Equality and Hierarchy
Every egalitarian movement ends with the establishment of a new hierarchy. As it solidifies, caste and status crystallize on the social ladder until class mobility is as cemented as in feudal Japan. Eventually, those of talent, originality, and ambition conclude they have nothing to gain from the system’s preservation. This is how we get revolution [2].
Today, “privilege” theory is the ideology of the System. Though egalitarian, it pathologizes white male heterosexuals as morally flawed because of their inherent characteristics. The ideology is rife with contradictions – suggesting homosexuality is a matter of choice will result in moral condemnation, while stating the obvious truth that someone is born with a particular sex will result in similar fury from those who tell us that “gender” is actually fluid. Who you decide to screw is inherent and sacred – but the makeup of your body is just a social construct. Race doesn’t exist – except when it does [3]. Still, if there is one sociological truth, it’s that facts never get in the way of Belief and a redemptive social Narrative.
While it was once held that white males could transcend their position in an oppressive society through participation in social justice movements, even this is increasingly untenable. It’s now a cliché that every “anarchist” or “anti-racist” conference will eventually collapse [4] into infighting and vitriol because of the mere presence of these undesirables, no matter how enthusiastically they attempt to cuckold themselves. The Occupy Wall Street rallies quickly abandoned a focus on economic inequality to embrace goofy racial stage theater, making sure that white males spoke last [5] at any of their meetings. Unsurprisingly, after an initial surge, it collapsed as struggling American workers quickly concluded that they would rather be financially raped by Wall Street sociopaths than be represented by self-hating, sexually confused lunatics with graduate degrees in Ethnic Studies who think the best way to raise wages is through unlimited immigration [6]. Of course, what prevents such movements from being entirely made up of “People of Color” is the inability of the more vibrant denizens of the American Empire to self-organize without having their hand held by white or Jewish babysitters.
The Sexual Class System
But if the rhetoric surrounding race is heated, that surrounding sex is bordering hysteria. On college campuses, the testing ground for what is being developed for the entire country, a curious duality has developed.
On the one hand, standards of what were once called decorum and sexual restraint are all but absent at most universities. Co-ed dorms [7], pornography showings and sex toy exhibitions [8], and the general prevalence of the “hook up culture” satirized [9] by Tom Wolfe in I Am Charlotte Simmons makes it easy for American college men to obtain casual sex in a business-like fashion.
In fairness, the prevalence of “hook-up culture” among American females may be exaggerated [10] – #NotAllWomen are behaving this way. However, this is of relatively little importance, and what would once have been called shameful or “slutty” behavior no longer has any moral sanction, meaning that enough are behaving this way such that your average “bro” can confidently expect sexual exploits that would have seemed worthy of Casanova to a prior generation. The result is the relative unimportance of the sexual act among an entire generation and the prevalence of various arrangements including “friends with benefits,” hook up calls, and small scale harems possessed by generally unremarkable men. “Slutwalks” in defense of all this are already clichés in SWPL cities and on campuses, despite the fact that it enables men to view these kinds of women (accurately) as sexually disposable. Anything to stick it to those stuck up Christians I suppose.
On the other hand, college campuses are practically a de jure (if not de facto) police state when it comes to sexual relations between men and women. From the moment they step on campus, women are cautioned that everyone they meet is a potential rapist and the statistic of “one in four women is raped [11]” is widely deployed–even though it’s wrong [12]. Student handbooks are fodder for unintentional comedy, as some schools mandate elaborate procedures to obtain permission before initiating sexual behavior. Sexual assault is defined so broadly as to criminalize innocent behavior. The presence of any alcohol, practically inevitable, can be held to render consent impossible, essentially making a huge percentage of sexual encounters some variety of “rape.”
Any kind of flirting can be technically criminal [13], and hapless college males find themselves before disciplinary tribunals [14] that ignore the presumption of innocence, deny the right to counsel, and punish the accused even before the truth is established. Every male college student is furiously lectured [15] to never question a female student’s claim that she was raped, but more than one college or even high school student has quickly learned [16] that girls may magically transform a drunken hook up into a “Morning After Rape” on the “Walk of Shame” home.
Filming casual sexual encounters should be considered shameful in a normal society – but men have actually used it to free themselves from false acquisitions, as brave, independent, and strong “rape survivors” are revealed to have enthusiastically participated [17] in group sex before deciding to ruin their partners’ lives the next day. The fact that men are advising [18] each other to clandestinely film [19] sexual encounters to protect themselves from rape accusations speaks for itself.
Beta Males, Game, and Entitlement
Amidst the miasma of slut walks, Women’s Studies, and various women’s activist groups, the wise college man learns to exploit the sexual carnival while taking measures to protect himself. After he graduates, he takes a similar tact in navigating a broken culture. Sexual politics are reverting to a strange combination of the caveman era and Tumblr. Blunt physical attraction is all it takes to acquire sex in most cases, but if any sexual act draws the attention of the media or legal system, a man is instantly condemned, regardless of the truth. Therefore, he reacts with an attitude of amused mastery toward “modern women” and their elaborate rationalizations – taking what he can get and not expecting anything. With luck, he can find the diamond in the rough worthy of marriage – but fewer and fewer believe such a thing even exists or that marriage, like war, is anything other than a racket.
But what of the “beta males” – the so called nice guys who want one girlfriend to be faithful to, marry, and have children with? We can all think of exceptions who pull this off – but in the modern era, adultery, divorce, and affairs are so shamefully common that our grandparents’ tales of marriages lasting 50 years or more prompt astonishment or even awe. Nonetheless, the beta male still has a certain expectation that this is what women in some sense should do. When he finds that many women are not receptive to his buying dinner and sending flowers and flowery messages, pining can become resentment.
This is the basis of the “entitlement” culture condemned by feminists and the media following Elliot Rodger’s killing spree. Linked to “privilege theory,” the general thrust is that men (especially white men) believe that they are entitled to a faithful wife, ready access to sex, and a middle class lifestyle simply by virtue of the fact that they are males. According to this theory, the relative loss of cultural, economic, and political power is something that white men cannot deal with, and react to with violence and unacceptable political beliefs. Therefore, we get the familiar canard in the media that members of the Tea Party (or for that matter, White Nationalists) don’t actually care about or understand politics – they are simply acting out their resentments.
Certainly, Rodger’s manifesto reeks with ressentiment [20]. If it were not for the loss of life, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at his indignant moan that girls would rather rut with people other than himself, the “Supreme Gentleman.” Dissident Right commentators including Steve Sailer noted [21] that this resentment was particularly focused at blondes. Rodger did not identify as white and spoke bitterly against whites, especially white girls. Indeed, white advocates such as those at the Council of Conservative Citizens attempted to create momentum behind the meme that Rodger’s attack was just another example of anti-white racism akin to the Knoxville Massacre or the Knockout Game.
Needless to say, it didn’t catch on. Rodger may not have been white, but that doesn’t matter – after all, neither was George Zimmerman [22]. Nor did the fact that Rodger killed more men than women significantly derail the narrative that massacre was just another incident in a never ending war of aggression against women, in which the White Man is the eternal antagonist.
The #YesAllWomen hashtag that served as the moral panic of the week was used to prove that all women – yes, all of them – are the “survivors” of sexual assault via act, word, or institutional oppression. Various apolitical women seized on it, relating stories about how a “creepy” guy hit on them, or someone had the temerity to make a disrespectful comment about their sexual behavior.
The purpose of this was not to establish truth or falsehood. It was to assign women to a victim class. designated by their sex (or, presumably, transfer into the gender via surgery). It was to fortify the social hierarchy. As influential blogger Roosh V has observed [23], feminism is rapidly approaching a point where it will be literally impossible to criticize a woman for anything, be it adultery, slovenly appearance, or even acts of violence, murder, and the utmost cruelty. Even Bill Maher, before he became a tiresome Democratic hack, pointed out [24] this double standard. As he put it, it’s politically incorrect “just to be male.” And, in something he would never say today, “You cannot reform biology.”
Entitlement and Game
For many of us, simple experience wakes us up from any naiveté that all women are somehow innocent victims besieged by sexually voracious and aggressive men. Acknowledging reality means destroying ideas deliberately promoted by both the egalitarian left and the reactionary American Right about the inherent evil of the male sex drive. While the Left praises the female sex drive as good in and of itself (slut walks) and the reactionary Right seems to deny [25] its existence, science suggests it is simply different from men.
In evolutionary terms, women qua women are attracted to those men who appear able to provide them with the most resources and social status (at the time) as well as physical appearance, which is a proxy for genetic quality. In game terms, it means if a man can exemplify (or fake) the qualities and attitude of a man with social standing and resources (alpha), he will reap female attraction. In the biological program running in the background for all of us, men value fertility (youth and beauty) and availability, and women value social protection (social value, money, strength [26]). It’s from these basic biological realities we get some of the most important elements of the sexual marketplace dynamic. This is why women constantly feel the need to create complicated rationalizations to explain away what they are doing (“I never do this, I swear!) and why other women are the most unforgiving critics of “sluts.”
Similarly, it is also why we get the almost entirely one-sided spectacle of men self-destructing because of temporary sexual urges or the need for simple physical release. It’s easy to think of powerful leaders who spectacularly sabotaged their careers for sex from a women often less attractive than their own wives. It’s extremely hard to think of female equivalents. Can anyone imagine Hillary making the mistake(s) of her husband? And are there any males out there willing to be a male Monica Lewinsky? How else we can explain the behavior of an Arnold Schwarzenegger who betrayed his Kennedy wife for his homely maid?
However, technology and state policy are changing the equation. In a culture where birth control, abortion, prophylactics, and a dizzying array of welfare programs and “advocates” exist for women, many of the consequences of sexual promiscuity are removed. At the same time, laws regarding divorce, child support, alimony, and other aspects of what is still ironically termed “family law” play out in a largely consequence-free environment for women’s sexual choice. The result is the introduction of a class system that allows women to, theoretically, have their cake and eat it too. The legal and societal structure actively punishes chastity, rewards adultery, and subsidizes irresponsible behavior. Is there any more stereotypically “modern” figure than the single mother? Perhaps Dan Quayle’s comments [27] about Murphy Brown were prophetic after all.
While female sexual desire is praised and encouraged to run rampant, male sexual desire is pathologized by the media and academia. Indeed, the shrieks are already upon us that “traditional masculinity must be destroyed [28].” Of course, it already is, and not necessarily because of deliberate social conditioning. Arguably, the nation where this rot has sunk in the deepest is Japan, where young Japanese men known as “grass eaters [29]” abandon even the pretense of masculinity. While it could be argued that even this may be a feature, not a bug, of mass capitalism, genetically modified food, and urban living, we have to consider the possibility that this just may be an unintended side effect. After all, it can hardly be charged that the Japanese political culture is beholden to feminism, mass immigration, and ethnomasochism. [30]
Of course, modern society doesn’t just turn men into Last Men – it turns women into Last Men too. And not everyone wants this. On paper and by the modern standard of the “pursuit of happiness,” there’s no reason for traditional families and households to continue to exist at all – but they do, and they are reproducing more than everyone else. Nonetheless, a formidable system is in place, with all the financial incentives and sinecures that come with it. And any class system will generate its defenders and hack intellectuals, eager to justify the sinecures and entrenched privileges that sustain them.
Science, Tradition, and Sex
But there’s a catch. Chase Nature out with a pitchfork, and you’ll end up alone in a house full of cats in a majority non-white neighborhood. Modern childless women, regardless of their careers, are not particularly happy [31]. This manifests itself in, at best, Left-wing moral crusading and at worst insane and pitiable behavior [32]. As for single women, all the SNAP cards in the world don’t substitute for a father, and the grim objective reality shows that a traditional family outperforms strong womyn who think they can “have it all.” The cold tale of demographics suggests that feminism is simply a transition stage between the end of a decadent society and the takeover by a more vital, patriarchal one. The results are in – and feminism is revealed as a failed social experiment sustained only by a vast assemblage of propaganda, subsidies, and legal protection.
Enter feminism, especially its obnoxious online variety. The feminist critique of entitlement is projection at its most crude, as fundamentally modern feminism is about defending ingrained privilege and propping up the crumbling System. Contemporary “strong women” feel entitled to abort their children without the interference from the father, obtain financial rewards after cheating on their husbands, and receive sexual attention even after they grow fat, old, or unattractive. More than that, a host of television networks, magazines, academic studies departments, and media figures tell them that they are heroic figures for giving in to their lowest desires. Of course, it doesn’t take much to be a hero in modern America and you don’t have to be particularly brave for the media to call you “strong” – if you are part of the right social class. Women who actually display real strength – the type who bear children, defend their families, and — in the most literal definition of “strong” – lift weights and stay in shape are condemned as traitors to their sex.
What is occurring is the decadent phase of an outdated social system. In an age of technological growth, social evolution occurs remarkably fast. The low intelligence shoggoths inhabiting women’s studies departments today are equivalent to the degenerate French aristocrats who long since abandoned the life of the sword to indulge in the decadent ideas that would destroy them [33]. Feminists are outdated. As a culture and as a species, we no longer gain anything from their existence, and their presence is a burden to the productive. They are simply parasites, feeding on the social capital they are actively destroying – until they are swept away by the next sexual revolution, or perhaps I should call it the sexual restoration, whose vanguard are the theorists and practitioners of game.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
