You make a lot of good points here, but I disagree with the underlying assumption that we need to pander to the female mind. Objective reality in the end is the main force. Perceived reality can affect objective reality (Like taking a BB gun to the airport, not a real gun, but people think it is, and all the associated trouble that comes with it), but it is better to understand how things really work first, and then work on the social side of the equation. The obsession with narrative explains a huge amount about why the American Empire is in decline, because it made decisions that felt good, or sounded good instead of being *actually* good decisions. Yeah, you are right, the mainstream right often has shit social intelligence, but there are times where dudes just need to find the balls to say "shut up, bitch". But then again, knowing when and how to play that card requires discretion, and for various reasons higher IQ people tend towards the left, so you are right we have a worse deck of cards to play here.
As regards art, my view is you need to tell a story first, and then the themes will be emergent out of that. A lot of films with over the top leftist messages are also flops or cringe.
I found this quite thought provoking, and I've sent it to one of my conservative friends so that him and I can wrestle over it a bit. I have some doubts about the art section because I feel that we've been so inundated with preachy progressive "art" or formless nonsense which people will scoff at you for saying is not art (to you). That said, it's obvious that higher openness to experience — which is itself likely tied to a higher risk tolerance — and a high enough IQ to make sense of and utilize narratives tends to help when making art, so I don't outright object to what you argued and just need to think about it more. It was just a bit jarring to see low time preference and liberal paired together.
Anyway, I've been really enjoying this foray into the dissident and new right because it's not the same old facile nonsense that you'd hear being touted on a college campus. While I have my disagreements with what I read, that's often an indicator that what I'm reading is challenging my assumptions and helping me to hone my view of how the world is and the difficulties in getting the world to where I would like it to be. For reference, I'm a gay (but masculine) Hindu ancap who came of age in Kentucky but studied math and physics in Boston, so I personally understand the — at times — competing values of community/family and individualism/excellence. Obviously there aren't too many gay guys on the right, but it's very natural for me because I'm very comfortable with hierarchy and sensitive to beauty. Perhaps this is my own naivete, but I think it is actually good to unmask the white lies and niceties which constitute our social undercurrent because the lies ultimately pile up. That said, I'd like to see a more robust contingent of elites on the right (perhaps be one someday) since I'm elitist by disposition and find Cofnas compelling — which it can be hard not to be once you're exposed to true excellence, though many blind themselves to it through their progressive values and guilt. Now I've just got to find a guy who's high quality but also doesn't find my beliefs abhorrent...
At what point does all this feminine power come with any responsibility? In my experience, the main reason for keeping it all covert and un-acknowledged is so that you may avoid all responsibility for it.
As a non-western woman, I hear the loudest and ugliest of shrieks when I say that I feel responsible for something. People constantly strive to convince me that I could never be responsible for anything at all. See? It all just happens to me and I am either the poor victim or the triumphant underdog in every situation. It could never be otherwise.
I am not prone to feeling guilty, and I certainly don’t think I have caused any of the problems I often talk about, but I feel responsible for changing what I can. It is so tiresome that that is just not an acceptable option, even when a self-avowed dissident contrarian is making an argument, that women are just these “cute” and helpless little beings to you, unaware of their own power and unable to wield it correctly. Do you really think we don’t see right through the little tricks that you have suggested to your fellow men?
The real trick, ironically enough, is to finally openly acknowledge that women have this power and must therefore act responsibly in wielding it. But I won’t hold my breath, it seems an absolute impossibility that most people will ever get it.
I'm not sure how I feel about what you said regarding high body count women.
I think in some cases what you said is absolutely correct; if you look at the personal life of any chick who was in porn or something they are basically just lonotomized. Completely subservient to the strongest will around them. Hard to say how much of this is an emergent fact of female promiscuity and how much of it is just a result of the pimp like "breaking in" culture of the porn industry though.
But in other cases, it's the BPD type girls with the high body count who are nigh uncontrollable. At the very least you can't really consistently control them, especially when they are on their period or have "an episode" or whatever. And it's usually these BPD girls who have the high body counts. I think this is most likely because these types of women see men as masturbatory tools more than anything (albeit exclusively subconsciously) and so they have a stereotypical "Stacy" attitude or whatever you want to call it.
So I'm not sure how consistently this generalization can really be applied. If the chick has some sort of trauma that drives her high body count (such as the porn star does) then she will be submissive, but that is by virtue of the trauma enforcing her survival mechanism of pure subservience. On the other hand, if this is a BPD chick or a woman who truly internalized feminist rhetoric around sex being "empowering" (which is pretty rare in my experience) they will be very difficult to control.
I know many extreme RW dudes (usually self described fascists or something of that nature) who have tried this approach of going for the high body count girls, and it only ever works out if they chick is promiscuous because of some past trauma. One guy I know started dating a chick who was literally in a cult and had weird sex stuff done to her which left her pretty messed up. But she was extremely submissive. In fact she was almost too submissive because her lesbo sister eventually came between my friend and his gf because my friend made a post about why he though homosexuality was wrong, without even mentioning the lesbo chick. She just brow beat her sister into breaking up with my friend, presumably because she had more access to her than he did.
On the other hand, I have had a few friends go after the more typical high body count girls. The BPD every day club goer types. All of then had the exact same thing to say: the sex was great but it was the worst dating experience of their lives. Many times they would tell me that their gf was screaming at them for literally no reason and then turning around and threatening to kill themselves or even go to the police with false rape allegations. Completely uncontrollable. These stories are much more common than the cult survivor turned tradwife stories.
idk, Trump's instinctive reaction to conflict is running off to his hugbox and talking shit. Biden's reaction is to totter over to the source of irritation and yell "I'm going to push up you in the face!" Biden is a bully, which is the norm in recent American politics( Clinton, W Bush, Lord knows McCain). Trump is a mean girl. A crude, slovenly, Roseanne mean girl, but a mean girl.
One strategy for dealing with "mean girl" social shaming is to simply not have any meaningful social connections with progressives. If everyone you care about agrees with you on politics, some shitlib pointing out that you are transgressing liberal political values won't bother you. It's only a threat with any power if there are other liberals listening in who can hurt you in some way, like if you have a bunch of liberal friends who might cut you off for committing wrongthink.
Fortunately, I think this is becoming more and more of the norm as people continue to sort based on ideology, and the liberal tendency to cut off wrongthinkers has almost certainly accelerated it. I believe this is one reason you see a really big political divide between the genders in Gen Z. In previous generations young women and men interacted together a lot more, meaning that if you said something the girls didn't like, they were there to hear it and gossip about it and lower your social status and whatever. But today young men just sit at home in private Discords posting racist memes and playing video games. If your interactions with women are completely siloed off in a separate "dating scene" through Hinge or whatever, or non-existent to begin with, then women have little or no opportunity to try and police your political opinions.
I found this article very satisfying; yet, I am skeptical that playing head games with liberals will move the needle much if we don’t get elites on board—unless you see this as some kind of “grassroots” approach that will push liberal elites in the right direction from below. That seems dubious. Also, Jung strikes me as a quack (just like his mentor Freud)—his views don’t comport with evolution.
I would disagree that the MAGA movement is dominated by masculine chuds. In 2016 Trump had a speaking style that was considerably more feminine than any other candidate that had run recently, male or female. He is much more likely to focus on appeals to emotion over policy. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/trump-feminine-speaking-style-214391/ The MAGA movement is heavily driven by victim narratives about trade, immigration elites etc, so the line “This isn’t an easy task for conservatives, especially conservative men, because we don’t like feeling like “victims”.” doesn’t really resonate with me.
“It is probably best for society to keep praising the emperor’s clothes, both for this guy’s sake and for the sake of women, even if it annoys spergs like me.”
Thatcher was right that there is no such thing as “society” (not in the literal sense but in the sense that there is no single acting organism). I don’t think we need to stop telling the truth because to not do so can often be disastrous.
“And it’s also just healthier for the political order—men need to have some illusion of equality or they will become unproductive or violent.”
Men need no illusion of equality and they have none. But men do need respect. That’s why humiliating black men was one of the worst aspects about segregation.
I remember Stephen Merchant quickly interjecting something like, “I don’t think so, I'm a racist”, when Karl and Ricky talked about how it would be interesting to meet Nelson Mandela.
Obviously meant as a joke, but I wonder if something like this would reduce the tension, in a Shane Gillis way. Leftists would see this as self-deprecating and too disturbing to be true so it has to be a joke. Of course, the most important thing about a joke is who tells it and how.
I’m going to stop simping after every article, but you are like Hanania on speed. I just became a paying subscriber, but if you keep this up I’ll have to consider becoming a founding member or whatever it is called.
You make a lot of good points here, but I disagree with the underlying assumption that we need to pander to the female mind. Objective reality in the end is the main force. Perceived reality can affect objective reality (Like taking a BB gun to the airport, not a real gun, but people think it is, and all the associated trouble that comes with it), but it is better to understand how things really work first, and then work on the social side of the equation. The obsession with narrative explains a huge amount about why the American Empire is in decline, because it made decisions that felt good, or sounded good instead of being *actually* good decisions. Yeah, you are right, the mainstream right often has shit social intelligence, but there are times where dudes just need to find the balls to say "shut up, bitch". But then again, knowing when and how to play that card requires discretion, and for various reasons higher IQ people tend towards the left, so you are right we have a worse deck of cards to play here.
As regards art, my view is you need to tell a story first, and then the themes will be emergent out of that. A lot of films with over the top leftist messages are also flops or cringe.
Still, good piece overall.
I found this quite thought provoking, and I've sent it to one of my conservative friends so that him and I can wrestle over it a bit. I have some doubts about the art section because I feel that we've been so inundated with preachy progressive "art" or formless nonsense which people will scoff at you for saying is not art (to you). That said, it's obvious that higher openness to experience — which is itself likely tied to a higher risk tolerance — and a high enough IQ to make sense of and utilize narratives tends to help when making art, so I don't outright object to what you argued and just need to think about it more. It was just a bit jarring to see low time preference and liberal paired together.
Anyway, I've been really enjoying this foray into the dissident and new right because it's not the same old facile nonsense that you'd hear being touted on a college campus. While I have my disagreements with what I read, that's often an indicator that what I'm reading is challenging my assumptions and helping me to hone my view of how the world is and the difficulties in getting the world to where I would like it to be. For reference, I'm a gay (but masculine) Hindu ancap who came of age in Kentucky but studied math and physics in Boston, so I personally understand the — at times — competing values of community/family and individualism/excellence. Obviously there aren't too many gay guys on the right, but it's very natural for me because I'm very comfortable with hierarchy and sensitive to beauty. Perhaps this is my own naivete, but I think it is actually good to unmask the white lies and niceties which constitute our social undercurrent because the lies ultimately pile up. That said, I'd like to see a more robust contingent of elites on the right (perhaps be one someday) since I'm elitist by disposition and find Cofnas compelling — which it can be hard not to be once you're exposed to true excellence, though many blind themselves to it through their progressive values and guilt. Now I've just got to find a guy who's high quality but also doesn't find my beliefs abhorrent...
At what point does all this feminine power come with any responsibility? In my experience, the main reason for keeping it all covert and un-acknowledged is so that you may avoid all responsibility for it.
As a non-western woman, I hear the loudest and ugliest of shrieks when I say that I feel responsible for something. People constantly strive to convince me that I could never be responsible for anything at all. See? It all just happens to me and I am either the poor victim or the triumphant underdog in every situation. It could never be otherwise.
I am not prone to feeling guilty, and I certainly don’t think I have caused any of the problems I often talk about, but I feel responsible for changing what I can. It is so tiresome that that is just not an acceptable option, even when a self-avowed dissident contrarian is making an argument, that women are just these “cute” and helpless little beings to you, unaware of their own power and unable to wield it correctly. Do you really think we don’t see right through the little tricks that you have suggested to your fellow men?
The real trick, ironically enough, is to finally openly acknowledge that women have this power and must therefore act responsibly in wielding it. But I won’t hold my breath, it seems an absolute impossibility that most people will ever get it.
I'm not sure how I feel about what you said regarding high body count women.
I think in some cases what you said is absolutely correct; if you look at the personal life of any chick who was in porn or something they are basically just lonotomized. Completely subservient to the strongest will around them. Hard to say how much of this is an emergent fact of female promiscuity and how much of it is just a result of the pimp like "breaking in" culture of the porn industry though.
But in other cases, it's the BPD type girls with the high body count who are nigh uncontrollable. At the very least you can't really consistently control them, especially when they are on their period or have "an episode" or whatever. And it's usually these BPD girls who have the high body counts. I think this is most likely because these types of women see men as masturbatory tools more than anything (albeit exclusively subconsciously) and so they have a stereotypical "Stacy" attitude or whatever you want to call it.
So I'm not sure how consistently this generalization can really be applied. If the chick has some sort of trauma that drives her high body count (such as the porn star does) then she will be submissive, but that is by virtue of the trauma enforcing her survival mechanism of pure subservience. On the other hand, if this is a BPD chick or a woman who truly internalized feminist rhetoric around sex being "empowering" (which is pretty rare in my experience) they will be very difficult to control.
I know many extreme RW dudes (usually self described fascists or something of that nature) who have tried this approach of going for the high body count girls, and it only ever works out if they chick is promiscuous because of some past trauma. One guy I know started dating a chick who was literally in a cult and had weird sex stuff done to her which left her pretty messed up. But she was extremely submissive. In fact she was almost too submissive because her lesbo sister eventually came between my friend and his gf because my friend made a post about why he though homosexuality was wrong, without even mentioning the lesbo chick. She just brow beat her sister into breaking up with my friend, presumably because she had more access to her than he did.
On the other hand, I have had a few friends go after the more typical high body count girls. The BPD every day club goer types. All of then had the exact same thing to say: the sex was great but it was the worst dating experience of their lives. Many times they would tell me that their gf was screaming at them for literally no reason and then turning around and threatening to kill themselves or even go to the police with false rape allegations. Completely uncontrollable. These stories are much more common than the cult survivor turned tradwife stories.
Thought you might like to know that I copy and paste my favourite articles into a Google Drive archive, and this one made the cut.
idk, Trump's instinctive reaction to conflict is running off to his hugbox and talking shit. Biden's reaction is to totter over to the source of irritation and yell "I'm going to push up you in the face!" Biden is a bully, which is the norm in recent American politics( Clinton, W Bush, Lord knows McCain). Trump is a mean girl. A crude, slovenly, Roseanne mean girl, but a mean girl.
One strategy for dealing with "mean girl" social shaming is to simply not have any meaningful social connections with progressives. If everyone you care about agrees with you on politics, some shitlib pointing out that you are transgressing liberal political values won't bother you. It's only a threat with any power if there are other liberals listening in who can hurt you in some way, like if you have a bunch of liberal friends who might cut you off for committing wrongthink.
Fortunately, I think this is becoming more and more of the norm as people continue to sort based on ideology, and the liberal tendency to cut off wrongthinkers has almost certainly accelerated it. I believe this is one reason you see a really big political divide between the genders in Gen Z. In previous generations young women and men interacted together a lot more, meaning that if you said something the girls didn't like, they were there to hear it and gossip about it and lower your social status and whatever. But today young men just sit at home in private Discords posting racist memes and playing video games. If your interactions with women are completely siloed off in a separate "dating scene" through Hinge or whatever, or non-existent to begin with, then women have little or no opportunity to try and police your political opinions.
I found this article very satisfying; yet, I am skeptical that playing head games with liberals will move the needle much if we don’t get elites on board—unless you see this as some kind of “grassroots” approach that will push liberal elites in the right direction from below. That seems dubious. Also, Jung strikes me as a quack (just like his mentor Freud)—his views don’t comport with evolution.
“This means conservatives are terrible at making art.”
You should hyperlink your essay on that topic here *wink wink nudge nudge*
Where did you pick up the concept of anima that you used in your essay? Any recommended sources?
Ross Douthat argues vigorously for a reactionary reading of Lena Dunham's show "Girls"
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-i-love-lena.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/opinion/a-requiem-for-girls.html
I would disagree that the MAGA movement is dominated by masculine chuds. In 2016 Trump had a speaking style that was considerably more feminine than any other candidate that had run recently, male or female. He is much more likely to focus on appeals to emotion over policy. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/trump-feminine-speaking-style-214391/ The MAGA movement is heavily driven by victim narratives about trade, immigration elites etc, so the line “This isn’t an easy task for conservatives, especially conservative men, because we don’t like feeling like “victims”.” doesn’t really resonate with me.
“It is probably best for society to keep praising the emperor’s clothes, both for this guy’s sake and for the sake of women, even if it annoys spergs like me.”
Thatcher was right that there is no such thing as “society” (not in the literal sense but in the sense that there is no single acting organism). I don’t think we need to stop telling the truth because to not do so can often be disastrous.
“And it’s also just healthier for the political order—men need to have some illusion of equality or they will become unproductive or violent.”
Men need no illusion of equality and they have none. But men do need respect. That’s why humiliating black men was one of the worst aspects about segregation.
Banger
I remember Stephen Merchant quickly interjecting something like, “I don’t think so, I'm a racist”, when Karl and Ricky talked about how it would be interesting to meet Nelson Mandela.
Obviously meant as a joke, but I wonder if something like this would reduce the tension, in a Shane Gillis way. Leftists would see this as self-deprecating and too disturbing to be true so it has to be a joke. Of course, the most important thing about a joke is who tells it and how.
I’m going to stop simping after every article, but you are like Hanania on speed. I just became a paying subscriber, but if you keep this up I’ll have to consider becoming a founding member or whatever it is called.