AI Podcast 2: What is the average man of the West to do? Greg and Vince discuss Spengler’s civilizational model, and how it might explainÂ our current malaise. Plus: who is the Alternative Right? How does it differ from the liberal-conservative mainstream? Finally, some thoughts on the Alt-Right’s religious divide between Christians and Neo-Pagans.
Coming to college, upon the recommendation of a blue-pilled beta friend, I joined an organization called Chi Alpha. They were the real deal: crying and shaking, guitar-strumming, tambourine-banging, born again evangelists. But being an immigrant, and clueless to boot, I had no idea what kind of craziness to expect. Full disclosure, in my beta boy angst, I was easily seduced by the easy smiles and talk of community, acceptance, and Christian life. I even went on a retreat with the group where I saw feminized Christianity at its best. Luckily I made it out unscathed, with a tale or two for you, dear readers.
Iâ€™ll never forget the time that a middle-aged (read: post-wall) speaker came to talk to us on special invitation. She lamented how God had not yet sent her a man and described how hard she had worked at her career and how she had a few men that walked out on her earlier in her life, leading her to take a break from dating. She claimed that she found God at this time, leading her to only pursue men in a Christian manner, which I assume meant not frequenting the same dive bars.
Either way, this new â€œChristian approachâ€ to dating didnâ€™t seem to pan out, because the subject of her talk was all about God not giving her a man and how it must just not be her time. The trials that this poor spinster faced elicited comparisons with Job and Rachel from the Old Testament. I remember how her voice trembled, and I couldnâ€™t help feeling how awful those men were for dumping her while she was trying to pursue a Christian lifestyle.
She even talked about the debt that she had accumulated from going to graduate school in her early 30s, and how she hoped that God would help her find a way to pay off her debt. I wonder how much the first goal and the second goal were related in her mind. As always, the â€œhook up cultureâ€ was decried and the disrespect for women by males at the university was constantly a subject of pontification. Naturally, the true causes of the hook-up culture were never addressed, the broken nature of the old dating model never mentioned, and slutty behavior by women never called to account. But hey, what do you expect from gynocentric feminized Christianity?
The girls all shed thick, heavy tears and nodded emphatically about how hard it was to find a good Christian boy to fall in love with. Needless to say, there were Christian boys all around them, only none of them seemed capable of igniting a fire in their loins. I wonder why. Iâ€™ll venture to say selection bias had something to do with it.
Whiny femme-boys with no applied charisma skill (game) trying to justify their involuntary celibacy as part of a wholesome Christian lifestyle donâ€™t make college girls swoon. But rather than confronting their sexual marketplace value and working to improve their game, their character, and hell, maybe even working out a bit, they instead found religion as a balm for their broken hearts.Â Hereâ€™s the pitch:
Pastor: Do you feel out of place and rejected by girls?
College boy: Boy, do I!
Pastor: Never get invited to parties?
College boy: Not reallyâ€¦
Pastor: Come join our cult club and Jesus will take all the pain away.
College boy: Maybe Iâ€™ll get a cute Christian girlfriend if Iâ€™m good and God rewards me!
I only saw one match-up occur between two Chi Alpha members: a reformed slut and a football player. Full disclaimer, the girl was a 3 or a 4 on a good day, and on the big retreat to Virginia beach, broke down during discussion time and sobbed out a story about how she had lots of pre-marital sex with her boyfriend and felt abused because of it.
Now a black football player, at any university, is a prime catch for any girl, and this guy wasnâ€™t bad looking at all. His big problem though: he was too nice and had no game. Naturally he tried with several girls when he came to college, and flamed out spectacularly several times, leading him to join Chi Alpha as the savior intended. After being â€œset upâ€ with this damaged goods â€œChristian,â€ the football player became the toast of the club, a shining example of what every good Christian ought to do. The fact that this 3/10 had had more sex with more partners in her short 19 years of life than he ever would probably in his entire life never seemed to bother him.
How noble of all of these angsty betas to renounce their involuntary celibacy for a voluntary oneâ€”the sacrifice must have been immense. Here is my main point about these religious groups: they are INCREDIBLY damaging to young men because, like youth groups of the past, it puts a skewed moral burden on many young men and actively prevents them from developing their skills with women.
The sexual marketplace has changed, and all those beta traits that church groups used to foster in their young men are totally useless. You know that hottie sitting next to you in the pew? Chances are sheâ€™s banging some random dude she met at the university pub on Saturday and sitting there talking to you about â€œChristian valuesâ€ on Sunday (true story). Why? Because its alpha or die, dear readers.
And as long as she continues mouthing platitudes and shedding tears during the group sing along, no one will know. Even if she should choose to confess her sins or something, I guarantee you that she would be forgiven. Evangelicals are predominantly female. Evangelicals love reformed sluts. Jesus has been re-branded as the perfect white knight poster boy for the feminized Christianity cult that I see in America. Try pulling that shit as a guy who got drunk and had a one night stand, youâ€™d be standing before an honor council by the end of the day.
According to Chi Alpha and evangelical groups like it aimed almost exclusively at youth, one would think that Christ came down from heaven for one reason and one reason only: to prevent underage drinking and pre-marital sex. In a nutshell, this was the point of the group. Any group that takes awkward betas and reinforces their tendencies to the point of associating religious holiness with social awkwardness deserves to be purged. There are enough conflicting messages from Hollywood, clueless parents, left-wing school administrators without so called religious â€œconservativesâ€ jumping on the bandwagon and skewering men as well.
Where was the tradition? The whole, â€œwomen be loyal and submissive to your husbands,â€ â€œdonâ€™t whore around in your 20s and expect a husband when youâ€™re overweight, pushing 40 and drowning in student debtâ€ stuff? It wasnâ€™t progressive enough I guess. Our universityâ€™s brand of evangelicalism even avoided condemning gays the same way their southern brethren would. I asked several times about the churchâ€™s position on the homosexual lifestyle, and got no replies, probably because we had many homosexuals in the congregation. Pretty conservative, amirite?
There was nothing truly Christian about the experience. The movement felt like it had been spawned in the early 90s and that Jesus had died as early as the 9/11 attacks with only a tenuous connection at best to the actual crucifixion and the story of the early church. Long story short, it wasnâ€™t for me, and I decided I needed a church based in tradition and not drowning in progressive platitudes, and based on the â€œmake it up as you go alongâ€ attitude of the Protestant tradition.
A short epilogue:
After I overcame my weird, guilty, religious phase, stopped showing up (I only went for about 3 months), and read up on some game material, I turned right around and banged a couple of those girls. Praise be to God.
From 361 to 363 AD, Rome was ruled by emperor Julian. If you know your Roman history, at the time, Rome had already converted to Christianity with the Emperor Constantine, who had accepted Christianity on his deathbed. When Julian came to power, he brought with him an agenda of reforms that would restore the greatness of the Roman empire. In his mind, it only made sense to start with political and religious reforms. He blamed Christianity for the state of the Roman empire and he also blamed Constantine for the state of the administration and for having abandoned the traditions of the past.
He restored pagan temples which had been confiscated since Constantineâ€™s time, or simply appropriated by wealthy citizens; he repealed the stipends that Constantine had awarded to Christian bishops, and removed their other privileges, including a right to be consulted on appointments and to act as private courts… On 4 February 362, Julian promulgated an edict to guarantee freedom of religion. This edict proclaimed that all the religions were equal before the law, and that the Roman Empire had to return to its original religious eclecticism, according to which the Roman state did not impose any religion on its provinces. Practically however, it had as its purpose the restoration of paganism at the expense of Christianity.”
To his surprise however, he failed spectacularly in his efforts, all the more so considering that Christianity was not yet the predominant religion of the empire, rather still another sect among many. The pagan temples were simply already empty, abandoned or under new ownership by Christians who had simply moved in. To paraphrase the great authority on Rome, Edward Gibbon:
Did you remember to give Jeremy Wales your Shekels?:
Julianâ€™s attempt to bring about a new form of paganism fostered a central pagan religion with the very virtues that he opposed in Christianity. For example, Julian attempted to introduce a tighter organization for the priesthood, with greater qualifications of character and service. Likewise, Julianâ€™s persecution of Christians, who by pagan standards were simply part of a different cult, was quite an un-pagan attitude that transformed paganism into a religion that accepted only one form of religious experience while excluding all othersâ€“such as Christianity. In trying to compete with Christianity, Julian fundamentally changed the nature of pagan worship. That is, paganism became a religion, whereas it once had been only a system of tradition.â€
This is a startling story because it raises many parallels with the situation that we find in America. The old religion is dying; the idea of a liberal, democratic, and prosperous society built upon the premise of the American Dream has disappeared. Americans more and more, wistfully look at the past with its assurances of a stable job with benefits, a loyal and feminine wife, and an assurance that future generations will have it better than you. Unfortunately, things are deteriorating, and have been for a while. Occasionally we get a pep talk from the Emperor-in-Chief about how we will revive the middle-class and restore American values back to their proper place on the bow of the HMS Progress. Jobs will come back and with them, the white picket fences will pop back up. Illegal immigration will be resolved, Ebola contained, race issues in America cordially concluded once and for all. We may as well be promised that women will no longer be taught to be empowered sluts, and frustrated beta males will be able to find wives again.
The truth of the matter, however, is that the genie is out of the box, pandoraâ€™s box opened and the toxic sludge of equalism with all its attendant derivatives (feminism, historical revisionism, racial self-abasement) continues to ooze out. It wont stop, and the old traditions wonâ€™t come back, even if a sympathetic emperor were to try and stem the tide. The nostalgia is not strong enough, the churches are empty, and the new visionaries continue to chant â€œprogressâ€ over a cacophony of equalist cant that drowns out the old truisms and traditions and labels them heretical.
Feebly clinging to the moderate ideologies of the last several decades is a sure way of ending up like Julianâ€™s pagans. Turning the clock back 10, 20, maybe 50 years is a sure-fire way to get right back to where you started, as Julian found out. Reaction is not about trying to stave off â€œprogress,â€ consigning oneself to fighting a rear-guard action against the forces of â€œreformâ€ as they nip at the heels of a disorderly and retreating army. Conservatism in this sense is just a reaction to whatever current trend of progressivism happens to be most prevalent in a given society at the time. What good is it then to constantly dig oneâ€™s heels in, knowing that eventually and assuredly, the enemy will continue to press the advance and retreat will be inevitable? Conservatism is little more than a knee-jerk reaction and hardly an alternative at all. Donâ€™t believe me? Trace the development of modern day conservatism and youâ€™ll see a clear trajectory leftward and downward.
We are told that International Free Trade raises all boats. Hecksler and Ohlin, Ricardo, and even Krugman with his theory of monopolistic competition, all make an argument for the benefits of free trade.
Of the many assumptions that these theorems hold, one of them that remains fairly consistent is the realization that certain sectors will be helped and others hurt by free trade. If your country is relatively abundant in a factor, according to H-O, you will focus on the abundant factor and will increase wages and employment in that sector to the detriment of the less abundant sector. (Read, white collar services vs. manufacturing.) Or as Ricardo puts it, there will be a comparative advantage in production of one good versus another and the country in question will focus on producing that one good. But what happens if you no longer produce goods in one sector that used to employ millions of your citizens?
Occasionally, the elites who teach the budding elites-to-be these â€œtruthsâ€ will mention that something has to be done about the collapse of entire sectors and the re-allocation of wealth to another sector. In the United States, where high-skill work and services are the beneficiaries of trade liberalization it is not easy to see who would be its most vocal proponents.
What is a society supposed to do about all the old blue-collar workers? The question is indeed occasionally raised within the classrooms of the elite universities in the West. Invariably, the answer is this: they must be re-educated and acquire skills that are necessary in the new free trade economy. Nonwithstanding the difficulties of re-educating middle-aged and older generations of workers, and assuming that this can indeed be done on a mass scale, who will pay for the re-education?
Here’s the thought process:
A: Why, the government of course. Q: And who will support them while they are being re-educated? A: The government must step in, of course. Q: Wonâ€™t this all cost money? A: Yes, but the government will pay for it. Q: Using the benefits accrued from engaging in international trade in the first place? A: Now youâ€™re getting it! Q: Wonâ€™t someone have to be taxed or some wealth redistributed then? A: No, no, no, we donâ€™t want to tax the job creators out of the country! Q: â€¦So who will pay for all these unemployment benefits, and re-education programs? A: Why not just borrow some money now and hope that it gets better down the road!
The entire free trade theory willingly recognizes that there will be winners and losers. But the net benefits we are told, will clearly outweigh any costs. But the costs are there, and often times will not be counted as easily as units of coal exported and units of cheap chinese junk imported. Unemployment leads to depression, destruction of the nuclear family unit, mass relocation, ghost cities, and disproportionate strain on different sectors of our society. And only the elites and (the token scholarship minority) who get the top tier education can get their foot in the door of the lucrative booming â€œservicesâ€ sector of the economy (read: consulting, finance.) It is precisely these folks who are told all throughout school that international trade is GREAT, outsourcing is SUPER, and that a rising tide lifts all boats. â€œBy engaging in international trade we are actually helping all the brown peoples of the world!â€ â€“ In case you had any doubts that altruism lay at the heart of the trade liberalization trend. Perhaps one of the most interesting paradoxes of the ruling liberal intelligentsia is their complete lack of empathy for their own kind, and their bleeding heart tendency to identify with just about every other culture that isnâ€™t White. Their hatred for â€œthe fly-over states,â€ the â€œred-necks,â€ their fellow, less well-off and more socially conservative Whites is a strange phenomenon and one worth delving into in another post.
But the fact that the educated classes of these less well-off countries who engage in free trade tend to lose out at the expense of relatively modest gains among the abundant sectors (almost always low-skilled labor) tends to be blotted out. This is a well known truth, first widely mentioned in the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, (a widely known and academically accepted theorem, part of the Hecksler-Ohlin Model) so why is it not mentioned more? (While the gap between rich and poor gets smaller worldwide, it is partly because many of the middle class get squeezed out of their non-efficient non-abundant sector jobs, while the vast underclass gets a small increase in living standards from opening up entirely to trade.) Perhaps because it doesnâ€™t fit in with the convenient vision laid out by the proponents of free-trade. And the numbers should alarm you, economist Alan Blinder (who by no means is anti-free trade or outsourcing) estimates that somewhere between 22% and 29% of all U.S. jobs are or will be potentially offshorable with in a decade or two…Which begs the question: what is the end goal then, what will this veritable end-game garden of Eden that we are barreling full speed towards, look like?
I would venture to say that it would look something like this; rich enclaves of white collar workers whoâ€™s stockâ€™s soared with the increase in international trade and its attendant drop in short term costs for companies in the way of wages, benefits and environmental standards. …And an ocean of ghettos surrounding the gated compounds of the lucky elites who made it, with the lower class living on the government dole until one of their kids is lucky enough to make it into a top twenty school and go off to Wall St. and work to pay off those federal loans that they were so fortunate to receive. Just a guess.
But I have some news for you. Are you White, middle-class, with both your parents still together, and no disabilities or cherokee blood to speak of? Well, congratulations then! You are somehow privileged and therefore you will be the recipient of the least amount of financial aid of any other group of students in the United States. State school is the only viable option for you, and you will constantly be told by the same class that sold the future of the middle-class down the river, that you are in some way responsible for the colonial history of your country and that you are inherently an oppressor who needs to check his privilegeâ€¦
There is only one privileged class in this country and it is the class that â€œmakes itâ€ to the top-tier universities and then to one of the sectors that hasnâ€™t been absolutely gutted by proponents of â€œthe free market is always rightâ€ cult of economics. If you have the smarts and play by the rules, theyâ€™ll let you into their club, just always remember to toe the party line.
If ever there was a writer that took up the cause of cultural Marxism and brought it to the forefront of popular culture it was Herbert Marcuse and his groundbreaking book, Eros and Civilization. Having just read it and written a midterm paper on it myself, I can tell you with all honesty that it is one of the most intentionally confusing, obscure and meandering books that I have ever come across. Its Marxist undertones however are readily apparent, even to the disinterested reader. Having read the book, I would venture to call the author, Marcuse, the father of the blue-pill. In it, while rambling on about Freudian pseudo-analysis of manâ€™s true sexual nature, Marcuse advocates the overthrow of 50â€™s era Western society, along psycho-analytic grounds.
The fundamental point that Marcuse raises is the idea of surplus repression. The fundamental premise is that civilization with its traditions and its competition based performance principle repress man and require more and more work from him despite the fact that we could all readily live lives of far greater leisure. Furthermore, man is now alienated from the product of his labor and does not take joy in the production of say a 1000 ipods as much as he would the production of one spear with which he could hunt for food. Civilization acts as a source of surplus repression that denies man the expression of one of his most basic drives, the Eros or love drive. According to this theory, man tries to reach out and connect to the entire world, to expand himself and by doing so engage in erotic love, or love of a non-sexual nature. Making friends, building communities, when not motivated by the performance principle are all examples of Eros or non-genital love. The kind of work that society makes us engage in however, is non erotically charged, but repressive and makes us all deeply unhappy.
Ok, pretty basic Freud stuff so far, whats next?
Marcuse makes the claim that genital intimacy has been elevated above all other forms of sexual intimacy; apparently we used to possess as children what Marcuse calls pre-genital polymorphous perversity in which we love without focusing on genital heterosexual release as a primary goal.
No longer used as a full-time instrument of labour, the body would be re-sexualisedâ€¦ (which) would first manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones and, consequently, in a resurgence of pre-genital polymorphous sexuality and in a decline of genital supremacy. The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed â€“ an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organised, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.â€
Did you catch the last bit? The executive summary:
â€œIntentionally grandiose language and theorizing to drive home the final point about how the monogamic and patriarchal family is repressive. Didnâ€™t quite follow the logic? Donâ€™t worry, thatâ€™s the point, but at least youâ€™re convinced that some sophisticated thought processes went on to arrive at the final point that the nuclear family unit is bad. â€
Wasnâ€™t this the guy that coined the phrase, â€œdrugs, sex and rock and roll?â€ Keep in mind that the work of men like Marcuse, Frankfurt school acolytes in general, formed the intellectual groundwork of the entire 60â€™s counter-culture movement. His platform was a promise of a utopia of sex on demand and every single perversity of every single individual fulfilled on the grounds of it being grounded in their childlike innocence. True red-pillers know that all the betas marching around in berets were the first to lose out on the sexual bonanza promised by the â€œsexual revolutionâ€ as they found out that, much to their horror, womenâ€™s unrestrained sexual nature is hypergamous, and beta boy waving the hammer and sickle was the first victim of the laissez-faire sexual marketplace. God has a sense of humor I suppose.
With Marcuse, tradition, with its guiding structures and underlying understanding of objective truth is seen as something repressive and worth overthrowing. But feeling, and exploration of our animal curiosities is the key to our happiness as individuals and as a society. Somehow this repudiation of society built on humanityâ€™s development of a super-ego, through a Great Refusal, as Marcuse puts it, will suddenly return us to animals/children romping around free to engage in polymorphous perversity whenever we please, oh yeah, and weâ€™ll get to keep all the benefits of industrial civilization as well.
Truth, however incomprehensible it may be to us, should be the true motivator of society, and even if it isnâ€™t, it will always rear its ugly/blessed head and remind us that social projects are by their very nature attempts to defy human nature. I hesitate to say more about Marcuse, except to mention that this was the popular voice of the 60s calling for overthrow of patriarchy, black revolt, and discarding of traditional values, all in the favor of something called the pleasure principle, the idea that humans live to experience erotic pleasure and that any digression from this pursuit is damaging and to be avoided at all costs. Take that as you will. Personally the conflation of these disparate ideas seem to be a logical leap at best, but keep in mind that logical, systematized theory was never the modus operandi of Marcuseâ€™s work. His was an emotional appeal, riding the populist indignation of worker exploitation to market completely disparate, unrelated and toxic ideals to upper-middle class white folks living in a baby boomer utopia and fundamentally divorced from reality.
The appeal to the counter-culture youth worked, and now we wonder why university students are the chubby-cheeked herbivores who march around in guy fawkes masks shrilly chanting â€œwe r legiun, end raep cultur NAW!!!â€ If you ask me, guys like Marcuse had a lot to do with it. But I believe we may be nearing a tipping point, enough of us are waking up, and maybe it is high time for a counter-culture movement of our own.
Iâ€™d like to share a quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the famous Russian dissident author who emigrated to the United States during the height of the Cold War. Solzhenitsyn wrote about Communism and the Soviet Union mostly, but it is amazing the parallels that one can see with contemporary American society, in terms of the cultural climate. Keep in mind, the United States has changed from Solzhenitsynâ€™s time, so much so that the following quote now illustrates the current condition of western society.
Our present system is unique in world history, because over and above its physical and economic constraints, it demands of us total surrender of our souls, continuous and active participation in the general, conscious lie. To this putrefaction of the soul, this spiritual enslavement, human beings who wish to be human cannot consent.
One of the complaints of the early communists operating in western Europe in the late 20s and 30s was that the workers would not join their revolt. This astounded many of the early communists who could not believe that the workers did not want to overthrow the capitalistic system and all the accumulated historical legacy of oppression that they believed all workers inherited.
GyÃ¶rgy LukÃ¡cs was one of the early founders of cultural marxist thought who concluded that the workers did not join their revolt because of their â€œChristian souls.â€ What he believed was necessary was a re-education of society, a gradual changing of values and subversion of symbols until they no longer stood against global communist revolution. He and many like-minded left wing intellectuals would go on to found the Frankfurt school and continue disseminating these ideas of cultural paradigm change through language, ideas, and a pervasive counter-culture.
How much the times have changed where the counter-culture has become the dominant and only culture, the ideas all increasingly radical and the very English language changed to accommodate a pernicious left wing agenda of political correctness.
Because of this oppressive regime of thought, we are left without words to even articulate our opposition without immediately being castigated by a society-wide knee-jerk reflex, a defense mechanism programmed to act against reactionaries and traditionalists of all stripes. What Solzhenitsyn brought up about the Soviet Union is already steadily creeping up on us here in the west. The economic model of Marxism has failed, but the cultural model is alive and well, we see it in feminism, equalism, historical revisionism, native guilt, and disintegration of tradition on the grounds of it not being progressive enough.
It seems that to be part of the elite is to take part in a great lie. One must be able to mouth off their platitudes and adopt a vigilant eye for potential bait designed by the mob samizdat to lure you into making a mistake. Even worse, taking a page out of the New Testament and Jesusâ€™s admonition of harboring any seditious thoughts at all to heart, progressives try to not only reform our behavior, but the very contents of our character as well.
Good becomes bad, bad becomes good. Death becomes life, perversion the norm, sophism a part of every lecture, and the right to dissent only accorded to a select few. Truly, Solzhenitsyn would be rolling over in his grave.
Most of you by now know about the rape culture campaign that has reached fever pitch around the nation. Even Michelle Obama and some other B-list celebrities got in on the action by posting youtube videos talking about ending â€œrape culture.â€ This hysteria rages particularly hard on college campuses, making me feel very lucky to be off the dating market at the moment. But not everyone is as lucky as me.
An acquaintance of mine was dating her boyfriend in college for two years. Over the summer before her junior year however, she decided that she had enough. Naturally she gave a myriad of reasons why she wanted needed to break up with him. Apparently he was â€œholding her backâ€ from experiencing college life. At the time, I took this statement at face value and thought he was just a stick in the mud. More realistically however, she was just starting to get bored of the boring beta that trailed after her at all the parties and wouldnt let her have any â€œfun.â€
And boy did she have fun after they broke up. I had a front row seat to the affair. And since she was like â€œone of the brosâ€ she didnâ€™t skimp on the details. Full disclosure: she is not a prime catch (otherwise I too would have been tempted to smash), in fact Iâ€™d rate her a solid 5, in other words: very average. But most college males are incredibly thirsty and will jump at the opportunity to get with anything that even resembles a girl with interest in them. Suffice to say, she did way better for herself than one would expect based on her looks. She even had a fling with a 35 year old banker that would wine and dine her every week.
ThisÂ brings up something Iâ€™ll never understand: why adults looked wistfully back at their college years as if they were years of abundant poon just falling out of the heaven like unleavened bread. The truth is that chicks dig older guys, and the first half of college is rough for your average male, and only gets a bit better for most as they get older. Personally, I had a blast, but I had the added knowledge of being an acolyte of game. The others thoughâ€¦theyâ€™ve been struggling, and probably will continue to do so until they become rich bankers themselves. It doesnâ€™t help that you have the histrionics of the â€œrape cultureâ€ people to deal with either.
Back to the storyâ€”one night several months after their breakup she and him met up at a party again. One thing led to another, and they slept together that night. Only several weeks later, the girl went to the administration and claimed that she had been raped. The administration hem-ed and haw-ed and decided that the safe thing to do would be to suspend the boy for a year, pending a further investigation. Did you catch that? He wasnâ€™t proven guilty, he had witnesses that even came to his defense (one of my old roommates), and they were both drunk, but none of these mitigating factors prevented him from even openly debating whether he in fact committed rape or not.
Personally I know the guy, and he is one of the most vanilla-fied, beta-fied, and pussy-fied herbivores that you will find on a college campus. The idea of him forcing himself on anyone, including an ex-girlfriend that is the exact same height (and weight probably) as him is downright laughable. So perhaps the girl was suffering from a case of buyerâ€™s remorse? It seems like the most plausible explanation, but it begs the question, who is the type of guy that gets falsely accused of rape?
Itâ€™sÂ the lesser beta, never the bad boy alpha.
My own experiences add a splash of color to the affair. About a year and a half ago I asked out anÂ Indian chick (HBD 8.5) on a date. I didnâ€™t know it at the time, but I was oozing with charisma and natural game. She was working at the desk as a sort of secretary and wasÂ studying for her MCAT when I approached her. Keep in mind that this was before I understood the science behind applied charisma.
Naturally Alpha Me: You look really excited.
NAM: To be working this job.
Her: Yeah, its a blast. (*rolls her eyes*)
NAM: Are you studying for your MCAT?
Her: Yea, it sucks.
Me: I could tutor you!
Her: Are you also taking the MCAT?
Her: Haha then why do you think you can tutor me?
Me: Just a hunch. We should get lunch before we study together though.
Me: Whenâ€™s your break, Iâ€™ll come pick you up then.
Her: Hahahaah, ok 12.
I was wearing a sleeve-less t shirt, ray-ban knockoffs and most importantly I had that special factor x swagger that gave me that mischievous sparkle in the eyes and sly grin on my face that showed her I didnâ€™t take her too seriously. (In retrospect, I suppose I used a variant of Rooshâ€™s elderly opener.) The lunch date became an alcohol date the next day and just as I was escalating for the grand finale, she drops this bombshell on me.
â€œI have a boyfriend.â€
Ooof, game over right? Well the red-pilled male naturally understands that this is just last minute resistance, but I took it at face value. I backed off. Which is a shame because sexual tension continued to grow between us, until one night after we went on a drunk walk through the city at 4am, she insisted on sleeping over in my apartment. When I tried to make an advance on her, she refused and said that we had to sleep separately.Â I had a bunk bed and was on top, she was on the bottom. I hop up, close my eyes and hear her say:
â€œIf you were a man, you would take me nowâ€
I jump down, blood boiling, throw myself at her, only to have her start squirming and say, â€œWHAT are you doing!? I have a boyfriend!â€
Confused, I climb back up. One minute later.
â€œWhy did you stop?â€
I jump back down. Encounter resistance again, climb back up, confused as fuck.
â€œIâ€™m in your room and youâ€™re not doing anything to me?â€
Third timeâ€™s the charm right? Wrong. Same thing happens, I fall asleep soon after.
I wonder to this day what would have happened if I had done what she was begging me to do. Would I be in front of the honor council? Was I alpha enough then to escape her morning after buyerâ€™s remorse? Hard to say, but the deck would have certainly been stacked against meâ€¦
The only conclusion that I can draw is that college used to be a sort of training wheels on practice ground for middle-class males. Only now, the learning curve is steeper and the consequences much more dire for failing to internalize the lessons of game. I donâ€™t even think this will stay on campuses for long, so Iâ€™ll be the first to say it here: â€œrape culture awareness, coming soon to a workplace near you.â€ The moral of the story? Itâ€™s alpha or die, dear readers.
We have forgotten how to stand up for what is ours. We have forgotten how to raise our fists and fight.
Ever wonder where the great legal tradition of the West came from? Lots of reasons for it. But one of the main drivers of the use of lawyers and courts and the cause of our over-legislated modern culture was a civic campaign to cut down on urban disturbances, and public brawls.
Back in the day, even noblemen settled their disagreements with fist fights or duels. Get the stereotype of the foppish wig-wearing â€œgentlemenâ€ out of your head, your ancestors would throw down often and over just about anything. Disagreements were settled in the streets. Hereâ€™s what WikiPlebia has to say on the subject:
In Western society, the formal concept of a duel developed out of the mediaeval judicial duel and older pre-Christian practices such as the Viking Ageholmgang. Judicial duels were deprecated by the Lateran Council of 1215. However,Â in spite of Church disapproval, there were nevertheless seven capital crimes that were still commonly accepted as resolvable by means of a judicial duel. Most societies did not condemn dueling, and the victor of a duel was regarded not as a murderer but as a hero; in fact, his social status often increased. During the early Renaissance, dueling established the status of a respectable gentleman, and was an accepted manner to resolve disputes. Dueling in such societies was seen as an alternative to less regulated conflict.
The process of gentile-ization came hand in hand with attempts to curb excessive blood-letting in European cultures. The war-like tendencies of almost all European peoples however, were also tied up with their understanding of masculinity.
Men were expected to fight to earn their keep, win renown, and of course to secure a mate. The nobility of Europe was founded on the warrior class, unlike in other places such as China, or India, or South America, that all had priest-led societies. Some more history:
During the reign of Henry IV, over 4,000 French aristocrats were killed in duels â€œin an eighteen-year periodâ€ whilst a twenty-year period of Louis XIIIâ€˜s reign saw some eight thousand pardons for â€œmurders associated with duelsâ€. Roth also notes that thousands of men in the Southern United States â€œdied protecting what they believed to be their honour.â€
There you go. This doesnâ€™t even mention the number of your run-of-the-mill fist fights. Governments had to work hard to promote new mores and laws to stop the fighting, working hand in hand with the clergy to promote the central authorities as the sole arbiters of conflict. It took several millenia to stamp out the blood-thirst that our ancestors had, to get rid of that red-blooded craving of Western males to dominate and fight.
Forget your â€œguns, germs and steelâ€ explanation, the West became what it is at the tip of a bayonet. This was all done of course, with practical considerations in mind as well as religious ones. Losing 4,000 of your nobles to duels is a staggering statistic, and rising nation-states as well as absolute monarchies had a practical reason from the position of strong state-craft to begin reining in this pagan holdover tradition.
Still, I always wonder. Will any of us ever experience something this profoundly masculine ever again? Some will say it was a grotesque tradition. I say that it was a life-affirming one. Others, that all human life is sacred and these acts of killing were wrong. I reply that this thinking stems from a fear of death and a view of death as the absolute terror, when in fact there are far worse things that can befall you.
Warrior based-societies lived closer to death than we ever will, and so had a deeper understanding of it than we ever will, hidden as we are behind the safe veil of secular humanism.
I am not advocating for the wanton death and destruction that characterized so much of our collective human history. All I ask, is that we consider whether getting a black eye from time to time is really such a scary possibility that we had to spend the better part of the last century insulating ourselves from all the harsh realities of the world.
This is dangerous because our children increasingly do not what it means to fight. When they grow up, they will move from one safe white neighborhood to another, go to university with other bubble-wrapped children, and move into safe gated communities after they get that promotion. Their disputes are handled by the courts.
Their security is handled by an increasingly bigger and more heavily armed police force. Their wars are fought for them by legions of underclass contractors, and now by autonomous flying killing robots. The attitude that fighting is wrong,Â in and of itself has now been wired into the brain of almost every white westerner Iâ€™ve ever met. Like Jack answers in that iconic scene from Fight Club:
Tyler: Have you ever been in a fight?
Jack: No, but thatâ€™s a good thing.
It is almost a badge of honor to have never been in a fight. Even though deep down we know this is not true. As men, we crave the feeling of power, of knowing that we can handle ourselves when shit goes down. Often times, we fear that we canâ€™t and so with a little mental acrobatics we convince ourselves that our cowardice is in fact a virtue. â€œReal men donâ€™t have to fight,â€ or some similar drivel.
Hereâ€™s a newsflash: real men donâ€™t wear pink, real men donâ€™t make crying displays of being in touch with their feelings, and real men donâ€™t run from a fight.
By all means, take the advice of literally every person who has ever been in a fight, ever, and be smart about it. Donâ€™t pick bad fights. Donâ€™t get yourself killed over a girl. Donâ€™t talk big and then not back it up. But also, donâ€™t be so fucking afraid of standing up for yourself. Getting in a fight has real-world consequences, everyone knows this, in fact everything is geared to punish you if you do end up in one. You, dear reader, surely realize this as well as I realize it.
And yet, it is a profoundly religious experience. The feelings you feel while in a fight are nauseating, but after the fight, you feel so alive. You want to cry, to shout, to laugh, to eagerly inspect your body for bruisesâ€¦
From Russia, with love:
This video went viral about a year ago and its easy to see why. The message is refreshingly novel- and the channel continues to create great videos that we will undoubtedly feature here on AI.
If it is propaganda, then it is a new kind of propaganda. One that appeals to a different set of emotional cues.
Hereâ€™s the original opener. Pay attention: â€œYes I am an occupant. And I am tired of apologizing for it. I am an occupant by birthright, an aggressor and a bloodthirsty monster. Be afraid.â€
Its a powerful template. And one that we can use. Just replace â€œoccupantâ€ with the most derided, ridiculed and marginalized identity group in contemporary Western civilization.
Down with apologia. Enough simpering and hand-cringing. Repeat after me. â€œYes, I am straight, white male. And I am tired of apologizing for it. I am a straight, white male by birthright, an aggressor and a bloodthirsty monster. Be afraid.â€
If civilizations could be ranked on their alpha and beta qualities, Russia would take the gold medal this year, and as far as Iâ€™m concerned, the past two years as well. France needs to step it up- lets be real.Â But I will give props to one of their women- Elektre (a young french women pornstar with Generation Identitaire sympathies), showing us what AgitProp looks like in action with her Lutheresque nailing of proudly xenophobic propaganda to the granite door of the local Cathedral-sponsored public service message.
She does it all while being cussed out by an African migrant who appears to be on a date with a native French women. Not only did this woman modify some state-sponsored public art Ã la Billboard Liberation Front, but she also succeeded in rustling an ambassador of multiculturalism and most likely ruining his date. Truly, a cock block that would make Le Pen proud, and the cherry on top of this twofer.
France loses points however, because some former porn actress mademoiselle with a pixie cut had to step up where French men were lacking.
Also, the background to the video, namely the story of a communist mayor commissioning the mural with the words, â€œFrench women for African menâ€ emblazoned on it also leaves one with a strong desire to projectile vomit all over the nearest tricolor one can get oneâ€™s hands on. Still, BUGs makes a cameo appearance. Look closely and you can make out the words, â€œanti-racism is code for anti-whiteâ€ on the mural. Nice touch. Keep up the good work, shitlords.
This leaves us with the question, what about us? Yes, us, here in the United States. What have we done this week, collectively as a nation, to establish our Alpha credentials on the world arena?
This year’s Fatherâ€™s Day message from Angel Soft comes to mind.
You know, the one with the flaming fairy in a purple cardigan telling us about how to properly break every finger in your hand when throwing a punch (thanks, mom!) and the infuriatingly obvious mulicult token minority babbling in Mexican about her wonderful single mother.
Then there was the former Olympian Gold Medal winner who squeezed himself into a white one-piece for Vanity Fair. Check out this happy merchant famous photographer, Annie Leibowitz, eagerly facilitating this assault on Western masculinity with unabashed, hand-rubbing glee.
I keep wondering when our â€œGeneration Identitaireâ€ movement will start. When will American men start organizing en masse to take back what remains of the society? I see hopeful glimmers, couched in the idea of Neomasculinity, and THE TRUMPENING, but from all indications, America is lagging behind. Europe is already experiencing the birth of a new right, and it is growing among the youth, underground and unseen until it flashes out, gloriously and unexpectedly, in the form of viral Youtube videos. It might have something to do with the million strong invasion force that has landed on their shores.
I believe it can start with us. With the red pill community.
Start somewhere. If you can, create original content that inspires and informs. Remember that we are in an information war, a propaganda war for the soul of European civilization. The good people of /pol/ and other online communities have been working tirelessly to weaponize memes (heh) and put them at your disposal. Use them. Spread the word. Do your part and start red pilling as best you can.
Take care of your anonymity as well, its the only thing keeping you safe from the next witch hunt by the SJW samizdat.
The next time you see something on your local college campus promoting cultural marxism, do something about it too. See a feminist poster advertising dating advice for men with something along the lines of, â€œMen, always remember to ask for consent, otherwise itâ€™s rape?â€ Strike a blow for true social justice and feel your testicles swell with pride as you scrawlÂ â€œAlpha Fux, Beta Buxâ€ right across it.
How about a â€œCommunism Killsâ€ in red spray paint over the next, â€œDown with the Patriarchyâ€ banner you see?
AgitProp Done The Right Way
Iâ€™ll be the first to say itâ€”start getting the message out by trolling the way to salvation. Use the enemyâ€™s tactics against them.
(Update: AI stencils coming out soon. Look for them in our store.)
If you haven’t heard of this story, I present it to you with little fanfare. When will we reach Peak White Guilt? We’ll let the experts in the comments section decide.
This article has everything stereotypically associated with the Liberal Intelligentsia of the West in it. And it should make everyone reading this stop and shudder because these indoctrinated leftist clowns are graduating from school soon- (edit: already graduated and working at an NGO last I heard), and coming to a workplace near you. Here’s some juicy exerts:
Example 1: White Guilt
The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past. As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and weâ€™re not playing them.
Funny enough, he seems to make a case for “the white man’s burden” in 21st century neo-liberal terms. Basically, “black people need our help because whites hold all the power, and until whites do something to help blacks, nothing will change.” Of course, formally, SJWs would shudder at the thought of this neo-colonial mindset, and yet here it is, spelled out in black and white..
Example 2: Refusing to Account for Personal Responsibility
Young people who willingly or unwillingly go down this road have been dealt a bad hand. While speaking with a D.C. police officer after the incident, he explained that he too had come from difficult circumstances, and yet had made the decision not to get involved in crime. This is a very fair point â€” we all make decisions. Yet Iâ€™ve never had to decide whether or not to steal from people. Weâ€™re all capable of good and bad, but itâ€™s a whole lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them to.
What makes this funnier, is that talking with the DC police officer (I’m going to roll the dice and guess that he’s black), he gets told that socio-economic factors are not enough to remove the agency of choice or willingness to commit violent crime. But of course, the young SJW just brushes it off and blames it on “the system.” Which brings us to example 3…
Example 3: “Its the system, maaaan”
When we play along with a system that fuels this kind of desperation, we canâ€™t be surprised when weâ€™re touched by it. Maybe these two kids are caught, and this recent crime wave dies down, but it will return because the demand is still there, and the supply is still here. We have a lot, and plenty of opportunities to make even more. They have very little, and few opportunities to make ends meet.
A lot of Ivy League and top-tier university kids DO get a leg-up in life. And when they graduate, they will belong to the ruling class of this country and are the liberal left leaning intellectuals that are increasingly becoming a “Liberal Samizdat” in front of which we have to clap harder and harder to not be labeled “homophobes, racists, and sexists.” Even if the parents of these kids are rich conservatives, college will make sure that their children will end up like the mugged student: shrieking termagants begging for annihilation from the Uruk-hai.
Rush Limbaugh picked up on the story and chimes in: (Disclaimer: I’m actually not a big fan of Rush, but he’s spot on here)
Is this not pathetic? This is little glimpse here into the minds of our indoctrinated youth. You know, it used to be said that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. Now, if you want to mug a liberal, you go right ahead because the correct reaction is love for the mugger, understanding of the economic plight of the mugger.
One has to wonder if the Christian ideals of turning the other cheek have not finally reached saturation point, and now permeate the consciousness of the millennial generation. If this is true, the irony is that most millenials reject Christianity for being too barbaric and backward, without realizing that as a generation they represent the culmination of thousands of years of Christian teaching in the West.
Whatever is going on, it is incredible. It seems that even an encounter with near death is not enough to change the belief of this SJW. Such fanaticism is usually reserved only for the extremist sects of most religions, and yet here we find it as well, only in its secular form. This leads us to conclude that progressivism is itself a cult, dedicated to its own message, divorced from reality and dependent on faith alone, with its own strange rituals and initiations that one must go through to join the church.
There is a ray of light in all of this I suppose. The feminists on campus decried the article on the grounds that it was “victim blaming.” (Unfortunately many comments were removed, but not before your humble narrator picked out the juiciest ones.) Deconstructing their logic is a difficult task to be sure, but I surmise that they realized the following: a woman placed in that situation should not be blamed, so I guess we can’t blame this male who got mugged either. Although they then continued to agree that the fact that we are all white and privileged is a problem, and that systematized racism was the culprit behind the mugging. I guess both parties, the mugger and the muggee were the victims. Well there you go, liberal double-think at its finest…and they said 1984 was a work of fiction.