Part twenty-eight of a series that sees me shamelessly copy/pasting from other sites those nuggets of masculinist wisdom – collectively becoming known as ‘the red pill’ – that are worth preserving and passing on. As mainstream media and culture turns against these expressions of male desire, I think it is important that they are propagated as widely as possible.

I came across a pair of articles recently, at the blog “Setting the Record Straight” by Aiden MacLear. I have to admit that he is right, in many respects, when one considers his points as a reactionary; which I have to admit I am becoming. These posts contain very strong opinions of a kind that hasn’t been spoken of, at least publicly, since the 1930s. In this respect, it is as radical an examination of human sexuality as anything Phillipe Rushton or Lothrop Stoddard might say about the Racial Question.

Original sources: https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2019/02/07/pua-is-unnatural/ and https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/patriarchy-masterpost/

 

PUA IS UNNATURAL
A man walks into a bar. There, he sees an unmarried woman, unchaperoned by another man; though she might be accompanied by other young unmarried women. He likes what he sees, so he saunters up to make her acquaintance and talk her into the sack, trading witty banter over the rim of a cocktail. In the immortal words of Bronze Age Pervert, YOU ARE GHEY!

The above situation has only been a social reality for less than a hundred years. Women did not socialize with strangers for 9,000,000 years of evolutionary history. In recent human evolution within society, women did not socialize with strangers unaccompanied by men of her in-group. Thus female sexuality could not possibly have evolved to recognize alpha males without heavy social cues. Those social cues are the respect of other men and the lust of other women.

In other words, women do not exercise sexual selection. It can be construed to look that way, when two strangers meet and a woman is expected to determine a man’s status based on limited information, but this process is above her evolutionary pay grade. In PUA, the seducer is counted as having a high rate of success if he beds a mere 1/10th of the women he approaches, and for most practitioners of the dark arts, the rate is far lower. To me, this always felt like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, because there is a far more successful means of bedding women.

So what does normal human sexuality look like? Well, when you’re the alpha male of a social group that includes men and women, the women are de facto your sexual property. Once you are recognized as the alpha, there is no courtship involved in bedding the girls that orbit your circle of friends. In the immortal words of Trump, you just start kissing them, grab ’em by the pussy, and have your way with them. The success rate of this strategy is closer to 90% for groups where you are clearly the alpha male. And this even applies for girls who are new to the group. It’s shocking how quickly you can go from “’Nice to meetcha”’, in the middle of a circle of stone sober friends, to pulping a girl’s cervix like an orange [while] in a storage closet. My record is 15 minutes.

But there’s one small problem here. You’re not an alpha if you don’t have a circle of peons to do you homage. If you’re piping out every hot girl in your circle of friends, the truth will get out, because women bicker jealously. And the men in your group will either rebel against you (if they don’t fear your capacity for violence or the law) or leave for pinker pastures where the pussy is not monopolized. And then you’re an alpha over a hen-house of jealous, bitter girls. Who will also leave when the men abandon you, except for (probably) your main bitch.

So what’s an alpha male to do? He enjoys his position because he has loyal friends who support him, but they won’t be loyal for long if he does not give a little back. But he is Cyninga, the canny-man, the cunning-man, the King. The giver of rings, full innuendo intended. He takes the hottest girl for himself, openly, and maybe a casual mistress or two. Then he plays matchmaker, encouraging his loyal lieutenants to take girls of their own. The social proof he gives them makes them appear worthier to their mates, and he agrees tacitly to not swing his dick around and do things that’ll make the lesser women unfaithful. In fact, he’ll shame and ostracize the girls in his group for sleeping around, encouraging them to pair up and stay paired up. His beta males know what side their bread is buttered on; most of them are thrilled to have a girl in the first place, since without their alpha’s magnanimous nature, they’d be shit out of luck. And they’d fight fiercely to keep those girls.

If this social group is fighting to stay alive against others, you now have a massive competitive advantage. Polygamous tribal societies have murder rates of 30%. If you’re not the alpha, you fight and die to try and get there. Still works that way in the urban ghetto. And that’s instability. A cohesive war band of loyal men will slaughter a tribe of infighting polygamists like sheep.

See what happens? I just derived monogamy from a ‘free’ sexual market. The first King was a giver of hymens. That is the basis of civilization. That is the basis of sovereignty. When Power in what was once Christendom abdicated this fundamental duty of the sovereign in enforcing monogamy, it ended its civilization in a single stroke. We are no longer a civilization because our men are no longer loyal to a giver of rings. Morally, we are tribal primitives, living in fear and awe of the shamans of leftism and their military enforcers.

 

PATRIARCHY MASTERPOST
I am tired of hearing people say that they want the patriarchy back, and then when someone proposes policy which is part of patriarchy, crucial to patriarchy, they start to sound a lot like progressives, claiming that certain social technologies are barbaric, medieval, outdated, that we’’ve moved forward since then.

Generally, these are the kinds of people who laud Poland and Hungary’s tax cuts for families with children, as if the collective self-euthanasia of Christendom could be tidily circumscribed with a few bureaucratic incentives.

The problem is female liberation, and the solution is female coercion. Women want to be owned by someone or something. By this I do not mean rational, conscious desire. You will find the rare woman who is honest with herself on this, but in a woman, honest self-reflection is almost a mental illness, and accompanies other, real mental illnesses. Rather, women are biologically compelled to find owners, because without an owner, she and her bastard child would die in the rain on the veldt. So women wander around and misbehave, causing weak men to stay away and strong men to give her a hard slap and some strong dick to stop her annoying misbehavior. Women enjoy both the misbehaving, and getting put in their places for it.

This is commonly known as a shit test. Allowing the misbehavior is failing the test, giving her a slap and a dick sandwich is passing the test. (If you are her father, the slap is enough)

If women are left feral and unowned, they will go through their lives shit testing everyone and everything in an attempt to find an owner. The men who pass these tests are commonly referred to as “evil” by civilized society. Bikers, gangsters, drug dealers, street-fighters, slippery amoral rogues, etc. Some of them will be upstanding civic-minded alpha males like Donald Trump, many more of them will be like El Chapo and worse.

This process of shit testing and looking for an owner begins as soon as a girl can walk. If the Right wants to prevent pedophilia, prevent its little daughters from getting fucked by old men, it needs to keep its daughters on a leash rather than live in constant suspicion of other men. If men are too suspicious of each other, male cooperation and thus society fails. Rape and pedophilia hysterias are Leftist tools that attempt to destroy society, by making men attack each other instead of rival (cooperate/compete) each other.

Men will fuck sheep and horses if they’re horny, (I’m sure you would never, dear reader, but if you put men around ewes and mares, ewes and mares will end up getting fucked) and men will fuck little girls too. Almost nobody will fuck animals or little girls if they have real, adult women; an epidemic of pedophilia is the result of sexual liberation, of men who cannot otherwise get laid and have no chance of marrying.

If you don’t want your cattle rustled, you lock em in a barn. Fucking the beasts of the field is weird and gross and degenerate, and fucking little girls is weird and gross and degenerate, but it’ll happen if you leave em unattended. If you kill every man who ever chubbed out at a cattle breeding, you’ll never be able to hire a cowboy, and if you let your daughters roam around unattended in tights and miniskirts and then attack every man who leers at them, you don’t have a society anymore.

As a man, it’s your instinct and in your interest to protect your daughters, but you’re protecting them from their own stupid, self-destructive biology. If you “protect” your daughters by giving them freedom and attacking male sexuality, they’re going to find owners in the few urban barbarians who retain that sexuality, like an old family friend of mine, an ex-Marine who sells industrial quantities of pot, deadlifts 500lbs, and makes his girlfriends wear collars and eat out of dog bowls.

If your worldview involves “making men better” or “making women better”, you are a Gnostic and an enemy; anti-human and anti-reality. Man does not have the powers of God and cannot actuate Paradise-on-Earth. And Man as an entity cannot be made moral. He can only be forced to obey moral law, and hopefully, as an individual, come to see the necessity of it with time. But that is not possible for everybody. I have come to have a deep respect for Leibniz.

But I digress. So women go through their lives looking for owners, and they will find them. But the owners women end up with are not the ones we as men need them to end up with for society to work. The dude who invented the bow and arrow would not have mated without enforced monogamy. He had caveman autism and probably wasn’t very strong or tough. In tribal polygamy, he would have spent his life trying to make himself strong and mean enough to steal a woman for himself, and probably failed. I explicated this in my last post. Enforced monogamy came first. Once it was invented, Mr. Caveman Autist could stop spending his free time trying to get a woman, and start spending it on his geeky toying around with sticks and sinews and obsidian.

And one fateful day, he tied feathers to the tiny little spear he’d been trying to throw with his bow, and it flew far and straight. He told the chief: “”We can hunt better now, we will never hunger again, never lose another man to the jaws of the tigers”.” The chief laughed.

“”You have always been soft””, he answered. “”Now we will kill the tribe of one hundred that lives in the green valley, and take their rich lands and their women”.” And so they did. The caveman-autist, who would have had zero children before, stole two more wives and had ten kids. More important than just the invention, his smart genes got passed down. And we started getting smarter, more capable, inventing technologies at a faster and faster rate. Those who practice patriarchy live in harmony with GNON. For those who do not, life is short, nasty, brutal, sexless, childless.

Patriarchy entails making sure women are owned by a man or institution of men from birth to menopause. More specifically, it means her sexual activity is proscribed by an individual man, with such proscription backed by the laws of society. Most traditionalists take this to mean that sex alone needs to be controlled, that as long as a woman’s sex is under the sway of moral law, she can be allowed full agency on other matters, like choice of marriage partner, working outside the home, going out unsupervised to socialize, etc.

If you let women choose their marriage partners, and do not force them to marry, they will all go off and make themselves available to alpha males. The 90% of women who are not pretty and well-bred enough to be chosen, will choose to not marry rather than marry a beta. They will sit and read romance novels until they become old maids, hoping some alpha widower will finally come along and choose them. Once their fathers kick them out of the house, they will become wenches or prostitutes, and there is not a whole lot of difference.

If a woman works outside the home, even if she is married, chances are that she sees her male boss as more of an alpha male than her husband, considers herself the de-facto sexual property of her boss, and will probably try to pass her boss’ kids off as her husband’s. Traditionally, women are not supposed to sit around reading chicklit either. Women are meant to work and be kept busy or go slowly insane; a woman’s traditional place is in her husband’s business, as his employee as well as his wife. This ensures the proper sexual dynamic; she should end the workday with her panties soaked from being ordered around by her husband all day, and then babies are made. Women are detail-oriented and good multi-taskers, a berry-picker mindset, which makes them great at busywork and terrible at leadership.

If the media had a huge, unprecedented influence on female sexuality, as many of our purple-pilled national socialists and Whig republicans like to claim, no man today would ever get laid, since our women would be constantly chasing after rock-stars and movie stars, and they would be race mixing and miscegenating far more than they actually do. In reality, the alpha who is present has far more sway over women than the alpha who exists in the media. Of course what is socially acceptable and encouraged has sway over female desires and expectations, but this is minor compared to the social cues that govern female sexuality in the day-to-day present. The media also, by the way, encourages men to spend lavish gifts on women, women are expected to only put out for men who engage in Hallmark romance and conspicuous consumption, but men who get laid today are ones who defy the media-approved methods of romance.

In other words, media will never make me attracted to disgusting fat women, and it will never make women attracted to sappy romantic betas who defer to them. The media may amplify the signal of dominant high-status men, but it will never change what women consider high status, will not change their behavior of making themselves available and vulnerable to high status men.

If left alone, women will find owners and mate in a dysgenic and dyscivic fashion, so it falls to men to choose owners for women, to choose the men most valuable to society to own the best-bred, most beautiful, and most fertile women. Female consent does not play into this, not generally, but then again, female consent does not map very well onto human mating behavior no matter what you do. Our mating behavior is very similar to other mammal mating behavior, has existed in its present form long before human language. Like other mammals, our mating behavior consists of a few acts of female resistance, and then total female submission to mating. Today we call those acts of token resistance “shit tests”; in the scientific literature they are “fitness tests”. Real female resistance to mating is obvious and recognizable, it is the reaction a woman would give if a naked hobo jumped out of an alley with a rusted knife in one hand and his erect cock in the other.

If you do not believe me, just play a sex game with your woman in which you pretend to rape her, and she tries to struggle and resist you with all of her might. You will find that it is impossible to consummate the act with a squirming, struggling woman, just as it is impossible for a dog to mount a bitch who isn’t in heat, who is fighting and running away. In bondage and rough sex fetishism, even the most hardcore variants where the woman wants to pretend to be raped as realistically as possible, she has to intentionally switch to feebler, ineffective resistance in order to get penetrated and get her rocks off.

There are many cases of unconsensual sex that a woman later feels good about, and does not consider to be rape under the modern definition, and many cases of consensual sex, or the consensual lack of sex, that a woman later feels bad about and thus considers to be rape, because in the former example a shit test was passed, and in the latter, a shit test was failed. Normal human sexuality, and female fantasy, resemble marriage-by-abduction, where a high-status male sweeps a woman off her feet and spirits her away to an isolated location despite her feeble protests. If you have ever had sex according to contractual verbal agreement, you will realize that it feels odd, unnatural, and unromantic, like hiring a prostitute, and she will likewise get feelbads from it.

Frat parties have been memed as dens of rape since the 80’s, and yet they are full of nubile young feminists loosening their inhibitions to this day. Many men are very angry about Muslim rape gangs in Europe, but women are not very angry about them and continue to find reasons to be around gangs of horny sand people. Any definition of rape based on the female point-of-view is legally and logically unsound, and results in all men becoming rapists, because rape is redefined as all sexualized interaction, from eye contact to coitus, that makes women feel bad at any point in time. Instead we have to use a definition of rape from premodern times; Rape is sex that the girl’s father and brothers feel bad about. It is a military phenomenon, terrible in the eyes of the conquered society’s males but passe, even fun, in the eyes of the conquered society’s women. To the Aztec man, Cortez was a rapist. To the Aztec woman, Cortez was an immaculate conquering sex god.

Now, no moral system, no religion, and no male ownership has total power over the horniness of teenagers, so it’s often the case that unmarried young men and women find a way around Daddy’s watchful eye to fuck each other. Rather than unilaterally declare this rape and hang a lot of potentially good and useful men, and send a lot of fertile young women to nunneries and whorehouses, the beautiful institution of shotgun marriage was invented. (“halberd marriage” is a lot less catchy) Now, Jesus cares about marriage coming first, but GNON doesn’t, as long as your first partner is also your last. Based on England’s great church records, it was fairly common in the 1500’s for the bride to be showing a pregnancy at her wedding. Shotgun marriage is pretty great. The girl’s father might not have thought you were alpha enough to marry his daughter, but you can always prove him wrong by seducing her, reintroducing the ancient and beautiful social technology of marriage-by-abduction.

Male ownership of women needs to be backed by religion. In the event that the husband is beta, the religion, if aligned with male interests, supplements his ownership, takes some of the alpha male duties off the shoulders of the beta husband, becomes the wife’s owner in her own mind. It is oft remarked by great minds that women are more outwardly religious, and this is true. The Church becomes part-owner of the wife. It has demands of her, and she likes being ordered around and made to do things that impose on her. Have kids, don’t deny your husband pussy, cover your hair in public, don’t be alone with other men. Leftism, as religion, fulfills this role of Daddy today. Get tattoos, pierce your body, take drugs, sleep around, get fat, eat pussy, get abortions, all things that crater female sexual status in the eyes of prospective husbands. Women like being dommed by a religion. Leftism doesn’’t fail shit tests. If a girl shit tested the Church, she got burned at the stake. If she shit tests Leftism, she gets howled at and ostracized by polite society, which is almost as bad as getting burned alive for a woman.

It also needs to be backed by the sovereign, which entails allowing the principle of the freehold, that every man is an alpha on his own property, and the guest is temporarily lower status be he King or Lord. If a man is prevented from being a king under his own roof, if some bureaucrat or priest invades the sanctity of his home to try and make him more moral, he will lose the ability to control his women, his wife will cuck him and his daughters will become whores. If a rich man needs shelter in the home of a peasant, the rich man follows the peasant’s rule and does him deference and homage, because this is necessary for patriarchy to continue. This right of the freehold is given to the commoner in exchange for loyalty, military service, and upholding the Church’s morals. (A “right” is not inherent and god-given. A right is a contract, a form of property that is held in exchange for another intangible.)

Marriage is a contract, a trade of intangibles. A man must love and cherish his wife. That means think of her as a part of his family rather than as a brood mare, and protect her (You can’t be forced to feel romantic love; love is a familial emotion, and a conscious act of judgment). A woman must honor and obey her husband, which means exactly what it sounds like. If you want women to want to marry, just like Amish girls want to marry, you need to give a wife higher status than an unmarried virgin, and far higher status than a whore. Women will not want to marry unless whores and unwed mothers have no legal and social protections, thus unmarried women who do not live with their fathers need to be left to die in a gutter in the rain, and if you do, women will not be whores, and will marry, will act virtuously.

In the end, there is no female liberation, just like there’s no political liberation. Female liberation will end in women finding masters who are far, far worse. Like a nation, there is a lot of ruin in a woman.