You might already be aware, but some obnoxious liberal Twitter account has screencapped a brief excerpt from your "Why I Am No Longer A White Nationalist" post, the paragraphs about living in the Midwest and finding it boring. "Ha! The white nationalist doesn't like other white people!"
I knew something was up when they didn't include a link back to the original post, which is of course much more nuanced, articulate, and potentially disconcerting to their audience. Fortunately, Google isn't so nerfed (yet) that I couldn't arrive at your blog by googling the first full sentence. Much here to read and contemplate, and to reply to with an opinion-dump that I'll try to keep to a bearable length.
As another commenter already pointed out, "*you* should be trad to make *my* discreet degeneracy more exciting" is a nonstarter. Sexual ethics is a textbook example of a collective action problem, where the hedonic incentives for the winners are too great to voluntarily renounce, and the losers have no ability to change the rules of the game.
I think there's an element of wishful thinking in your analysis here that doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. "We get to be hedonists while our subjects live orderly and productive lives" is an arrangement that elites throughout history like to aspire to, since orderly and productive subjects are tractable and taxable, but human nature is more refractory than that. Pre-Victorian Britain had a flagrantly degenerate aristocracy ruling over a riot-prone populace of unwed drunken yobs, and the American white working class prior to suburbanization was no stranger to vice. (There's a lot of insight to be quarried from the work of lefty historians here, even if we disagree with their conclusions.) Vegas wasn't and isn't Monte Carlo or Monaco, an exclusive enclave for the sophisticated rich; it was/is a mass cultural phenomenon in postwar America. The Rat Pack were celebrities whose highly publicized adventures were wish fulfillment for ordinary working class men who were living the postwar suburban dream but had memories of their youthful adventures with vice, as teens in Depression-era inner cities and at overseas ports during the war. And the postwar suburban dream itself was in part an attempt to buy peace between the elites and the masses, at a time when the violent labor battles of the 1930s were a recent memory. There's a strong case to be made that the Fifties arrangement, where an average Joe who keeps his head down and plays by the rules gets to be the sole breadwinner for a suburban family with a rising standard of living, is the historical outlier; we've now returned to something more like the norm, in the grand sweep of industrial modernity.
(Likewise, there's certainly a case to be made that American culture would be healthier if its actually existing elites behaved more like a traditional aristocracy -- but if we had a traditional aristocracy, we wouldn't be the United States of America.)
Regarding the state of the generations, and the question of how redpilled high-IQ white men ought to conduct their reproductive lives (you had an interesting exchange on this topic in the comments to a previous post): I'm in my 40s, from an earlier generation than you. I didn't participate in any of the mid-2010s fun except as an amused lurker, so I enjoyed your recaps of what it felt like to be a hot-blooded young guy in the thick of the action. If I had been single rather than a risk-averse family man at that time, I might have ended up one of the Gen X movement intellectuals, but I'd probably also have ended up doxed and unemployable.
I was redpilled in my late twenties by the mid-aughts manosphere. Like a lot of nerdy guys in that era who came of age in liberal environments, I had to slowly and painstakingly reverse engineer the rules of the sexual marketplace, and figure out some rudimentary game, through real-world trial and error on my own. It was a thrill to discover the manosphere and compare notes with other men who had realized that the college feminism we had been socialized into was a load of nonsense.
This led in due course to redpills on those *other* things which I had quietly noticed but wasn't supposed to talk about in polite company.
And having swallowed that bellyful of redpills, how else to struggle against the lies of the system than to do my duty to the bloodline, take a wife and Put Family First, and do my best to be a trad dad?
So I've done time in those trenches, just as you did yours in corn country, and I've learned how difficult it is to hold frame and maintain your agency even in an ordinary monogamous marriage. Doing all this with an art hoe or an ex-OnlyFans? Nah, that's a headache I wouldn't encourage anyone to take on. If you're a true Dark Triad natural aristocrat who didn't need to consciously study the game in the first place, the strategy you suggest here might not be difficult, but I'm not sure it's wise if you're a high-IQ misfit who's had to devote serious effort to self-actualization.
As above, things might be cleaner if we had an actual Euro-type aristocracy who were frank about the fact that marriage is about bloodline and property, not love and loyalty. Perhaps your experience differs, but I'm not sure American elites really come close to this. I'm a product of the dutiful, rule-following upper middle class, but I have enough privilege (heh) to have had classmates and friends who come from Wall Street wealth or generational old money. My anecdotal sense is that using your wealth to outsource parenting duties, while you incomemaxx and pursue side pieces and the wife goes to gallery openings, is a high risk strategy. After all, you can't spend ninety seconds in a big city art scene without meeting a half dozen trust fund fuckups lashing out at daddy. Often these kids fall prey to the boring, self-destructive kind of degeneracy, hard drug addiction or lowest-common-denominator commie shit, precisely BECAUSE they have no self-preservation incentive not to. Elon himself, with his "daughter" "Vivian," is by no means immune to this.
And if you don't want kids and can already get your needs met, why bother taking a wife? I love my children, but I've ruefully come to understand that my natural way of being is as a promiscuous urban intellectual. (I just don't wanna get mugged by 80-IQ ferals is all, which makes me "radical right.") Forcing myself into normie dad life chafes; my redpills came right as I was finally hitting the income/career sweet spot where life really starts to get fun, and if nothing else, I wish I had spent a few more years enjoying life before I settled down. That said, I do believe that once you've fathered kids, responsible high-investment parenting is the line that separates K from r and Us from Them. A man who can't keep it in his pants for the sake of that project IS a worthless degenerate; that's a hill I'm willing to die on.
Obviously, none of this takes away from your point that incels seething about online roasties are ngmi.
I think you're right about the state of gender relations among the Zoomers. The truths my generation discovered by groping around in the dark, and which were present as a body of knowledge for adventurous young men of your generation to discover and implement while you were still young, have become the conventional wisdom of the generation below yours. I don't necessarily envy you or them, all things considered; swipe-based app dating sounds like hell. But it's satisfying to know that that body of knowledge is out there, so that high-IQ young men can begin from a baseline of actionable facts and don't have to waste time in blind alleys. How to implement this knowledge at civilizational scale, though, is a very hard problem, and experience has made me skeptical of simple solutions.
I don't see "traditionalist degenerate" being an "ideology" that takes off anytime soon. "I want everyone else to play by conservative rules so I can have more fun breaking them." Are the people who bully women for having an OnlyFans going to hear that and listen to you? I doubt it.
On the topic of being mean to women, I agree that men being mean to women in public is probably not useful, as the men who do that will be seen as the Bad Guy regardless of who is actually right or wrong about anything. But low status/low IQ men will always be lashing out in this way about something towards someone, and the same traits that cause them to do this in the first place will probably also prevent any attempts to persuade them to stop.
In the meantime, men more generally can definitely influence cultural norms through less obnoxious expressions of their preferences, for instance by refusing to date or commit to women that are marred by "sex work." Women don't respond to direct aggression by low status incels, but they will respond to changing social norms overall. If it becomes the case that having an OnlyFans destroys a woman's marriage prospects, women will stop hopping on that train quite so eagerly. Hopefully this is the direction things are headed in, but only time will tell.
> Such behavior horrifies middle class finger-waggers and Dave Ramsey enjoyers who could never afford to do this and pretend it has no appeal to decent people like themselves.
It was those very finger waggers that kept the degeneracy contained.
Ironically, the same self-awareness of how social dynamics actually work which makes this piece insightful stand directly in the way of the author achieving his vision for society, were it to be adopted en masse. It's what Spengler calls "ornamentation," that which occurs when a culture becomes conscious of its own stylistic trappings and rigidly follows them, instead of fluidly moving to some unspoken intuition. When a culture's art takes on ornamentation, that culture ossifies and begins to die.
Similarly, The "Baccanale playpen" model Bismarck wishes to bring back only worked because it was an organic growth within a culture that actually believed in its own moral precepts, and the members of that culture understood, tacitly, that many people they knew fell well short of those precepts. This is why Vegas and its historical antecedents were isolated from polite society, and this is why everyone understood that we cover up the nakedness of our fathers, and we do not talk about such things in polite spaces. Cultures of ages past also only had the social capital to burn on these kinds of base indulgences because it was built up by high-functioning, elite true believers.
Men who take this view cannot rebuild a functional civilization. Cynical sociologists laying bare the sacred and profane alike for all to see can do no more than provide a diagnosis (or an autopsy) of the patient, and have no hope of curing him. If you wish to see a culture sturdy enough to afford the social cost of a Las Vegas, you will need true believers to build it first; high-IQ cynics playing the part won't cut it. On a micro level, we've seen this dynamic play out in the churches time and time again. A certain kind of young man disaffected with modernity returns to the church for similar reasons: playing the autodidact sociologist, these recognized that a culture where the church was dominant was better than one where it wasn't, and entered the narthex with pretensions of social engineering. These people either learned to believe for real, or left the church frustrated and unsatsified.
Besides, there's a much simpler reason not to be mean to roasties online: Finger-wagging promiscuous girls is a job for old women, and young men should not act like old women.
Lol, I can't believe I'm agreeing with this shit and liked the post. But...of literally every woman I've known in my forty+ years on earth, the three who by far ended up with the best lives...millions in assets, good looking socially adept tall admired husbands, etc...were also some of the biggest sluts I ever knew in their teens and 20s. And yeah, one of them is me. But these are high IQ, verbally vicious, hilarious, politically and socially astute women.
And hell, I moved to Utah and partly that's because I like being the biggest degenerate on my block and surrounded by do gooding normies, I don't want anyone more degenerate than I in my neighborhood.
Though I don't think you need to be elite to see that the terror of being cucked by any woman who isn't dumb as a donut with zero sexual experience is a blaring signal of low status anxiety. It's pretty obvious. To the extent high status men may sometimes appear not to like slutty women it's only revulsion at the sloppy ones who lack the self control or intelligence to figure out how to be discrete and portray class in all situations where it matters.
This piece is sort of an interesting shadow-side companion to the arguments made regarding luxury beliefs, on behalf of normies, by Rob Henderson. I myself have always liked degenerates too much and allowed myself to indulge too much with them than is proper, but things have gone too far with people no longer trying to hide it or even pretend to be ashamed.
I admire your ability to take feedback and you are an excellent writer. The amount of astute cultural references and snapshot metaphors (i.e. “i was a mattress on the floor guy”) indicate you as a certain type of person who has a high level of sensory receptivity to subtle yet impactful shifts in the zeitgeist that most people merely feel but find ineffable. This ability to do this is both impressive and delegitimating. You are embroiled in a r/redscare myopia in which everything that happens in society can be reduced to some Freudian frequency or mapped out on some cause and effect chain that starts in a vanity fair article and ends in a hang-gliding Palestinian. The truth is that you are a degenerate (self-avowed), and as a degenerate you will always tend to see social good as a matter of strategy rather than morality. A person who believes in any sort of higher order divinity is not concerned with grand strategies and certainly not by way of “do the wrong things for awhile so that eventually the right things happen.” To be honest, no one should have to think like this. People should be able to live happily without having to toggle their behaviors to align with a grand social structure that properly vents society’s libidinal urges. I agree with you that this contractual, high availability of smutiness is gross - as I often say “everyone is having sex but no one is sexy.” But the diagnosis of this doesn’t mean that those who identify as self-appointed elites get to move the pieces around on the table until their orgies are exciting again. The truth is that my critique of this is not at all stylistic, but personal. You do not have to be a degenerate. Men should not have to cheat on their wives to properly diffuse their biological frustrations. Happiness isn’t found in any of these things, and replacing many of these behaviors with actual love and joy and happiness makes so much of this irrelevant. You won’t agree with this, that is fine. But i do think it’s worth considering that this whole schema here is an extremely complicated Rube Goldberg machine you’ve set up here when finding real joy and fulfillment (as i hope you and everyone on this thread will) will make a lot of this feel very trivial.
“The sort of men who rise to the top of society have an enormous desire for conflict and risk-taking. If you don’t give them a Vegas they will start a war and send your son into the trenches.”
I get the vibe reading this article that you're a pretty liberal 115 IQ guy with high openness, you were only on the alt right because it was transgressive and edgy and now you're bored with it, inevitably as movements expand they become about substance and not about their relation to broader society -- the goal of the movement is to become broader society. As a liberal edgelord, you need liberal substance and edge which is edgy in relation to liberalism. So, your article basically understands the world through a thoroughly liberal frame, and is edgy with respect to liberal feminist morality only. For example, your understanding of marriage is that it is "BDSM." You have the relation reversed, BDSM is not "real" with marriage being a simulation of BDSM, BDSM is a simulation of marriage, which is the organic bedrock of human sexual relationships. It's where babies come from, and all fetishes are really just degenerated forms from the marriage ideal.
>And this is why elite women like Radfem Hitler who understand the world in a nuanced way have such contempt for “Trad” guys who support things like Marital Debt. They are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to demand an exceptional and glamorous level of submission from a woman without themselves rising to any kind of exceptional or glamorous standard of masculinity, or giving her anything comparable in return.
I don't know if marital debt is some fetish term but if you mean a wife should cost millions of dollars, no lol. Women are not naturally entitled to much, just 3 meals a day and pregnancy, this is the natural way. It is feminist in fact to be concerned with the woman feeling glamorous ... what about men's feelings? A thought experiment I like to use is to raise myself to similar levels of entitlement. If women shall not give birth (as is their natural job) for less than millions per year, than neither shall men work for less than that! I guess that throws away your complaint about there being a middle class. By your standard what man can submit to working for some loser middle manager who can hardly afford to pay their infinitely worthy soul 5 figures per year? As we all know, all men are highly deserving of everything, just as all women are deserving of equality and a rich husband and so on.
>And they never go after elite women who are very Faustian / BPD and crave this intensity, because they know they aren’t nearly impressive enough to dominate such women. Instead they expect dumb normie girls who listen to Taylor Swift to go along with this insane shit. They’re basically just incels trying to scam girls into sexual slavery with scripture—just one step above the Rotherham grooming gangs. .
BPD hos are not Faustian, only men can be Faustian on their own in fact, it is a category error and feminist to think women can be Faustian except through a man.
"There is nothing glamorous about this and you’re not “providing” at a level that inspires real submission. In practice she will just feel like a human trafficking victim [...] They are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to demand an exceptional and glamorous level of submission from a woman without themselves rising to any kind of exceptional or glamorous standard of masculinity, or giving her anything comparable in return."
This essay was *definitely* not written for me, but I appreciated the main point nonetheless. I've been complaining about how too few men on the right are willing to call out these types of men and how they contribute directly to the problems they complain about and focus too much on the women and our roles, and I think this essay does this very well.
I especially appreciate the emphasis on the need to *inspire* women to want to submit, if that's what you want from her.
I lurk on this FB group that's aimed at conservative women who are anti-seed oil, Trad wannabes and predominantly evangelical Christian. They have this leader who is a pretty YouTuber who has no children, no husband and works constantly. It's very weird.
Walt, you have these women dead to rights. The Dave Ramsey worship, the modest is hottest baloney, the constant eye narrowing at sluts.
But what seems to unite them is a seething hatred for women who have it better than them. Most of them are lower income married to low IQ schlubs (again, nailed it) and they comfort themselves with sour grape proclamations.
Things like, "personally, I don't even want manicures. I think they show that you don't work hard"
"Honestly, I wouldn't even want my husband to make more money, he'd never be around to be with the kids".
And on and on. But you scratch the surface even slightly and the women are desperate for more money. All trying to exchange ideas of how to bring in extra income without compromising their SAHM status which they feel elevates them.
So many posts are women at their brink with a husband who won't chip in at all and they are poor, that Marriage Debt™ thing comes up a lot.
They brag about never saying 'no' to their husband's every boner. Some have even said, 'I just let my husband talk for me. He's the household leader in Christ'.
I said to my husband, "This is just conservative BDSM"
The women are really earnest and naive about how the world works (or should work). And they are terrible at converting others because they are so judgemental and unglamorous.
Excellent article! This is my first introduction to your work and I'm very impressed.
I wanted to find this interesting, but its a confused, meandering, almost meaningless article.
You might already be aware, but some obnoxious liberal Twitter account has screencapped a brief excerpt from your "Why I Am No Longer A White Nationalist" post, the paragraphs about living in the Midwest and finding it boring. "Ha! The white nationalist doesn't like other white people!"
I knew something was up when they didn't include a link back to the original post, which is of course much more nuanced, articulate, and potentially disconcerting to their audience. Fortunately, Google isn't so nerfed (yet) that I couldn't arrive at your blog by googling the first full sentence. Much here to read and contemplate, and to reply to with an opinion-dump that I'll try to keep to a bearable length.
As another commenter already pointed out, "*you* should be trad to make *my* discreet degeneracy more exciting" is a nonstarter. Sexual ethics is a textbook example of a collective action problem, where the hedonic incentives for the winners are too great to voluntarily renounce, and the losers have no ability to change the rules of the game.
I think there's an element of wishful thinking in your analysis here that doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. "We get to be hedonists while our subjects live orderly and productive lives" is an arrangement that elites throughout history like to aspire to, since orderly and productive subjects are tractable and taxable, but human nature is more refractory than that. Pre-Victorian Britain had a flagrantly degenerate aristocracy ruling over a riot-prone populace of unwed drunken yobs, and the American white working class prior to suburbanization was no stranger to vice. (There's a lot of insight to be quarried from the work of lefty historians here, even if we disagree with their conclusions.) Vegas wasn't and isn't Monte Carlo or Monaco, an exclusive enclave for the sophisticated rich; it was/is a mass cultural phenomenon in postwar America. The Rat Pack were celebrities whose highly publicized adventures were wish fulfillment for ordinary working class men who were living the postwar suburban dream but had memories of their youthful adventures with vice, as teens in Depression-era inner cities and at overseas ports during the war. And the postwar suburban dream itself was in part an attempt to buy peace between the elites and the masses, at a time when the violent labor battles of the 1930s were a recent memory. There's a strong case to be made that the Fifties arrangement, where an average Joe who keeps his head down and plays by the rules gets to be the sole breadwinner for a suburban family with a rising standard of living, is the historical outlier; we've now returned to something more like the norm, in the grand sweep of industrial modernity.
(Likewise, there's certainly a case to be made that American culture would be healthier if its actually existing elites behaved more like a traditional aristocracy -- but if we had a traditional aristocracy, we wouldn't be the United States of America.)
Regarding the state of the generations, and the question of how redpilled high-IQ white men ought to conduct their reproductive lives (you had an interesting exchange on this topic in the comments to a previous post): I'm in my 40s, from an earlier generation than you. I didn't participate in any of the mid-2010s fun except as an amused lurker, so I enjoyed your recaps of what it felt like to be a hot-blooded young guy in the thick of the action. If I had been single rather than a risk-averse family man at that time, I might have ended up one of the Gen X movement intellectuals, but I'd probably also have ended up doxed and unemployable.
I was redpilled in my late twenties by the mid-aughts manosphere. Like a lot of nerdy guys in that era who came of age in liberal environments, I had to slowly and painstakingly reverse engineer the rules of the sexual marketplace, and figure out some rudimentary game, through real-world trial and error on my own. It was a thrill to discover the manosphere and compare notes with other men who had realized that the college feminism we had been socialized into was a load of nonsense.
This led in due course to redpills on those *other* things which I had quietly noticed but wasn't supposed to talk about in polite company.
And having swallowed that bellyful of redpills, how else to struggle against the lies of the system than to do my duty to the bloodline, take a wife and Put Family First, and do my best to be a trad dad?
So I've done time in those trenches, just as you did yours in corn country, and I've learned how difficult it is to hold frame and maintain your agency even in an ordinary monogamous marriage. Doing all this with an art hoe or an ex-OnlyFans? Nah, that's a headache I wouldn't encourage anyone to take on. If you're a true Dark Triad natural aristocrat who didn't need to consciously study the game in the first place, the strategy you suggest here might not be difficult, but I'm not sure it's wise if you're a high-IQ misfit who's had to devote serious effort to self-actualization.
As above, things might be cleaner if we had an actual Euro-type aristocracy who were frank about the fact that marriage is about bloodline and property, not love and loyalty. Perhaps your experience differs, but I'm not sure American elites really come close to this. I'm a product of the dutiful, rule-following upper middle class, but I have enough privilege (heh) to have had classmates and friends who come from Wall Street wealth or generational old money. My anecdotal sense is that using your wealth to outsource parenting duties, while you incomemaxx and pursue side pieces and the wife goes to gallery openings, is a high risk strategy. After all, you can't spend ninety seconds in a big city art scene without meeting a half dozen trust fund fuckups lashing out at daddy. Often these kids fall prey to the boring, self-destructive kind of degeneracy, hard drug addiction or lowest-common-denominator commie shit, precisely BECAUSE they have no self-preservation incentive not to. Elon himself, with his "daughter" "Vivian," is by no means immune to this.
And if you don't want kids and can already get your needs met, why bother taking a wife? I love my children, but I've ruefully come to understand that my natural way of being is as a promiscuous urban intellectual. (I just don't wanna get mugged by 80-IQ ferals is all, which makes me "radical right.") Forcing myself into normie dad life chafes; my redpills came right as I was finally hitting the income/career sweet spot where life really starts to get fun, and if nothing else, I wish I had spent a few more years enjoying life before I settled down. That said, I do believe that once you've fathered kids, responsible high-investment parenting is the line that separates K from r and Us from Them. A man who can't keep it in his pants for the sake of that project IS a worthless degenerate; that's a hill I'm willing to die on.
Obviously, none of this takes away from your point that incels seething about online roasties are ngmi.
I think you're right about the state of gender relations among the Zoomers. The truths my generation discovered by groping around in the dark, and which were present as a body of knowledge for adventurous young men of your generation to discover and implement while you were still young, have become the conventional wisdom of the generation below yours. I don't necessarily envy you or them, all things considered; swipe-based app dating sounds like hell. But it's satisfying to know that that body of knowledge is out there, so that high-IQ young men can begin from a baseline of actionable facts and don't have to waste time in blind alleys. How to implement this knowledge at civilizational scale, though, is a very hard problem, and experience has made me skeptical of simple solutions.
Look man I like some of your content but you really should have been shoved in a locker more as a kid. Swirlies, wedgies, something.
Some of the stuff you say, specifically about elitism, is just retarded.
I don't see "traditionalist degenerate" being an "ideology" that takes off anytime soon. "I want everyone else to play by conservative rules so I can have more fun breaking them." Are the people who bully women for having an OnlyFans going to hear that and listen to you? I doubt it.
On the topic of being mean to women, I agree that men being mean to women in public is probably not useful, as the men who do that will be seen as the Bad Guy regardless of who is actually right or wrong about anything. But low status/low IQ men will always be lashing out in this way about something towards someone, and the same traits that cause them to do this in the first place will probably also prevent any attempts to persuade them to stop.
In the meantime, men more generally can definitely influence cultural norms through less obnoxious expressions of their preferences, for instance by refusing to date or commit to women that are marred by "sex work." Women don't respond to direct aggression by low status incels, but they will respond to changing social norms overall. If it becomes the case that having an OnlyFans destroys a woman's marriage prospects, women will stop hopping on that train quite so eagerly. Hopefully this is the direction things are headed in, but only time will tell.
> Such behavior horrifies middle class finger-waggers and Dave Ramsey enjoyers who could never afford to do this and pretend it has no appeal to decent people like themselves.
It was those very finger waggers that kept the degeneracy contained.
Ironically, the same self-awareness of how social dynamics actually work which makes this piece insightful stand directly in the way of the author achieving his vision for society, were it to be adopted en masse. It's what Spengler calls "ornamentation," that which occurs when a culture becomes conscious of its own stylistic trappings and rigidly follows them, instead of fluidly moving to some unspoken intuition. When a culture's art takes on ornamentation, that culture ossifies and begins to die.
Similarly, The "Baccanale playpen" model Bismarck wishes to bring back only worked because it was an organic growth within a culture that actually believed in its own moral precepts, and the members of that culture understood, tacitly, that many people they knew fell well short of those precepts. This is why Vegas and its historical antecedents were isolated from polite society, and this is why everyone understood that we cover up the nakedness of our fathers, and we do not talk about such things in polite spaces. Cultures of ages past also only had the social capital to burn on these kinds of base indulgences because it was built up by high-functioning, elite true believers.
Men who take this view cannot rebuild a functional civilization. Cynical sociologists laying bare the sacred and profane alike for all to see can do no more than provide a diagnosis (or an autopsy) of the patient, and have no hope of curing him. If you wish to see a culture sturdy enough to afford the social cost of a Las Vegas, you will need true believers to build it first; high-IQ cynics playing the part won't cut it. On a micro level, we've seen this dynamic play out in the churches time and time again. A certain kind of young man disaffected with modernity returns to the church for similar reasons: playing the autodidact sociologist, these recognized that a culture where the church was dominant was better than one where it wasn't, and entered the narthex with pretensions of social engineering. These people either learned to believe for real, or left the church frustrated and unsatsified.
Besides, there's a much simpler reason not to be mean to roasties online: Finger-wagging promiscuous girls is a job for old women, and young men should not act like old women.
Lol, I can't believe I'm agreeing with this shit and liked the post. But...of literally every woman I've known in my forty+ years on earth, the three who by far ended up with the best lives...millions in assets, good looking socially adept tall admired husbands, etc...were also some of the biggest sluts I ever knew in their teens and 20s. And yeah, one of them is me. But these are high IQ, verbally vicious, hilarious, politically and socially astute women.
And hell, I moved to Utah and partly that's because I like being the biggest degenerate on my block and surrounded by do gooding normies, I don't want anyone more degenerate than I in my neighborhood.
Though I don't think you need to be elite to see that the terror of being cucked by any woman who isn't dumb as a donut with zero sexual experience is a blaring signal of low status anxiety. It's pretty obvious. To the extent high status men may sometimes appear not to like slutty women it's only revulsion at the sloppy ones who lack the self control or intelligence to figure out how to be discrete and portray class in all situations where it matters.
This piece is sort of an interesting shadow-side companion to the arguments made regarding luxury beliefs, on behalf of normies, by Rob Henderson. I myself have always liked degenerates too much and allowed myself to indulge too much with them than is proper, but things have gone too far with people no longer trying to hide it or even pretend to be ashamed.
Touch grass
I admire your ability to take feedback and you are an excellent writer. The amount of astute cultural references and snapshot metaphors (i.e. “i was a mattress on the floor guy”) indicate you as a certain type of person who has a high level of sensory receptivity to subtle yet impactful shifts in the zeitgeist that most people merely feel but find ineffable. This ability to do this is both impressive and delegitimating. You are embroiled in a r/redscare myopia in which everything that happens in society can be reduced to some Freudian frequency or mapped out on some cause and effect chain that starts in a vanity fair article and ends in a hang-gliding Palestinian. The truth is that you are a degenerate (self-avowed), and as a degenerate you will always tend to see social good as a matter of strategy rather than morality. A person who believes in any sort of higher order divinity is not concerned with grand strategies and certainly not by way of “do the wrong things for awhile so that eventually the right things happen.” To be honest, no one should have to think like this. People should be able to live happily without having to toggle their behaviors to align with a grand social structure that properly vents society’s libidinal urges. I agree with you that this contractual, high availability of smutiness is gross - as I often say “everyone is having sex but no one is sexy.” But the diagnosis of this doesn’t mean that those who identify as self-appointed elites get to move the pieces around on the table until their orgies are exciting again. The truth is that my critique of this is not at all stylistic, but personal. You do not have to be a degenerate. Men should not have to cheat on their wives to properly diffuse their biological frustrations. Happiness isn’t found in any of these things, and replacing many of these behaviors with actual love and joy and happiness makes so much of this irrelevant. You won’t agree with this, that is fine. But i do think it’s worth considering that this whole schema here is an extremely complicated Rube Goldberg machine you’ve set up here when finding real joy and fulfillment (as i hope you and everyone on this thread will) will make a lot of this feel very trivial.
“The sort of men who rise to the top of society have an enormous desire for conflict and risk-taking. If you don’t give them a Vegas they will start a war and send your son into the trenches.”
Seems to happen anyway.
I get the vibe reading this article that you're a pretty liberal 115 IQ guy with high openness, you were only on the alt right because it was transgressive and edgy and now you're bored with it, inevitably as movements expand they become about substance and not about their relation to broader society -- the goal of the movement is to become broader society. As a liberal edgelord, you need liberal substance and edge which is edgy in relation to liberalism. So, your article basically understands the world through a thoroughly liberal frame, and is edgy with respect to liberal feminist morality only. For example, your understanding of marriage is that it is "BDSM." You have the relation reversed, BDSM is not "real" with marriage being a simulation of BDSM, BDSM is a simulation of marriage, which is the organic bedrock of human sexual relationships. It's where babies come from, and all fetishes are really just degenerated forms from the marriage ideal.
>And this is why elite women like Radfem Hitler who understand the world in a nuanced way have such contempt for “Trad” guys who support things like Marital Debt. They are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to demand an exceptional and glamorous level of submission from a woman without themselves rising to any kind of exceptional or glamorous standard of masculinity, or giving her anything comparable in return.
I don't know if marital debt is some fetish term but if you mean a wife should cost millions of dollars, no lol. Women are not naturally entitled to much, just 3 meals a day and pregnancy, this is the natural way. It is feminist in fact to be concerned with the woman feeling glamorous ... what about men's feelings? A thought experiment I like to use is to raise myself to similar levels of entitlement. If women shall not give birth (as is their natural job) for less than millions per year, than neither shall men work for less than that! I guess that throws away your complaint about there being a middle class. By your standard what man can submit to working for some loser middle manager who can hardly afford to pay their infinitely worthy soul 5 figures per year? As we all know, all men are highly deserving of everything, just as all women are deserving of equality and a rich husband and so on.
>And they never go after elite women who are very Faustian / BPD and crave this intensity, because they know they aren’t nearly impressive enough to dominate such women. Instead they expect dumb normie girls who listen to Taylor Swift to go along with this insane shit. They’re basically just incels trying to scam girls into sexual slavery with scripture—just one step above the Rotherham grooming gangs. .
BPD hos are not Faustian, only men can be Faustian on their own in fact, it is a category error and feminist to think women can be Faustian except through a man.
You are a wordcel.
"There is nothing glamorous about this and you’re not “providing” at a level that inspires real submission. In practice she will just feel like a human trafficking victim [...] They are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to demand an exceptional and glamorous level of submission from a woman without themselves rising to any kind of exceptional or glamorous standard of masculinity, or giving her anything comparable in return."
This essay was *definitely* not written for me, but I appreciated the main point nonetheless. I've been complaining about how too few men on the right are willing to call out these types of men and how they contribute directly to the problems they complain about and focus too much on the women and our roles, and I think this essay does this very well.
I especially appreciate the emphasis on the need to *inspire* women to want to submit, if that's what you want from her.
No.
I’m gonna be mean to whom ever I want. Slut or not.
I lurk on this FB group that's aimed at conservative women who are anti-seed oil, Trad wannabes and predominantly evangelical Christian. They have this leader who is a pretty YouTuber who has no children, no husband and works constantly. It's very weird.
Walt, you have these women dead to rights. The Dave Ramsey worship, the modest is hottest baloney, the constant eye narrowing at sluts.
But what seems to unite them is a seething hatred for women who have it better than them. Most of them are lower income married to low IQ schlubs (again, nailed it) and they comfort themselves with sour grape proclamations.
Things like, "personally, I don't even want manicures. I think they show that you don't work hard"
"Honestly, I wouldn't even want my husband to make more money, he'd never be around to be with the kids".
And on and on. But you scratch the surface even slightly and the women are desperate for more money. All trying to exchange ideas of how to bring in extra income without compromising their SAHM status which they feel elevates them.
So many posts are women at their brink with a husband who won't chip in at all and they are poor, that Marriage Debt™ thing comes up a lot.
They brag about never saying 'no' to their husband's every boner. Some have even said, 'I just let my husband talk for me. He's the household leader in Christ'.
I said to my husband, "This is just conservative BDSM"
The women are really earnest and naive about how the world works (or should work). And they are terrible at converting others because they are so judgemental and unglamorous.
Excellent article! This is my first introduction to your work and I'm very impressed.