Tag Archives: lodge

Power Play & Secretaries

It all seems related to me. SSM’s observes that dominance and power triggers sexual arousal in a woman. If you want to spin that in a negative way, you mention that serial killers have tons of female groupies. If you want to spin that in a positive way, you say that women love warriors, and a girl loves a man in uniform.

The power to kill is sort of the ultimate power. Mao said all political power flows from the barrel of a gun. What happens in a war? One group of men kills a bunch of people and keep some women alive to rape. While women can kill, it’s really a guy thing, and it usually doesn’t turn a man on, either. What triggers sexual arousal in a man? Sexual access to a fertile woman. A woman bearing a child is the opposite of killing. Creating life sort of balances out the taking of life. I’m sure there’s some really deep philosophical and spiritual point to this, but to avoid so much naval gazing, let’s move on to politics.

To save white people from going extinct, the white nationalists want their own nations, by and for our people exclusively. To achieve that, they need power. The people with the monopoly on force in America are the police and military. The police and military submit to elected officials, and elected officials submit to their donors. Who are the donors? Big business.

Who are big business? Well, they publish their names every year, the Fortune 500; the CEOs and executives and owners of the Fortune 500. They seem to be pretty much “top dog” in America. Everyone says that the politicians are whores and the rich are the johns. How do the rich have so much power? Well, it’s their money of course. Where does the money come from? The rich make it, they either earn it by creating goods and services everyone pays money for, or steal it by crooked means. Or in the case of bankers, just push some buttons on the computer.

So if the white nationalists want power, there seems to be a simple, straightforward way to get it. Either convert, or become, the wealthy who have power.

Unfortunately, the online “WN” movement is full of trolls – probably you know who – talking about guerrilla war against the police and military and other such Rambo fantasizing. It makes for great fiction, but doesn’t accomplish anything in real life.

Others talk about “waking up the masses,” but the masses submit to the media, and the media is in the hands of the enemies of WNs. To implement that solution, they’d have to have their own media and gather an audience. Well, thank Whitey for giving us the internet, now we have our own media platform for essentially free. Is the audience growing? Looks like it. Slowly but surely the “dark enlightenment” is spreading across the internet, influencing more and more people ever day. So, good on that front.

But everyone always complains that just writing online isn’t enough, we have to “really do something.” This is usually followed by some suggestion about street protests or passing out flyers and the like. Seems pointless, really, almost as likely to turn off the audience rather than convert people. I think it was a guy named Glenn Frazier that had a brilliant idea to hack the media; he ran for office, so the radio stations were required to broadcast his ads, which was an appeal to support white nationalism. Then there is BUGS, a grassroots marketing effort to confront anti-white attacks online, essentially hacking the professional internet media.

But you’ll never really be able to influence the mass media until you own the media. So, that means money, back to the Fortune 500.

Interestingly enough, if you ask any lefty she’ll tell you the Fortune 500 is white people. You ask WNs and they’ll tell you it’s the tribe, not really white people. But the rich white people don’t seem to care too much about a white nation, in fact, seems quite opposed to the idea. WNs speculate why that is, common suggestions are they love cheap labor, they are in competition with the white middle class so use non-whites as a club against whites, or that they just don’t care. Kevin MacDonald has commonly complained that wealthy whites are more interested in their eccentric hobbies than helping the cause.

There exists in the country a class of smart, healthy, attractive white people raising white children in good schools and living healthy, happy lives. They live in segregated neighborhoods, socialize with other white people, and get involved in local politics. The husbands run the local businesses and the wives run the school boards. They are everything the WNs say they want in a white community. Why not emulate what they do, enter the upper middle class, and start being active in local politics?

What you’ll find is that it’s war between whites. A class war, as it were. Identify the powerful whites in your local community, and find out if they are pro-white or anti-white. Observe what they do and the policies they promote. Discover ways to influence them. The Lodge is a traditional American and European institution; white men should be members of The Lodge – the specifics don’t matter – which is how you cooperate economically and politically. Thus leveraging the power of a group and the benefits of privacy.

If immigration is the number one threat to white nationalism at the moment, that seems to be the correct place to put one’s political efforts. There are plenty of mainstream immigration restrictionist organizations. White nationalists seem to be mostly conservative to libertarian, holding your nose and voting for the GOP seems popular, just in the interests of lowering taxes.

Nationalism, in the sense of geographically defined homelands, seems almost passe in the era of the world wide internet, jet travel, and free trade. The PLEs are just a working class equivalent of an exclusive gated community the wealthy use to segregate themselves from the diversity, and white nationalists evidently. A nation is really the people themselves, the idea of a “proposition nation” and universalist ideologies were always anti-white in practice, if not always intent.

Consider a secretary. She shows up on time everyday, does what she’s told, gets things done, and is a great help to you and your business. You may have one who is sweet, you may have one who is a shrew, but if she wants the job, she treats you with the respect a boss deserves. It’s at-will employment, she can leave at any time, and you can have security escort her from the office at any time.

There are likely side benefits; secretaries are always trying to seduce their bosses, for instance. If she’s pretty she’ll make a great companion for business trips, and you’ll get the social prestige that comes with having a beautiful woman at your side. Very successful men tend to keep a good secretary over the course of their entire careers, because while she might not be the energetic and attractive college graduate she once was, twenty years of learning the ins and outs of your business tend to make her an essential part of the company and you could scarcely imagine functioning without her. Of course, very successful men tend to have an entire staff working for them as well, often competing with each other hoping to get a promotion.

I’ve been told wives are just the opposite.

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.

The Men’s Shed Movement: A First Step Towards the Lodge

Radical Revolutionaries
Radical Revolutionaries

A friend of mine who had spent time in Australia told me about this movement. Essentially, it’s a group of often older men that get together and do various projects, things like building a neighborhood playground, making furniture, repairing engines, helping a member do home improvements. It’s a bit on the touchy-feely side, with lots of rhetoric about men sharing their emotions and the like, but it’s still essentially masculine. It appears to be mostly older men, who will often mentor younger men and teach them various handy skills.

http://www.mensshed.org/what-is-a-men%27s-shed/.aspx

Their choice quote is “men don’t talk face to face, they talk shoulder to shoulder.” The idea being, men tend to bond over accomplishing practical things together, not sitting in front of each other, talking about their feelings and hugging.

Evidently, some mentally unstable feminists (redundant, I know) objected; men aren’t allowed to have freedom of association under gynocentrism. A typical attack from an unhinged feminist goes like this:

why it was decreed that men needed sheds more than women. Which sex has historically had the power to barricade itself in its study/club/recently conquered country and relax with a glass of port? Conversely, whose lives have traditionally been dominated by serving the needs of others? Whose concentration is most often broken by calls on her (oh, I’m sorry – have I given the game away?) time from children or co-habitees who still don’t know where the clean towels are kept, and miscellaneous idiots at work who believe that it is the nearest woman’s job to clear up the literal and metaphorical messes they leave behind?

Not Even One
Not Even One

Yes, women need sheds far more than men. Where’s our charitable funding? I’m writing this in a freezing loft conversion and can hear husband and baby coming up the stairs to get me, though at least only one of them is crying at the moment. What I wouldn’t give for a dozen metres of muddy turf and a tangle of thorny thicket to deter them. Maybe I’ll just institute a mandatory prostate exam instead. Yes. That ought to do it.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2011/nov/30/women-need-sheds-more-men

The solipism and self-centeredness comes through loud and clear. But I can understand why unstable feminists would have a problem with such a group; it leads naturally to the lodge: a network of men, more or less formal, which increases men’s social power. That’s why manboobz freaked out over essentially this idea when I called it the Mannerbund. Women naturally see a group of men and want to get their attention, demand to be included, then demand to be catered to, to change the “hostile environment.”

The various leftists and totalitarians hate the idea too, as any organization that is not managed by the state has to potential to curb state power, even in trivial ways. It’s essentially the same reason cultural Marxism attacks the family – nuclear and extended – because it simply means less individuals rely directly on the state.

Secret Headquarters of the Revolution
Secret Headquarters of the Revolution

Some comments on reddit note that Maker Spaces and Hacker Spaces in the US are pretty close to the men’s shed idea, with more an appeal towards high tech and emerging technologies. So far the Men’s Shed movement, started in Australia, has migrated to New Zealand, the UK, and Ireland. Due to legal issues, women are technically allowed to join, but generally speaking women don’t really have an interest in actually participating in such things, aside from the aforementioned attention seeking.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1oowco/not_sure_if_rmensrights_is_aware_of_the_mens/

Sounds like a great organization me, and any organization that is sex-segregated is a step in the right direction, and any organization that is private, non-state, and non-business helps rebuild the civil society.

It’s all about entryism. Keep it on the down low, we don’t want to alert them we are planning the glorious revolution from our sheds.

AMSA_Official_Logo