Tag Archives: family values

Mark Yuray: Doing Social Conservatism Right #nRX #SocialMatter

http://www.socialmatter.net/author/markyuray/

The problem with social conservatism is that is generally devolves into psuedo-Christian fundamentalism and/or some sort of “white knighting” ideal that men just aren’t being selfless enough. Social conservatism has typically been better at pointing to degeneracy and shrieking, “gross evil” (outrage porn) and much worse at actually setting a good example.

Yuray has done a great job explaining the importance of sexual morality, a great job of explaining the “Mannerbund” concept (I refer readers to my article three or so years ago that discussed many of the same concepts – even getting me coverage as an “Evil Misogynist” by the once-popular “male feminist” Manboobz.com.)

SocialMatter.net is the only “NRx” blog I’ve found that isn’t cringingly philo-semitic nor terrified of being more than implicitly pro-white. And Yuray is by far the best at SocialMatter.net.

Usually, when I hear someone discussing “culture” – I reach for my revolver. But I’ll make an exception for Yuray at SocialMatter.net.

Why We Hate Feminism

Women: when you read this, try to reign in your own solipsism and realize it’s not about you personally. Try – really try – to empathize with those invisible “beta” men that you don’t even see as individual human beings. Realize that it’s you that project your own thoughts and feelings on to men, and it’s women that objectify men, sexually and otherwise. Try to stop yourself when you immediately want to scream “but I’m not like that! But you’re a slut too! Rape!!!” Also, it’s not about Hipster Racist, personally, either. I want you to really be able to understand feminism from the perspective of an average man, those “beta males.”

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -- Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. — Genesis 3:16

First wave feminism was all about women getting the vote – and it was men, not women, that did the deed. First wave feminist pioneers like Lucy Stone hated their fathers and wanted to be men. So they struck the first blow at patriarchy: she wouldn’t take her husband’s last name. While mostly symbolic, the symbolism is important. There’s an old saying, “mother’s baby, father’s maybe.” Ensuring paternity of children is extremely important to a man, the only way it could really be done pre-genetic testing was guaranteeing that your wife was a virgin. Raising another man’s children is genetic death; it’s anti-self, it’s cuckolding. This is likely why men tend to have a preference for virgins.

Of course women did get the privilege of voting, but shirked on the responsibility that came with it – taking up arms against rival states. The whole purpose of voting was to control the state, and as Mao said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It’s the military that makes the state, therefore democracy was all about the men governed by the state having a say in the affairs of the state. Women weren’t expected to join the military, therefore there was no reason for them to vote. A man’s vote was essentially for his whole family; his wife and children, it was expected that he would vote in the interests of his family, and did. Women were not part of the state, thus wouldn’t participate in either fighting or voting.

Second wave feminism was even worse, this was upper class educated housewives with two (at best) grown children who sat around their very nice suburban houses bored out of their minds. Instead of coming up with something creative and useful to do, they bitched about housework. To this day, you have the aging second wave feminists with so little imagination that anything to do with housewifery is automatically associated with vacuuming or doing the dishes. This, more than anything, illustrates how moronic second wave feminists really were and are. That’s the best you can come up with, housework? Compare to the Biblical description of an ideal wife; the Proverbs 31 wife. She didn’t just sit around vacuuming, she ran the home, as a business. The idea is that the man works outside of the home, with a group of other men, while women ran the home business. Imagine if second wave feminists were smarter, more creative, and less shallow. Imagine the complex economic networks that bored housewives could have made, the businesses they could have started, the education they could have provided for the next generation. Instead, they decided they wanted to wear pants and work along side men not their husbands. The elites and the banksters promoted second wave feminism because now there were two incomes to tax, two bank accounts, two cars to commute to the office, and double the pool of labor, thus lowering wages.

Third wave feminism was essentially a revolt against the lesbians who had taken over second wave feminism by the early 80s and the anti-sex prudes that hated men. Third wave feminism, starting about the 90s, was all about slut power. Women have the notion that men go around fucking their secretaries and living it up in a Playboy paradise. This is projection of their part, most men pretty much only have sex with their wives. The top “alpha” men that do get to womanize are a very limited group, but since women do not even register “beta” men as human beings, they suffer from the Apex Fallacy. Since Hugh Hefner has lots of women, “men” have lots of women, so it’s ok for women to slut it up just like the men do. But because of the nature of the sex differences, women tend to have more opportunity to sleep around then men, basic hypergamy explains this.

The other thing that third wave feminism did was to cry RAPE!!! if a lowly beta man tried to flirt with a woman, or if an “alpha” didn’t call the day after a hookup. Take Back the Night rallies where they spray painted “All Men Are Potential Rapists” all over campus. I’ll never forget a college girlfriend telling me about being raped, this guy she had been seeing came into her dorm room and held her down and forced her. She was crying as she told me this. I loved this woman, and was filled with rage at this man. I had a fantasy about hunting him down and killing him. I learned my lesson a few weeks later when she explained that after the rape, she still dated this guy for a while, had plenty of consensual sex with him before and after the “rape.” Sure, he raped her, but he was pretty hot in bed, so she forgave him and continued to sex him up until he moved on later. Third wave feminism has made it so the actual victims of “real rape” – “rape rape” – are lumped in with post-drunken hookup regrets. Real rape victims should be outraged, but evidently not.

Before It's Too Late
Before It’s Too Late

Women love opportunistically while men love idealistically. I think Rollo calls this the “war brides dynamic.” Alice Thomas Ellis famously said, “There is no reciprocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don’t love anyone.” Women have to adjust to the new men that killed their husbands and took them as war brides, so they are evolutionarily adapted to loving whichever strong man has the power, thus ensuring her own survival and, most importantly, the survival of her children. This dynamic likely explains rape/ravishment fantasies as well; if you’re going to get raped by the commander of the conquering tribe, you may as well enjoy it and hope he doesn’t kill your children like he killed your husband. Humanity is messy business, there’s no point in being angry at women for being the way they are, hell, you probably should blame men for being violent and starting all the wars in the first place.

Neither men nor women are monogamous by nature; monogamy was a compromise.

http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/1rpnx3/toward_a_reconciliation_of_male_and_female_nature/

So, what is the nature of humans in the state of nature according to The Red Pill?

1. Male ephebephiliac polygyny–A mouthful. Let’s unpack it. If Men existed in a universe where fully formed, hot 16-18 year old girls with long, silky hair and .7 hip-waist ratios grew out of the ground without agency, wants, needs and desires of their own and without families to care for and protect them, men would kill each other to collect as many of them as possible–replacing them with new ones as the older ones cycled out.

2. Female hypergamy–If 6’2″ 34 year old I-Banker millionaires grew out of the ground fully formed with no agency, wants, needs and desires of their own and no families to look after their interests–25 women would each chase and even consent to share the one that managed to make $1000001, while keeping a weather eye on any one who manages to make $1000002 as an option for jumping ship.

Thanks to modern, reliable birth control, women are able to slut it up as much as possible, and they tend to have more opportunities to do so then men do. The feminists always say that men are “insecure” about a woman’s sexual past, this is true. If your woman spent her college years sexing up Alpha McStudly the football quarterback with 14 inch biceps and a 5 inch thick cock, yeah, Regular Joe is right to feel insecure, that he will never measure up to her first “alpha.” She is likely fantasizing about Alpha McStudly fucking her brains out while her husband is rubbing her feet and tenderly giving her vanilla intercourse. Who wants to sign up for that?

Because men and women are different, even cheating has different ramifications for men and women. If a man cheat with his secretary, he doesn’t stop loving his wife. In fact, it’s a common trope, the mistress patiently waiting for her lover to leave his wife, but he never does. Women don’t cheat like that. By the time a woman cheats, she’s already checked out of the relationship, she is likely already out of love with her husband anyway.

So that’s why feminism is so damaging to monogamy and the family. If a woman really does make more than her husband, she will come to resent him, he will be emasculated in her eyes. If a woman spends all day long working for a man that makes more than her husband and has more power than her husband, that she willingly *submits* to on a daily basis, she’s going to come home and want to tell her husband about her day. What self-respecting man would want to hear the story of his wife spending all day submitting to another man that is more “alpha” than he is?

When men had more social power then women, every woman could fulfill her own hypergamy because her husband was her “alpha” – even if he was only alpha to her. Now, with men and women “equal” women increasingly compete for the very limited pool of “alphas.” Some guys are rolling in pussy now, but most men are not. Half of marriages are ending in divorce now, for just these reasons.

But here’s the deal – these career women did NOT create their own companies. They joined men’s companies. The feminists didn’t continue to invest in women’s colleges, they wanted to join the men’s colleges. They did not create their own female groups and organizations, they joined men’s instead. Why? Because they *can’t.* Groups of women cannot form the complex hierarchy that men can. That’s why once a group gets more than about 20% female, the men start to leave in droves. You can’t really compete with a woman, you lose either way. Lose to a woman, it’s de-masculinizing and humiliating. Win over a woman, well, what honor is it in beating a girl? At best you’re a bully, a mean nasty man hurting a woman’s feelings.

Don't Worry Sweetheart, It's Coming Back
Don’t Worry Sweetheart, It’s Coming Back

Women’s sexual strategy is “alpha fucks and beta bucks.” She wants the sperm of the top guy – the same guy that all the other women want – but she needs support and provisioning from the “beta” men. This is why women tend to vote for socialism – the beta men are de-individualized, just “society” providing and provisioning for women and children collectively. So women can actually sex up and bear the children of the “alphas” while still getting the “beta bucks” – but in this ideal feminism world, she never even has to sex up the lowly beta, or treat them as an individual human being, she just gets the check in the mail and the services of the nice betas.

How long will this state of affairs last? It’s already crashing down. Men aren’t marrying anymore, because they don’t get young virgin wives who are actual partners in creating a family and a home. They get a career woman, working for another man, bringing home a paycheck, competing with him and other men, just two labor units who like to bump uglies. When she births one or at best two children, they go into day care and the local government run public school while she’s working.

It’s almost like a “gay marriage” now, isn’t it? That’s “equality” for you.

At the end of the day, women simply don’t give a shit, about anyone or anything except themselves and their children. Women are deceptive by nature, ever since humans evolved past the chimpanzees whose ass turns bright red when she’s in heat. Right now, white women have it pretty damn good in America and Europe. No matter what choices she makes, there will always be the feminist media telling her it’s ok. Slut it up? That’s great and empowering. Divorce your husband? Great, he was probably abusive anyway, you go girl. Want a career? Great, they even have affirmative action so you will get promoted even if Beta Slob works harder than you.

But no matter what empowering and flattering lies the feminists tell you, you know deep down that you are not happy as independent wimminz that don’t need no man. Women are less happy then they were back in the bad old days of the 1950s. Your job pushing papers in the HR department will never give you the deep emotional satisfaction that seeing your grandchildren will. No matter how many guys you fuck on birth control, it won’t make you sexually empowered like you think men are.

Misogyny is the hatred of women. Nobody, but nobody, hates women like other women, feminists, and especially, themselves.

But don’t worry, sweethearts, the Man on the White Horse is on the way. The new sexism is just over the horizon; we’ve reached Peak Feminism. White men will win this battle, and you will be the spoils. We’re literally going to drag you by the hair back to our cave, put you back in your place, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. If you think that vacuuming your three bedroom suburban rancher and doing the dishes in your brand new, high tech dishwasher (you’re welcome) is hard work, just be warned that home schooling and neighborhood organizing are much harder.

But also much more rewarding.

Barefoot-pregnant-and-in-the-kitchen

White Patriarchy Not White Nationalism

WN feminists are the worst. The WN movement seems to attract a certain type of white woman: divorcees, single mothers, independent wimminz that don’t need no man, and childless by choice. Rather ironic for a movement whose slogan is the 14 Words:

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.

The question is: whose white children? Which white man’s white children?

Men need women to actually make the babies. And women need men for basically everything else, especially, protection and provision for herself and those white children. But WN women seem to have this idea that white men should collectively provide for their children, regardless of who the fathers are. This is Hypergamy 101 – alpha fucks and beta bucks. Women want to actually have the children of the top men, but since those top men can get many women, they won’t “settle” for those white women. Women, of course, are just fine with this. Women would rather share an “alpha” man than “settle” for a man who will be faithful and monogamous with them. This is a woman’s choice. They would rather be the sister wife of an alpha then settle for a lowly beta.

Feminists love to complain about the double standard: if a woman is promiscuous, she’s a “slut” but if a man is promiscuous, he’s a “stud.” Feminists should ask themselves: why are they so enamored of promiscuous men? Why don’t women go for virgin men? Why are women so turned on by slutty men? The answer is simple biology, it’s been explained over and over and over again, but women seem to have a hard time accepting this basic reality.

WN women seem to have this notion that they can all share a Brad Pitt, and the regular white guys – the “betas” – the ones who they won’t have sex/babies with – should just deal with it, and act as substitute protectors and providers for them anyway. What are these “beta” white men getting out of this? Nothing but empty words from WN feminists; some flattery, some glittering generalities about white solidarity, empty praise. So much blowing smoke up their asses.

It’s basic biology: men are expendable. If you expect white men to show some loyalty to you, the best way to do that is by having his children and remaining faithful to him – especially, when you are young, pretty and fertile. A white man who has no children has zero incentive to have any solidarity with the larger white community, except in the most superficial way.

White “nationalism” seems to be yet another way for hypergamous women to get the “beta bucks” after they get the “alpha fucks.” But what self-respecting white man would want to be essentially be a slave of another man’s woman? He’s supposed to give his blood, sweat, and tears – and maybe his life – for white women that won’t have sex with him, won’t bear his children, won’t be his faithful wife, and for another man’s children?

Maybe the White Nationalist movement should be honest and rename itself the White Cuckold movement.

No solidarity with white women. White Patriarchy, not White Nationalism (another form of socialism.) White women should be loyal to their white husbands and barring that, their white fathers. White men should show no solidarity with white women in general, only, their white wives and white mothers of their own white children. White men should show solidarity only with other white men (white men that will honor other white men’s relationships and not go after another white man’s wife.)

Of course, there are always exceptions. Some women, through no fault of their own, can’t have children. It’s a tragedy but one that we can make exceptions for. I’m not hung up on the gays either, gays and lesbians can be loyal to the white tribe and contribute in their own way, for instance, helping with their extended family. There are always honest white widows and orphans that should be taken care of by the larger white tribe.

But in general, white women that chose to chase alphas and ignore the beta men in their own league, because they didn’t want to “settle” – too bad, so sad. Try to rope in some other suckers for the beta bucks. 50 years of feminism has allowed white women to get away with the alpha fucks, beta bucks strategy. That era is now over, the beta men are no longer playing ball. It’s going to be a very rough road ahead for white feminists. White women had the best situation of any group of human beings in the history of humanity, and it still wasn’t enough; they showed zero appreciation for it.

Actions have consequences.