Tag Archives: patriarchy

German (!) Ecologist Helga Vierich Schools Derrick Jensen On Patriarchy

Starting about about minute 40, Helga Vierich describes her study of a primitive tribe in Western Africa and their agricultural practices.

She explains their limited agriculture, and how each family tries to grow enough to have a surplus at the end of harvest season, which they store in granaries.

This is where evil hierarchy comes into play. Each family or group of families has a granary, and they pay a kind of “tax” to the headman out of their surplus, which the headman stores in his extra granary. Then, each of the headmen – the patriarchs – pay a “tax” of some of that surplus to the Head Headmen, the Grand Patriarch, who had a total of eight granaries, full of the surplus of the expropriated workers lower down the hierarchy.

Vierich admits that this bothered her, and when the Grand Patriarch, the Headman of the Headman, showed off to this Blue-Eyed Devil Paleface how many granaries he had and how they were all full, she thought a nasty thought to herself.

Until the Grand Patriarch bragged:

“Yes, I have eight full granaries. So when the next drought comes, even if it lasts for four years, I will be able to feed the entire tribe for eight years, and no one will starve.”

Well, gee, who could have ever imagined? The Grand Patriarch had not just authority over the tribe, but the ultimate responsibility for the tribe.

Vierich also mentions “husbands and wives” who live with their biological children. Oops, there you go, it’s the patriarchal institution of marriage and the nuclear family based in biology. No mention of lesbian orgies, “free love” or “liberated sexuality.” Nope, even these most primitive people have established the social construct of marriage and practice “family values.”

In another video Jensen mentions an anthropologist that explained some tribes understood that people have both a selfish instinct and a social instinct, and that good societies create social institutions that align those two interests. He gives an example: if he catches a bunch of salmon, but selfishly keeps them to himself, he will be socially shamed. But if he then shares these salmon with the rest of the tribe, he will be praised. Thus, his selfish instict for status-seeking is aligned with his social instincts.

Jensen mentions this is just common sense and asks why it took an anthopologist to figure this out. Good one, Jensen, but why haven’t you figured out that the male hierarchy, and patriarchy, is precisely this sort of alignment of interests?

Vierich also mentions a group of “elected officials” which reading between the lines means that the men of the tribe select among themselves leaders. I bet there are no women voting in this. Each Patriarch casts a vote for one of his fellow Patriarchs for Head Patriarch. There is no need to get the women and the children involved in this process, because each Husband is responsible to his Wife and their children.

The men who get elected as leaders are the ones who have a good reputation, the ones who have proven themselves smart, responsible, and fair. Selfish and incompetent men do not get chosen by their fellow men as leader.

Now, since this is a stone age tribe, and not white, we know that Derrick Jensen believes we must follow their example.

So when will Derrick Jensen give up White Middle-Class Lesbian Feminism and start promoting Natural Patriarchy and Family Values – the kind of social system that protects women and children and has their best interests at heart?

Leftism: Zionism, Jewish Supremacy, Neuroticism and Sheep-Shagging

Noam Chomsky’s Radical Zionism and Jewish Supremacism

One personal benefit to me of the death of the Alt Right is that after spending the last five or so years reading right-wing stuff I have some space in my head for more reading of left-wing stuff. The “left” per-se is basically dead; it’s all Trump Derangement Syndrome and the only alternative is the hard left or the far left.

In my college days I did what everyone did and read a lot of Noam Chomsky, until I figured out his gimmick. He’s completely right that the media is simply the PR department for corporate power; they are powerful corporations. Chomsky’s also right that US foreign policy is realpolitik based on economic interests and that US imperialism is as brutal as anything the Soviets or historical empires have done.

But Chomsky is a Jewish Supremacist, full stop, and a Zionist disinformationist. His goal, which shines through every single word he’s written or spoken, is to distract from Jewish power in the American Empire. It’s never powerful Jews doing things in the interests of Jews, it’s always “white” men. Chomsky, laughably, wants us to believe that the Israel lobby has no power and even if they did it’s not run by Jews, it’s really Evangelical Christians – as if working class, high school educated Bible-thumpers have any effect on US foreign policy. Chomsky goes into absolute hysterics whenever Jewish power is noticed.

You can see Jewish power by its distortion of US imperial policy, when the US does something that is not in its own interests but instead in the interest of the Zionist entity. You can also disern what Jews are scared about by noticing when Chomsky goes off script. When the Israel Lobby book came out, Chomsky went into hysterical damage control. He goes into full attack mode, complete with bald faced lies and smears when 9/11 is questioned.

An unusual book of his, the Camelot Myth, also makes sense in light of the context. He wrote this in anticipation of the release of a large number of files being declassified about the JFK assassination. Many leftists and liberals believe that JFK was assassinated because of his supposed opposition to the Vietnam war. Chomsky quickly wrote a book attacking this idea and painting JFK as a war hawk. And, of course, Chomsky was terrified that the Jewish and Zionist connections to the JFK assassination might have come out, so he had to put the left off of JFK, going so far as saying “who cares, people get shot all the time.”

What is good in Chomsky isn’t unique to him – the good work on the media was actually from someone else – and what is unique to Chomsky is simply Jewish and Zionist disinformation. He’ll be dead soon and when the left and the mainstream media start their hagiographies immediately upon his death, it will be a good time to demonstrate just what a liar and disinformation artist he is.

Taking Kaczynski’s Name In Vain

So I was researching Ted Kaczynski and came across this group Deep Green Resistance. I’m wondering why in the world this supposedly radical environmental group spends most of their time discussing feminism. Derrick Jensen is a nutcase, a fruit-loop, with utterly wrong ideas and willful blindness to reality, but I have to admit he has a soothing voice and an engaging speaking style.

I posit that a lot of left-wing activism is driven by child abuse. Jensen says his father raped and beat him and his entire family and it’s obvious that he is very much influenced by therapy culture.

So when he says that at the root of “the war against nature” is the “patriarchal need to dominate” it’s clear he’s based his worldview on his father’s abusive nature. When Paglia pointed out that virtually all of the celebrity feminists had sexually and physically abusive fathers, it puts the whole thing in context.

Jordan Peterson points out that these people have likely never experienced good masculinity, good male authority, good male expressions of power. They cannot distinguish between positive masulinity and negative masculinity and they are not mature enough people to think outside of their own experience. He also notices that women with personality disorders are highly overrepresented in feminism.

Kaczynski had these people nailed in Industrial Society and it’s awful that these people claim inspiration from him when he opposed everything they say.

The “need to dominate” is not at the root of environmental destruction. It’s not an emotional thing. It is literally short term rational self-interest leading to long term disaster. These people claim to be Marxist yet Marx totally opposed this kind of thinking; he was a materialist.

I guess at the end of the day the left is just not serious. They are either liars or emotional cripples.

The emotional cripples don’t get it: it is the lack of patriarchy that caused their abuse. A stronger patriarchy would discipline these abusive men. Family values of the kind Christianity teaches helps women and children and moderates male violence.

These people would get thrown out of the left if they were pro-white, which is too bad, because we really need a pro-white leftist perspective, if the term “left” even means anything anymore, and I’m not sure it does.

The real valuable concept that Marx gave was the concept of class struggle. Class was defined by your relationship to the means of production and property. This is still an incredibly useful concept and it drives a lot.

But the left gained power and dropped Marx and instead followed Trotsky. Trotsky was simply a Jew. He was a Jewish supremacist – literally – a hater of Slavic people which he openly derided as racially inferior. He was exactly like Hitler on this. Trotsky simply wanted to destroy European society and White people and to establish a Jewish dictatorship. He wanted to recruit the non-white world to destroy the white world – he was very clear on this.

Trotsky was, essentially, a Zionist, just not particularly concerned about real estate as far as we know.

And these white leftists – and face it, there are no non-white leftists – these white leftists have internalized Jewish hatred of “gentiles” and loudly advocate Trotsky’s strategy of recruiting non-whites to genocide white people. They are driven by hate.

The Feminization of the Left

There is a sterotype that Ashkenazis have of themselves, and there is data to support it, that they tend to be high on neuroticism.

Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness.

Women tend to be more neurotic than men, and feminist women tend to be more neurotic than non-feminist women.

So you see where this is going. The contemporary left threw out the masculine blue-collar White men that populated the labor movement. This happened because Ashkenazis had taken over the ruling class of the United States and no longer had common interests with blue-collar white men and their entire culture is based around a hatred of those very men. So, enter “cultural Marxism.” No longer would class – and class struggle – be defined by one’s relationship to property and the means of production. Now it was “social classes.”

Ashkenazis – one of the richest, most educated, and most elite ethnicities in America – were now on the other side of class struggle in the Marxist sense. They were no longer a proletariat fighting against capitalists, they were the new rulers. They had no interest at all in sharing power with the masculine, blue collar white “gentiles” that they hated; they had won.

As Peterson points out, feminists cannot distinguish between “good” masculinity and “bad” masculinity. So, all masculinity is suspect. At the root of this is their trauma from their abusive upbringing. They cannot distinguish negative male “need to dominate” with the “positive” male need to master – as in mastery, competence.

Hence, this frankly stupid notion that environmental destruction is caused by the “patriarchal need to dominate.” What we see is the feminization of the left due to the absence of masculine thinking styles. A real man – like Ted Kaczynski – looked at environmental destruction like an engineer; he understood the materialist causes. He understood these things systematically.

Women don’t have that thinking style. So the abused women – and men like Jensen who, despite being a materials engineer, likely due to his physical and sexual abuse at the hands of his father – abandond Kaczynski’s systematic, materialist understanding of the War Against Nature and came up with an emotional cause.

It’s because bad men need to “dominate” nature. Bad White men – but not Jews, because Hitler.

You see this absurdity with Jensen’s special pleading for homosexuality. He lists four sexual paraphilias: homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, and BDSM, and says homosexuality doesn’t belong on the list because it’s not based on the “need to dominate.”

Oh, really, Jensen? Considering the central place of pederasty in homosexuality, both contemporary and ancient, are you sure about that?

Also, beastiality: is this really based on the “need to dominate” an animal? I don’t think so. There are long standing jokes about “sheep-shagging.” It was more common than one might think in pastoral times. I was told by a woman farmer that, supposedly, it is believed that a sheep’s vagina feels the closest to a human woman’s. There is no need to dominate the sheep, it’s literally the desire to feel wet friction on your penis. There is a hilarious and/or disturbing viral video showing a Chinese family at the zoo freaking out because a monkey is putting its penis in the mouth of a frog. Did the monkey have a “need to dominate” the frog? Or was the monkey desiring wet friction on his penis?

Jensen rails against “the myth of human supremacism” but he still believes that humans aren’t animals, apparently.

Next time: what these leftists are missing is called psycopathy and its relation to narcissisism. Not all narcissists are psycopaths, but all psycopaths are narcissists.

Jensen and Deep Green Resistance are radical feminists, thus oppose Queer Theory. Well guess what social subgroup scores off-the-charts on narcissism?


That’s your connection to Queer Theory, Jensen. It’s not the patriarchal “need to dominate” behind this. It’s off the charts narcissism.

Guess what other groups tend to score high on narcissism?

Radical feminists are right that there is a difference between sex and gender. They are wrong that gender roles are entirely “socially constructed” but are, in fact, “socially reinforced.” The fact that some girls are tomboys does not negate the clustering, nor does the fact that some boys are “artistic.”

Jensen and the rest of the Deep Green Resistance should try actually reading Kaczynski.

And they should get over their childhood trauma, distance themselves from “gentile” hating Jews, and actually do the work to understand – and halt – the material conditions that are driving environmental destruction.

If that is, in fact, their goal. Which it probably isn’t. Their “activism” serves their emotional need to hate.

A Radical Feminist, Not The Fun Kind

Andrea Dworkin was almost right:

I think we need to ask ourselves the question why men love prostitution so much? The fact of the matter is despite the rhetoric of men on the right and men on the left, they love prostitution a lot. The global proportion of the trafficking of women indicates that men like to buy and sell women. And that there’s a special kick in sex when you can pay somebody and use money as a symbol of their servitude, not as an agent of their independence but a symbol of their servitude. [1]

I think that what we’re dealing with with prostitution in all of its forms is the most basic kind of power there is; it’s a core definition of power, and that is, “I want it, you do it. I want it now, you do it now. Bend over.” [2] And when someone has that kind of power, that’s the same kind of power that kings had in feudal societies. And now it’s the power of every man, over every woman, because of these systems of trafficking in women, that exist all over the world. There’s clearly a sexual pleasure in destroying human dignity. [3] There is a sexual pleasure in repeated personal invasions of a person’s body and you don’t know the name of the person and you don’t care. She’s there because she has to be. [4]

Marriage – monogamy – was a part of civilization that feminists wanted destroyed, they destroyed it, now are upset that they have lost the privileges that civilized institution afforded them.

[1] Dworkin’s describing the thrill of market exchange and it’s the same thrill that a woman gets when she pays for the labor of a man to drive her, to fix her car, to massage her feet, or to build her a house.

[2] Dworkin, a lesbian, hated men’s sexuality, or more precisely, she hated heterosexuality – she, in fact, married a homosexual man and called him her “love” and her “life partner.” I don’t know about Dworkin specifically but it’s the stuff of common lesbian fantasy to “mentor” – i.e., seduce – a younger, less “powerful” woman. The notorious Vagina Monologues, in fact, had a woman thanking the adult lesbian who “seduced” her when she was 14. So, to lesbians, what they object to is the heterosexuality, not the power difference – in fact, power exchange is a key component of lesbian sexuality (as it is all women’s sexuality in general.) It’s one of the reason that “not the fun kind” of feminism never hit the mainstream, while the “fun kind of feminism” – “sex positive feminism” – *is* mainstream.

[3] Dworkin, and all radical feminists, are very similar to religious vegans and animal rights activists who decry the exploitation of animals by mankind. Humans eat animals, wear their skins, and they don’t even bother to name the animals.

What Dworkin’s feminism really is, is the same great emotional cry that all humans give when confronted with the reality that there is no “human dignity.” Humans are just animals, and the state of nature is the law of the jungle.

The irony is that there’s nothing in men’s pornography that is any worse than The Story of O – pornography for women, written by a woman. Dworkin would probably consider Ann Rice as a “handmaiden of patriarchy” but her Sleeping Beauty Chronicles was as humiliating for her male characters as it was for her female characters. It was a woman who wrote “Belinda” the touching story of a 16 year old girl in a “voluntary” relationship with an older, 30 something man. The book held no interest to men, it was written for women, from their perspective, to justify their own fantasies and sexual desires.

[4] Dworkin would almost certainly acknowledge that this applies to capitalism generally – and as a woman-centric feminist, she of course “centers” women as the central “good” in capitalism (not at all without good reason.)

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you’d better be running.

The real irony is that Dworkin, the Jewess who said she would have been a Talmud scholar if they had let her, is literally longing for Christ. She bemoans the lack of “human dignity” and the lack of “brotherly love” (thus) that is idealized in Christianity. But the fact is, humans are incapable of “loving” each other, outside of close friends and family (and, especially, husbands and wives, which must have angered Dworkin, even though the only man she loved, she actually married, just presumably didn’t have sex with, because she was a lesbian.)

Humans, apes with bigger brains, only have 200 “empathy slots” for other human beings. You can empathize with, love, respect, and “dignify” – and remember the names of – just about 200 people. Evolutionarily, speaking, the number is a small village and extended clan (which makes perfect sense.)

There isn’t, and has never been, any inherent “dignity” for “humanity” as a whole – and Dworkin and the feminists are, of course, massive hypocrites, because women have never, throughout history, spent a single second agonizing over stepping over the bodies of “their own” dead men to find greener pastures, better food, and sexier men, on the other side of the river. Women have never afforded men any dignity, ever, but merely respected male power – and have evolved to be sexually aroused by male power. At the end of the day, what really disgusts women like Dworkin is the banality of male sexual desire. Like food, all it takes is a scent, a sight, and men start salivating. Women require a lot more indirection and need a lot more emotional play-acting, but that’s all it is – emotional play-acting. Women’s sexuality isn’t at all more “dignified” than men’s, and women are indifferent to male suffering – in fact, male suffering disgusts women.

But Dworkin – and the “not fun kind of feminists” – are completely correct about sexual power and the commodification of women. What they are objecting to is civilization and capitalism, two things they have no interest in ever giving up.

If Dworkin and the “not fun” kind of feminists ever got their wish, and civilization and capitalism were destroyed, we’d all be living in small, 200 person primitive villages, with no running water, matriarchal clan structures, parasite load, rampant STDs, and constant tribal warfare with the villages next door.

And the FIRST man who came up with something better, the FIRST man who invented a new technology that gave him a significant power advantage over his rival men – he wouldn’t NEED to “buy” any women, the women would be stepping over each other – and their own children, in fact – to get to that man, the one with the most beautiful peacock feathers.

What Dworkin is most sad about is that Jesus doesn’t love her, because there is no Jesus, and human beings – including women – have no inherent dignity. It’s all just jungle.

A Culture Free of Patriarchy

“Mother’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe”

The Atlantic was once a respectable White Anglo-Saxon Protestant magazine for the New England liberal elites.

Since it was bought by the Jew Jeffrey Goldberg it has devolved into a laughable tabloid trying to sell hardcore Zionist Jew apartheid and Palestinian genocide – and White Genocide – to the remnants of the White upper middle classes. Goldberg actually hired George W. Bush’s old speechwriter David Frum, who coined the term “Axis of Evil” to get Americans to destroy Israel’s enemies, Iraq and Iran. Why? Because Judaism is a racist hate cult that wants to murder Arabs particularly and Muslims in general.

Taking advice from a racist hate cult that wants your people genocided is generally a bad idea.

So of course now The Atlantic is no longer a magazine for intellectual White liberals, but is reduced to Salon.com style Social Justice Warriorism. A recent article asks: Why Don’t More Men Take Their Wives’ Last Names?

You can read it if you want, here:


But of course the answer is simple. Patriarchy is the bedrock of civilization, and the way you connect fathers to sons – and thereby get men to invest in children and grandchildren – is by offering them immortality through a family name. A legacy.

As my former co-blogger Cly once pointed out, it used to be common for the American (and I suppose European) middle classes to name their small family businesses “Smith and Sons.”

Why this emphasis on the male lineage? Because everyone already knows the matriarchal lineage. “Mother’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe.” You have to convince the father the children are actually his and women have created an entire culture around doing just that.

Not only do grandmothers assure their sons in law that “your baby has your eyes” – they now even claim that the sonograms look “just like” the supposed father!

He looks just like you! A spitting image of daddy. He even has your eyes! Trust me!

As soon as patriarchy – including young women being married as virgins – went out of style – so did marriage. Otherwise, what is the point? Of all the problems caused by the destruction of traditional marriage, for me the most annoying are all the articles in blogs by post-wall women complaining “where have all the good men gone?” “How come after spending my 20s engaging in promiscuity that would make a Parisian whore blush I can’t find a wealthy, handsome man to pretend I’m a nervous 17 year old virgin bride and pledge the rest of his life to me in return for a single child that is probably his?”

If I were a petty man, I’d guffaw at all the middle aged single women I’ve seen go ballistic when a successful 30 year old man ignores all the single over-credentialed 30 year old women to take up with young, fertile 20-somethinig baristas. Hell, I know of this because I’ve done it myself – and seen the reaction.

But the costs to my people and my society is just too damn high – below replacement fertility, bitter spinsters and “single” mothers, and an epidemic of divorce.

If any older White women actually cared about our people, they would be the FIRST telling those young, fertile, attractive women – “he’s a good catch – marry him now and start making babies! You’ll be happier in the long term.”

Listening to some nutty feminist being published by a bunch of racist, White-and-Palestinian-genociding Zionist Jews telling us that instead men should take their wive’s name in some sort of bizarre cross-dressing fetish that appeals to no one is pretty much the worst thing that anyone could do.

What next? Gender-bending for kids?

You want to take MY last name? What are you gay?

Patriarchy, Promiscuity, and Capitalism

In high school my first “long term” (i.e., almost a year) relationship, my first “girlfriend” was a pretty, but rather plain, girl my age. Our romantic matching was quite simple, a quite simple exchange. I gave her romantic attention and was her “arm candy” increasing her social status among other girls, and in return I got to have sex with her all the time. Both of us were mostly happy with the arrangement. I broke up with her because I found out that she had had sex with another guy when we were “on a break.” Apparently, all her girlfriends knew it but I didn’t. I had been “cucked” essentially.

Although I wasn’t “technically” a virgin when we got together, she was “technically” a virgin and that tiny imbalance in sexual experience suited both of us just fine. In fact, perhaps my first “red pill” when it came to dealing with girls was when I “admitted” to her that although I wasn’t “technically” a virgin in the sense of penis-in-vagina intercourse, and I had a lot of experience with a number of other girls that “counted” (because I ejaculated in/on them in various places) I had really only “done it” – officially – penis in vagina – with one other girl and only a handful of times.

When she realized that I was not, in fact, the 16 year old serial womanizer she thought I was, it totally broke her fantasy. Not long thereafter, we “had a break” in which the first thing she did was hop into bed with a new boy at her school. Apparently, this was not as thrilling for her as she thought it would be, and she also apparently realized that she could not, in fact, replace me with a higher status male and that her teenage pussy was not the ticket to Alpha Fucks that she thought it was. If her girlfriends were to be believed, he also didn’t have the sexual intensity that I had, being mostly of the “in and out for a few minutes” school.

So she engaged in a conspiracy with her girlfriends to lie about this dalliance and got me back for a few months, until I was told of the “affair” by one of her girlfriends, who happened to want me for herself. Once I found out, I was humiliated, and immediately the magic went out of our relationship. I was only barely aware of it at the time, but a huge, huge factor in my attraction for her was the fact that I was the one that popped her cherry. I found not only honor bound, in a sense, to invest in our relationship, but the fact I was her only boy made me feel like I possessed her – and she possessed me – on deep level. It was more than just sex, it was essentially a kind of marriage.

When her very typical female promiscuity disabused me of my patriarchal sexism and hymen fetishism, interestingly enough I did not, in fact, become a Male Feminist Ally. Quite the opposite in fact. Once word was out that Hipster and Virgin were no longer a couple, my dance card filled up QUICKLY. I found out that having a reputation for being a “nice guy” – one who was loyal, in fact, with an instinct for monogamy – had not only preceded me but she had talked up my sexual prowess to all her girlfriends. Whether she “meant it” or was merely bragging to her friends hardly mattered.

So within a month I did, in fact, become the serial womanizer that she had been disappointed to find out that I was not. All of a sudden a half dozen 16 year old girls with ripe bodies and long pretty hair were calling me on my parent’s phone, offering to drive over to my house, pick me up, take me to their houses when their parents weren’t home, and “let me” do whatever I wanted. So I enthusiastically took all of them up on their offers. The next few years was spent engaging in essentially booty calls for dozens of high school girls who had admired me from afar waiting for the Virgin to get her claws off of me.

In manosphere terms I had been pre-selected, with just enough “alpha” traits combined with just enough “beta” traits, to be in high demand. I had long hair, a brooding manner, with just enough “bad boy with a heart of gold” allure that these girls were always on their toes to treat me well and fuck me well.

I started to notice patterns of my own behavior in the “types” of girls and how I felt about them that – as any good feminist will tell you – was surprisingly class based. I considered my background to be “middle middle class.” There were obvious class markers that showed me which families were higher class, and which families were lower class – than us. Obvious markers were the size of their parent’s house and the cars they were bought by their fathers. Other more subtle class markers were education, raw IQ, and aspects of socialization.

I remember a handful of girls that were clearly one – sometimes two – steps above me in the capitalist class hierarchy. I found that these girls were absolutely mercenary with me. They were sexually aggressive, somewhat intimidating in a social sense, demanding of me in social settings, and I had to be on my best behavior to avoid subtle behaviors that marked me as lower class. These subtle behaviors were almost always related to “sub-political” issues. All of the rich girls were “liberal,” sexually liberated, “feminist” in a certain you-go-girl type way, and universally (with one exception, the rich Christian girls) hostile to my religious background. Some of them – not all, but more than other groups – simply had a more “alpha” personality than me. They were highly social, good at social situations, highly verbal, and even more “intellectual” than me – although this “intellectualism” simply meant knowing which social attitudes to have, which movies and bands were cool (Jane’s Addiction = high status, Tom Petty = low status) – this sort of “intellectualism” had nothing to do with scores on the trig tests or even logical and grammatical consistency. It was class in the sense of Jane Austen.

I got all sorts of sex out of these girls but I never connected with them emotionally. I’m assuming it was simply that I was willing to “put in the work” and keep it going until they were satisfied. Hey, at 16-19, if it didn’t last long enough, just wait 10 minutes and go again until it does. After five or six girls, you pretty much figure it out, where everything is, and the girls in touch with their own bodies just needed you to stay hard while they rode you and pressed their clit against your pelvic bone.

But emotionally? Pfft, I’d never share anything even remotely intimate with these girls, never show a weakness, never say what I really felt, maintained a stoic attitude because it seemed like any slip was a one way ticket out of their social class. Didn’t want any provocative opinions, nothing proprietary, nothing sexist or racist (all of us were uber-white, of course.)

But the girls down one step in the class hierarchy? The ones whose fathers (if they even knew their fathers) that didn’t have a college education, were mechanics and workmen? To them I was alpha and they were – something. This is where my true Patriarchal Class Predator came out. I’ll never forget the one, literally hours on the right side of legal when we first “hung out” – it was as if I was a porn star. I always left her with a broad smile on her face. With these girls, at parties, I would literally hunt them. The predator/prey dynamic was intense and the power imbalance make the sex absolutely fucking explosive – for both of us.

And apparently I had a finely honed predatory sense for just these girls. My entire body language changed around them. I was never the “rapey” type – that is far too simplistic to describe the dynamic. With the rich girls I just waited until they made an unambiguous move and if they teased too much – well, big deal there were unlimited fish in the sea. Virginia suburbs in the 1990s – tens of thousands of young White girls, 16-25, with an hour’s drive in my car. But with the working class girls, I was the alpha, and the top. I had just enough class markers to show that my eventual class status would be higher than their fathers – but none of this was conscious to either one of us. They would have just thought “he’s so smart and funny.” But I was still close enough to their class that they weren’t just disposable playthings and my masculinity was just a bit softer – thus less intimidating – then their rougher fathers and brothers. I was in fact, a Supreme Gentleman, someone who really “got girls.” But my confidence was enough to signal to them that I could get sex anywhere, thus their had to be something more than just pussy to get and keep my interests.

These were the girls that after sex I fell in love with even if I still aspired to get one of those rich girls. The power dynamic just worked. There is no such thing as “equality” and face it, girls get off on a power imbalance. It’s the core of their sex drive. It’s only exploitative when men leverage it.

Feminists are wrong when they say rape is about power not sex – no. Paglia is correct. Rape is about sex. But sex is about power. Oscar Wilde said “everything is about sex, except for sex; sex is about power.”

Spot The Class Markers

The social conditions at the time were a major cultural war between an emerging bureaucratic managerial class, highly educated, socially liberal, secular, completely dominant in academia and other institutions. The conservatives, especially the Christians, were concentrated lower on the class hierarchy

Black people had their own communities, of course, and were simply corralled by the Rich White Liberals to vote for the Democrats via Section 8 and make-work jobs in lower-end government bureaucracies. The daughters of the Rich White Liberals wouldn’t be caught dead “mudsharking” – but would of course pretend it was awesome if their lower class counterparts did it – less competition for White men!

But the conservative partiarchs and Christians did have their own institution that provided them with a major amount of power – the military and the Defense contractors. The military and the Defense companies were staffed with socially conservative, conventionally masculine, and very high IQ and very educated White partiarchal men, and their wives staffed the school boards that held the line against the worst class predation of the liberal bureaucrat class and racial integration.

As usual, it was the working class White Christians that lost out because the “anti-communist” movement of the John Birch style – as well as the Christian movement since FDR – was always invested heavily in capitalism and “communist” was just a slur that meant social democracy, business regulations, and union busting. Here, E. Michael Jones gets it right – you get a form of early neo-conservative that will keep the Fag Pride Parades out of your neighborhood, keep you separated from the high crime Blacks, and give a sort of lip service respect to your cultural values, and in return you get low wages, capital flight, and job outsourcing. (You can’t offshore military jobs and secret clearance jobs, remember.)

Or you get liberalism, which means you’ll get a dollar an hour above minimum wage, integration with blacks in your school (if your daughter is raped by one, she’ll have easy access to an abortion, if you son is beaten by a gang of blacks, well he was probably a racist and deserved it) but your culture and your values will be demonized.

Eventually, both sides, the Conservatives and the Liberals, decided that the White Working class – even the White middle class – was just too problematic, and Blacks were never going to get their act together, so the only solution was to replace Americans – White Americans – with “immigrants.”

Common sense patriarchal values – you don’t let your daughter “sample” every nice looking bad boy for a decade before marriage – and also you don’t want your son being manipulated emotionally and socially by “those kind of” manipulative teenage girls very aware of their own sexual power who probably wouldn’t make good wives and mothers – were replaced with the a kind of third wave feminism that is just Puritanism in reverse. Now your sons a rapist if he doesn’t give his hook up an orgasm or he breaks up with her before she breaks up with him. Your daughter is taught to be both sexually aggressive and promiscuous – and to claim victimhood at the same time. Dad’s earning power is destroyed by both the conservative business class AND the neo-liberals that have financialized and offshored everything. But hey – they will let mom work too, and provide the kids with day care! You know, pay working class women to take care of other working class women’s children so they can work to make up for the lost income of Dad.

That way the teenagers have no supervision thus can engage in all the suburban promiscuity they can handle. It’s liberation, don’t you know.

All because we can’t acknolwedge obvious facts about human nature – one, SEX IS ABOUT POWER and the more of a power difference, the HOTTER the sex. We can’t acknowledge that women are not just men with boobs, but biologically evolved to create and nurture life. Because we have lost community social capital to financialization AND racial integration. Racial integration = racial conflict, and in the anti-white zeitgeist, whites are automatically to blame.

And in our present context, it’s because working class White solidarity was destroyed by religious hucksters who said “labor union = atheist communism” and that “greed is good” (in the new version of the New Testament, apparently) and working class White family formation was destroyed by birth control, condoms, sexual liberation – and the fact that teenagers had no supervision so do what comes naturally.

And nothing comes more naturally to teenagers than fucking.

Radical Feminists Are The Only Interesting Feminists

Reddit.com is going through another bout of censorship and it’s typical – “Nazi” subreddits are being banned, the minority of “right wing” and some principled types are complaining that Communist and other radical left subs and comments – often openly encouraging violence – are still being allowed.

But one new development is rather interesting, some transgender activists are demanding a radical feminist sub, https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical, be banned for “transphobia.” GenderCritical is a “radical feminist” sub that does not accept that “transwomen” are real women, rejects the entire “trans” movement, and posits that “transwomen” are really just men, dressing up or otherwise mimicking women, in order to invade women’s spaces.

The intersection of radical feminism and traditional (Western, Christian) morality has always fascinated me. In the 1970s, feminists and Christians both fought against pornography and the sex/prostitution industry.

Another interesting development: in England, a feminist conference was violently “protested” by transsexual activists that have weaponized the term “TERF” – Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. The trans activists made the simple comparison: TERFs are “Nazis” and since it’s ok to punch a “Nazi” it’s ok to punch a “TERF.” One proceeded to do just that – a man wearing a dress punched an elderly woman feminist in the face, and the trans activists justified it because TERF=Nazi and it’s ok to “punch a Nazi.”

Reading the GenderCritical subreddit is fascinating, you have the same bizarre mix you typically see with feminism. On the one hand, there are silly girls being bitchy and obvious man-hating shrews moaning about the patriarchy, and the ever present leftists trying to pair Black men and “women-as-a-class” as being “oppressed” by the White Male Patriarchy.

But you also have some quite sensible women making quite sensible points – why is it that “liberal feminists” are siding with radical Islamics, perhaps the most openly “misogynist” culture there is? You have quite sensible women decrying prostitution and the sex industry, the recently deceased (bisexual CIA lackey) Hugh Hefner, and very legitimate normal seeming women decrying boorish behavior on the part of men. All perfectly understandable and even a “right wing” liberal racist sexist like this author finds myself nodding in agreement with half of what these women are saying.

I came across a fascinating site, https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/ which is a radical lesbian separatist feminist site that has some very interesting biological analyses about sex – literally, on the cellular level. In this analysis, maleness itself, the Y-chromosome, is a sort of parasite. I don’t know enough biology to properly judge how much of this is true or false, but some things that stuck out for me:

– Semen: Men’s Chemical War Against Women. Past Evolutionary Context for Seminal Engineering: how females not signaling estrus trumped males.

It’s been discussed that semen has “calming” – or in this analysis, paralyzing, effects on women. Semen is a way for the y-chromosome to inject itself into women, turn off one of the x-chromosomes, and actually inhibits parthenogenesis – the creation of a baby without a male “sperm donor.”

– The invention of the birth control pill coincided with the mainstreaming of oral sex

This seems to be somewhat of E. Michael Jones style coincidence-shopping, but it’s still rather interesting. Spermicides and birth control and other ways of killing sperm/preventing impregnation of women were followed quickly by men figuring out other ways of getting semen into women. The vagina can be a very sperm hostile place and “sperm competition” is an evolutionary explanation for a lot of seemingly unintuitive aspects of human sexuality. The author notes that injecting sperm into a woman’s throat is a way of getting semen into a woman’s body which, while not making her pregnant, does in fact have some of the “calming”/”paralyzing” effect on women. It makes women “docile” – it’s like a species that has a toxin that paralyzes its prey, but in this case, it perpetuates the y-chromosome.

The author also notes that anal sex is now being mainstreamed, another way of getting semen into a woman’s body that, while obviously not getting a woman pregnant or perpetuating the y-chromosome, does allow semen into a woman’s body to work its paralyzing effect. We’ve seen studies showing that genetic material from sperm shows up in women’s brains.

She also notes that the porno mainstreaming of “facials” and otherwise ejaculating on women is yet another way to get the chemicals and hormones found in semen into women through their pores! For these lesbian separatists, semen itself is a sort of toxin – talk about “toxic masculinity!” There’s also some interesting discussing of female/males of other animal species. To her, semen itself is toxic (it certainly is a carrier of disease) and the “male hormone” testosterone is the obvious “cause” of violence. Feminists are completely correct that women are – “as a class” – at the mercy of male violence (as are other men, of course.) Testosterone makes men fight other men and then they inject that “toxic masculinity” into women, perpetuating the y chromosome.

This is sort of a futurist “evolutionary end of men” type thing, but it would be pointless – and rather girlish – of “manosphere” types to get angry or outraged by this stuff; I find it really quite interesting and as a “race and sex realist” and someone who thinks evolutionary biology can likely explain the human condition more than anything else (religion, metaphysics, etc.) I’m looking forward to reading her new posts:

* The Chicken IS the Egg. Parthenogenesis and the Mysterious Evolution of Males.

* Testosterone: What it Does.

* X-Inactivation: How Dudes’ Dying-Y-Asses Get Saved as One of Women’s Two X-Chromosomes is Turned Off for Life.

* Female Bonding/Female Trashing: Chimps, Bonobos and Homo Sapiens

I also found out that the first “manosphere” post that I ever made – the one that had me libeled by the male feminist manboobz.com and made me a two year long hit on the reddit.com manosphere subs – actually has scientific proof for what I posited: it’s called the “Cheerleader Effect.”

I suggested that men in groups – the “mannerbund” – made men more attractive to women, and what do you know – it does. And women in groups – like a cheerleading squad – also makes women more attractive to men.


To finish off, here’s a kind of interesting “male feminist” media analysis of the “Born Sexy Yesterday” trope. It’s Beta Male Geek Fantasy – some alien/robot with a woman’s body but the naive mind of a girl falls in love with geek boy who gets to introduce her to the wonders of sex – and he’s the Alpha Male for her because she knows nothing of the world. It’s really just the male version of 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight. In 50SOG and Twilight, Alpha Male CEO Businessman – or Sexy Supernatural Vampire with Magical Powers – falls head over heels in love with Average Everygirl.

But of course the purpose of the “deconstruction” of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope is simply to sell cuckoldry to men, the male feminist ends with demanding that sci-fi media creators stop selling youth and virginity and chastity as sexy, and instead tell men that “experience is sexy” – i.e., Man Up And Marry Those Sluts – and that any man who wants the youth, chastity, virginity (and by extension, fertility) of a woman is just “fearful” and “scared” and “insecure” – he’s just afraid that her former lovers may have had a bigger dick and be better in bed.

Both sides – the radical feminists and the liberal male feminists – as well as the “dudebros” and pornographers and Hugh Hefner Playboy PUAs – want to continue to destroy monogamy, thus the nuclear family, thus humanity itself – but they always “just happen” to only target Whites, of course. Monogamy – patriarchy – is a delicate balance of women’s and men’s evolutionary interests that preserves the recessive traits of Northwestern Europeans and gives men an incentive to invest in their children (and the mothers of their children) – thus creating White civilization. So of course it is constantly attacked. Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the European Catholic Church comes into play here (and it’s not at all a completely pro-Catholic analysis either) – but for 1000 years it was Christianity that spread the monogamy of the Roman Empire to Europeans generally, thus had a significant impact of the genetics of the White race.

Born Sexy Yesterday

Mark Yuray: Doing Social Conservatism Right #nRX #SocialMatter


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.

From Male Ally To Full Fledged Feminist

You know what’s the opposite of a Social Justice Warrior? An Anti-Social Unfair Coward, that’s what! Think about it.

Breaking Feminazis

I don’t care, I think this is the funniest stuff ever. It’s side-splittingly hilarious. No, I don’t find it erotic in the slightest. Sure, it’s sort of meant to be offensive, but that’s why I love it.

Warning: Extremely Not Safe For Work


It’s full of some really ugly porn, so to save anyone from having to click, I’m going to copy some of the best titles here. The set up is that there is a Gender Civil War, the Feminists vs. the Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs win and enslave women and single out activist feminists for sexy spankings and humiliating punishments. It had been taken down but it’s back up. Some of the best gems:

Feminist POWs play tug of war with their chains as they natural cattiness prevents them from agreeing whether cooking or cleaning comes 1st in their domestic duties.

Former Congresswomen of the Feminist Republic now serving as cunt-slaves in a Misogynist Warlord’s harem

A Misogynist Master removes the intellectual glasses from the caged Feminist Academic, as his little pet will never have the need to read a big book of Feminist Theory ever again

The belief in Gender Equality is a form of insanity that can only be cured in Patriarchal Asylums with the medicine of Misogynist cock

Pro-Choice Feminist Activists are kidnapped by Christian Patriarchs and forced to carry fetuses to term and give birth in submission as punishment for their Feminist sins.

But a true feminist would not be kneeling in her sexy lingerie before an audience waiting to be spanked. The audience clearly loved the incongruity of a feminist stripped and humiliated and they were bringing up her feminism and capitulation

Professor Margaret Kane, a respected Feminist Philosophy Theorist had tried to explain to her class of horny frat boys all the Ethical reasons why the New Patriarchy Regime was immoral.

Under the misogyny the police from the fempire were allowed to keep their old jobs as long as they agreed to a uniform change

The nice thing about Feminism is that the whores usually forget about it as soon as they get a dick in them

Removed from the prison of Feminism, these whores have quickly turned into mindless sex toys

MRA reduces Feminist Superheroines to kitchen bitches

It took Andrea surprisingly little time to stop being the depressed, fat assed cow she had been as a Feminist after her college was captured by Patriarchy troops

After the Patriarchy’s final conquest women were kicked out of the workforce, but some agreed to the honor of being office sex toys for $2 an hour

The dethroned heiress hangs her head in shame. All her life the Duchess had enjoyed the finer things. She was the glamorous, sophisticated, shining star of the elite. Then came the Revolution, and she finally saw herself for what she really was- just another shiny object. She was re-appropriated by the People along with her mansion, diamonds, cars and chandeliers.

Now she along with her possessions are being shipped overseas to pay the Republic’s debts. She is just another fragile, easily breakable object. She had defined her life by possessions, now she will be a possession. Her sparkling chains and delicate silk lingerie, are not hers, but for the pleasure of her Master. She is just Fragile cargo no different than glass.

Sick of the stiflingly rigid Patriarchy back East, Suffragette Settlers set off Westward Ho to the Frontier, to build a new utopian community of complete Gender Equality. Their isolated coastal community made up entirely of single women, is too tempting a target for Qing Raiders however. They are captured and their most private intimacies are marked with painful tattoos, permanently branding them as White Sex Slaves.

They then endure a horrifying trip across the Pacific, chained below deck to be sold on the Shanghai slave-market to the highest bidder. If they are lucky they will end up in the harem of a powerful Warlord with the means to take care of them. The unlucky ones will have to earn their keep, serving hordes of Men, in the cheap brothels.

The great Amazon Warrior Queen Hippolyta is captured in battle by Theseus. Women Warriors are not given the honor of dying on the battlefield, they are too valuable as breeding animals to waste.The attempt by her sisters to rescue her are defeated. She shed many bitter tears as she saw her glorious Amazon armies mowed down, as she watched enchained from the palace. She burned in shame, as she realized all their heroism was wasted. Their Queen was no more, she was just a Greek slavegirl. Now the proud Amazon wild conqueror will learn the humble life of an Athenian housewife. She is to spend her days weaving and her nights fucking. All of her Amazon Warrior nonsense is to be forgotten and she is to learn to be an obedient Greek wife. Her wild untamed barbarian pubic bush will be shaved into a gracefully trimmed rose garden.

Her womb will receive the seed of her conqueror. She is put on display as a mere war trophy. Theseus’s other slave girls have their curiosity get the better of them, and they are constantly sneaking peaks at their slave-sister. They can’t believe that a former Warrior Queen is now a fellow harem slave. The only battles she will fight now is that of childbirth.

During the early days of the Men’s Resistance Army’s actions against the Feminist Regime, individual men could only strike out in small lonewolf propaganda actions against prominent Feminist commissars. These small victories helped undermine Feminism’s ideological claims about the innate equality between the sexes.

The outspoken Feminist College President was raided in her own home by a gang of frat boys. Thrown onto her bed, she was forced to hold her labia lips open, as the MRAs snapped photos. She turned aside with her eyes closed in shame. Nothing better debunked Feminist Ideology, than photos of proud Feminist leaders covering in fear, before hulking MRA brutes. No one could claim that the 2 creatures in that picture were in anyway equal.

The poor widow had not even had time to mourn her husband’s tragic death, when the bloodsucking loanshark who had driven her husband to suicide, had the nerve to show his face. Wiping away tears she slapped the merciless bastard with as much force was her womanly hands could muster. He just laughed an informed her that under the Patriarchal Legal Code she was now his property.

She couldn’t believe her ears. And told him to get the fuck out. He handed to her the MRA Civil Code and to her horror it was all true. She would not even be given the mercy of attending her own husband’s funeral. Instead she was to be taken away immediately to become the fuck-slave of her husband’s worst enemy. Her black mourning lingerie just aroused the beast more.

With her husband always away on business trips, the Women’s Libber would brag to all her friends about the privilege and independence she enjoyed. She was practically a free woman with no Male Oversight. The power soon went to her head, and she even recklessly began holding Feminist Consciousness Raising Sessions in her living room. All her friends were invited to share stories about how Patriarchy was holding them down. She beamed with pride, feeling like the leader among Womyn.

But then one night her husband came home early from his trip, right in the middle of her Womyn’s Lib Consciousness Raising. She screamed in utter humiliation, when in front of all her Feminist friends, her husband threw her over the knee like a little child, and gave her a hard spanking. She blushed in shame as she saw all her Feminist sisters, who had once admired her, shaking their heads in disgust. She would never again be taken seriously by any of her friends and neighbors. Her Feminist credentials went down as quick as her panties. She was just another terrified, helpless housewife at the mercy of her husband.

The Mysterious Suffragette Wanderer had rode into town determined to clear out the bandits who dared to kidnap and sell women as cattle. Now having been captured, beaten, ravaged and marched across town naked, she is desperate just to get out. The same tough woman who had planned to being the brigands to justice, now begs for their mercy, just to ride out of town with her horse and carpetbag butt naked. This once fearsome Western heroine has to beg for mercy just for the privilege of leaving town naked.


Life in Patriarchyland!


(daughter) “Daddy, I would like to get married.”
(dad) “Good.”
(daughter) “But I don’t know who to marry. I don’t trust my own judgment.”
(dad) “You shouldn’t.”
(daughter) “So how do I know if he’s the right one?”
(dad) “I’ll tell you.”
(daughter) “But what if I don’t love him?”
(dad) “That will grow, it will come and go.”
(daughter) “But what if I’m not always happy?”
(dad) “That is not marriage. You want to be married right?”
(daughter) “Yes.”
(dad) “Okay, do you only want to be married if you are always happy in it?”
(daughter) “Well, isn’t that the way its supposed to be?”
(dad) “No.”
(daughter) “So what do I do?”
(dad) “I will pick the boy. You will fall in love with him. You will do absolutely everything he tells you to do. You will give me 12 grand children.”
(daughter) “That’s a lot. What if he can’t afford to support them all?”
(dad) “I will buy you two a house near us, keep it in my name, you two will live in it free of charge, and your mom and I will help with the grandkids.”
(daughter) “What if I don’t agree with everything he says?”
(dad) “Doesn’t matter. Do whatever he tells you to do.”
(daughter) “Sounds like slavery?”
(dad) “No. he has headship. You are his property and he will take care of you, he had pride of ownership.”
(daughter) “Okay. So get him for me.”
(dad) “I will.”

—– (two weeks later) —
(dad speaking to another dad) “So what did your son think of the picture of my daughter?”
(other dad) “He said she was beautiful. He loved her long hair.”
(dad) “Good. I picked out a starter house around the corner. How’s his job going?”
(other dad) “Its a hassle. His boss is being deliberately difficult so I told him to send out the resumes and not to quit until he found something else.”
(dad) “Understandable. You’ll be in church Sunday?”
(other dad) “Of course.”
(dad) “See you then.”
—- (two weeks later) —-
(daughter’s dad to young man) “So you think she’s pretty?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “Do you think you could ever love her?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “And if you two get married, you are okay with living around the block from us?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “And if you two get married, you are going to try and get her pregnant on your wedding night?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “And if you two get married, you are going to consummate this marriage every single night of the week?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”

(dad) “And do you know what happens if you ever hit her?”
(young man) “Yes sir.”
(dad) “Okay you may court her.”

—- (two months later) —-

(dad) “Do you love him?”
(daughter) “Yes daddy.”
(dad) “Do you love her?”
(daughter) “Yes sir.”
dad “Okay you have my blessing.”

– (two weeks later) —-
(her) “I do.”
(him) “I do.”

– (12 hours later)—

(her) “I’m pregnant.”