but wonder if Eve’s part in tempting Adam in the book of genesis is an allegory for the sequence of events that culminate with the destruction of civilization. First women fail to cooperate, then men refuse to participate, and finally we are all thrown out of Eden…

What we experienced in the 20th century was the triumph of the free riders over civilization. The culture that was indispensable for suppressing the free riders was hijacked and turned on its head. Not only does culture now fail in its primary pro-civilizational mission, it actively discourages women from cooperation and makes it as easy as possible for them to cheat their responsibilities. No fault divorce combined with asset division, defining fatherhood as something other than biological, and banning paternity testing all allow free rider women to commit paternity fraud with minimal amounts of deception. Redistribution policies to mothers, and especially single mothers, allow free rider women to do away with any pretense of cooperation entirely and coerces all productive men into being de facto cuckolded beta providers. The near universal desire by women to advance the feminine imperative is nothing less than the collective failure of women to resist the greedy temptation to eat of the forbidden fruit. The cost of this failure is civilization itself and there can be no greater price to pay than Eden.

If there is any hope of restoring the cultural potential for an expansive and prosperous civilization, society must be optimized such that a maximum number of men willingly engage in the madonna mating strategy. For men to be willing to do this, marriage must be made appealing to men. To be appealing, men have to be unambiguously made the authority of the household and must be immune to financial ruin resulting from the incorrigibly capricious nature of women. In addition, humanity must culturally frustrate the evolutionary potential of free rider mating strategies. Social exclusion and refusal of the state to subsidize single mothers should provide sufficient punishment and disincentive.** The divorce laws need to be biased to favor men by default. If there isn’t clear evidence of extreme wrongdoing on his part, then the wife must be given a raw deal for breaking her vows. Is this unfair to women? It doesn’t matter. The only morality is civilization, and civilization is only possible when men are willing to marry because it works in their favor.


High quality is determined by instincts and evolution, not reason or preference for civilization. Resources can indicate high quality, but so can great charisma, as well as physical attractiveness. The instincts of women seem to consider all such traits holistically. The only thing that is important is the potential for the children of these men to inherit the traits that enable them to reliably reproduce themselves.

** Widows whose husbands died untimely early deaths could be excepted.

Share Button

Marriage as a business contract and the case for father custody

Sunshine Mary stopped by to voice her concerns about the hypothetical traditional community I proposed in my “who is the true enemy of neoreaction” posts (part 1, part 2). First she brought up that premarital promiscuity in males increased the risk of men cheating.

Hello, I’m not neoreactionary but I’m interested in these topics, so I hope you won’t mind if I offer a few thoughts for your consideration.

First, the problem is that a man’s previous sexual history does, in fact, affect his marital stability. In the study that Social Pathologist cited, it didn’t affect divorce stats the way it did for women, but Susan Walsh compiled this data from the GSS data:

If you’re going to build a community with a bunch of burned-out PUAs, statistically they’re likely to be all over each other’s women. I don’t think that’s going to make a stable society. (I wrote about this in an old blog post, if you are interested: )

This is partially addressed here.  I fully concede that there are a variety of reasons to discourage male promiscuity.  However, as elaborated in that post, there hasn’t been much work on demonstrating that male premarital promiscuity leads to higher divorce rates and so I am not convinced that it should be on the list of reasons for male chastity. If premarital promiscuity does lead to greater male infidelity post-marriage, but not to increased risk of divorce, that would be an interesting finding to say the least. Though it would be consistent with the red pill understanding of female psychology as well as empirical evidence. If a man is attractive enough to be able to cheat, that demonstrates his high value to his frustrated, but now more interested, wife.

She then goes on to bring up a very important point about child support:

Second, I understand the impulse to eschew state-based marriage because it seems like that should clear up cash-n-prizes frivorce, but in fact it doesn’t do so if there are children present. Dalrock has concluded that the problem is primarily child support payments, and whether or not there was a legal marriage, a man (or theoretically a woman) will still be ordered by the courts to pay child support, which is the real incentive. So relying on the absence of legal marriage won’t work; you have to think through how you’d deal with child support issues.

I expanded a bit on my original reply for this post:

Though the label of the image isn’t very clear, it seems to be trying to indicate that more sexual partners increases the risk of men cheating during marriage and this may be true, but doesn’t necessarily mean the men will divorce their wives or stop providing for their families. That is the actual standard of importance for men in marriage.

The problem is the idea that men and women are equivalent and bring the same assets to the union. In marriage, women trade their sexuality for male resources and provisioning. This is to give him a guarantee that the children he is providing for are in fact his. Women do not trade their sexuality for male sexuality because under no circumstances will women ever be able to doubt that their children are theirs. On the contrary, many women seem to prefer men with previous partners because it provides evidence that he is high value. Without the potential cost of accidentally raising another woman’s child, women can afford to be more tolerant of their husband’s dalliances.

[assuming marriage 1.0] A woman’s greatest possible failure in a union is infidelity because when she married that is the resource she willingly traded to her husband. Post marriage, he owns her sexuality and the products thereof exclusively. A man’s greatest possible failure in a marriage is the abandonment or inability to provide for his wife and children. Post marriage, she (and her children) own his provisioning exclusively. Infidelity on the part of the wife is a breach of contract and forfeits any claim she has on the products of his labor.

As a matter of principle and in the interest of harmony it is a good idea to strongly discourage male infidelity, but the relative gravity of the transgression is not as large as female infidelity. This is why I stated in my post that for men, sexual history is more optional. Leniency here wouldn’t destroy the community in my opinion. Though this is technically true, I certainly understand principled rejection of PUAs from the hypothetical community. More likely than facing PUAs off, though, I suspect you will have to decide to accept or reject men with a few to moderate level of previous partners (not true PUAs), so it wouldn’t be as clear cut.

I agree that in the current situation child custody is a problem. The only way around it for this hypothetical community would be for them to band together and collectively resist any attempts by the state to enforce such payments, similar to how the farmers resisted the abduction of their cattle. A single man would not succeed by himself.

In marriage 1.0, it is the man’s duty to provide provisions for his wife and children, not the wife’s. Should a wife destroy the union, his biological children should be awarded fully to the father who will provide sole support as it was always his sole responsibility per the original marriage contract. When he married, the man purchased the ownership of his wife’s sexuality and any children that result from that sexuality in exchange for his provisioning. When a husband and wife separate in marriage 1.0, the wife has no claim on the children. They aren’t and were never hers. Does this place a significant burden on men? Yes it does, but living up to high expectations and prevailing in difficult situations is what men do. It is their traditional role. So long as they are systematically and fairly rewarded and acknowledged for their efforts, there is no reason not to expect men to shoulder a larger burden than women. In addition, fully ejecting the woman who destroyed her marriage from the community implies that she should not even be allowed to see the children. If this sounds harsh to you, keep in mind that this is SUPPOSED to be a disincentive, it has to be harsh.

Trying to pull some small amount of money from her isn’t worth the cost of the community continuing to interact with her. Even today where women are “liberated” men as a group generate most of the wealth so it is very unlikely that chasing after her will yield much anyway. It is better to simply accept that the man will have to shoulder all of the burden, but at least they get the full benefit of taking on the extra responsibility by having complete and sole access to their children.

Now, it is true that every situation is different and there are and would be cases where the husband is at fault. A competent arbiter would probably be needed to evaluate such situations and make rare exceptions when needed. However, without compelling evidence that a man had somehow failed his duties of material support, custody should be awarded to fathers by default.


Share Button