Tuesday, September 28, 2010

As promised ...

Allow me to put some preliminary thoughts together on men's clubs.

In no particular order:

The clubs should be explicitly political, but not primarily political.  They must be explicitly right-wing or they will become left-wing over time, but they should not be narrowly ideological.  They should appeal broadly, to conservatives, libertarians, and patriots.  

The clubs should focus primarily on creating groups of friends and allies who feel trust each other, developing a information exchange network outside the leftist media, and building important low-tech skills.  Secondarily, the groups should focus on creating a subtle civic presence, developing healthy lifestyle, and an array of community activities.

"The information network outside the leftist media means", in short, people talking about iSteve, Adventures in Reaction, Mansized Target, Hesperado, etc.  (It might also mean people lending each other rightist novels that go for $40 on Amazon.)  Less web-savvy rightists should be interested in this stuff, and they're not going to get it from Fox.  Another aspect relevant to this is home-schooling - fathers may need to talk to other fathers about support in their unpaid role as teachers - this should not be left all to the wives and mothers.

"Important low-tech skills" means horticulture, local flora and fauna, carpentry and home repair, wilderness survival, even first aid and CPR.  Hunting and fishing, while appropriate for many reasons (especially considering my ideas about healthy lifestyle, below) already tend to be a common male-bonding activity and may not need to be pushed as hard as other skills.  Martial arts and self-defense are another interesting angle but I'm not sure how to work them in.  A club is not a dojo.

"Subtle civic presence" partly means fashion.  Bring back the fedora and the flat cap, the hunting coat, tweed.  Serious haircuts for grown men.  Resurrect some of the many types of boot not favored by motorcycle clubs and punk rockers.  Etc.  Members should cut a profoundly unusual figure at first, but definitely not want calculated to be threatening or cool (is there even a difference any more?)  Eventually the public will start to associated well-dressed retro-males with good manners and reliability.

"Healthy lifestyle" is of course open to interpretation.  I think these clubs should hitch their wagon to paleolithic eating and a variety of athletic activities other than ball sports and jogging.  Beyond that, though, the club should encourage, nay, inspire members to get rid of their televisions and stop imbibing James Cameron.

"Array of community activities" will mean different things from area to area.  It could mean anything from a blood drive, to supporting other guys' kids' extracurricular activities, especially if they are the sort of "whitebread" cultural activities that run the risk of seeming uncool to young people.  Picture a bunch of kids at a clogging recital - now picture a half a dozen guys dressed like Wooster & Jeeves watching casually.  That's what I'm talking about.

The clubs should consider making recognizable logos without any specific familiar icon.  No crosses or stars that could be easily copied.  Better, an outline of cheerful handsome guy in a flat cap or something.

The clubs should be as serious as possible without becoming boring.  That means, no leaving the game on TV at a low volume while discussing the future of the West.  No drinking beer while sharing your skillset with the men in your community.  Men already spend enough leisure time, half-drunk, with other men, and it hasn't protected civilization from feminism, mass immigration, or any of that.  This guideline doesn't mean no laughing, relaxing, or befriending other guys.  Friendship is half the point.

The clubs should not have a religious aspect.  The explicitly right-wing provision will keep out certain members of certain religions bent on the destruction of European civilization (e.g., the ones whose holy book reads in part: "You shall fight back against those who do not believe in Allah, until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.")  Beyond that, all religious and non-religious beliefs should be welcome.

There should equivalent women's-only clubs.  I won't write much about these, since they should be organized and guided by women, and crafted to appeal to women.  (As to younger males, this group is enough like the Eagle Scouts that there is a natural partnership there.  However, I know little about Boy Scouts of America.)

There should be a nationwide network of clubs.  It would serve to agree on nationwide symbols and logos, and have certain nationwide policies (more on what behavior is acceptable, less on what activities are best).

That is all for now.  If I develop any of these idea in future posts I'll drop links to those right here.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Tribe of Ice

Tribe of Ice seems to be gone.  I was one of only a few people who regularly commented on her posts.  Maybe she got tired of laboring in obscurity; the WordPress page says the blog was deleted by "its authors" rather than by WordPress.

If you're out there, Tribe of Ice, let me know how you're doing, I'm just curious.  Anyone who knows, feel free to chime in.

Thursday, September 16, 2010


A decent ruler, Wilhelm I, got Prussia into a war it could win, with France.  His less-talented grandson, Wilhelm II, got Germany into a two-front war it couldn't win, with both a western front and a Eurasian front.

George H.W. Bush gets the US into a war with Iraq that we can win; his son gets us into two wars in Asia we may not win.

Germany's eastern enemy was defeated at great cost, but holding the territory also proved quite costly in sheer manpower.  As it became obvious the war could not be won on the remaining fronts, the Kaiser abdicated.  The Kaiser having never had good democratic credentials, war-mongering became linked in the public's mind with undemocratic government.  Promising peace, the Social Democrats gained power and found they could not solve the problem of ending the war while saving face.

George W. Bush is elected twice with questions about whether the system is giving the promised democratic result.  (Others question whether democracy was a sensible goal in the first place.)  In any case, his designated successor hangs his own chances for election by promising not to leave the fronts without achieving victory.  The Democrats gain power promising peace.  By 2010, they still have not ended the war on either front, probably due to the glib assertions along the lines of "We can't just walk away."

The early government of the Weimar Republic created hyperinflation due to a combination of debts, reparations, and the destruction left over from the two-front war.  Nevertheless, permissive morality and globalist cultural ferment made Germany in the interwar period very productive in terms of art, science, and architecture.

Despite the multicultural vibrance of America, it is not clear to many economists if our current debt crisis can be resolved without large increases in the money supply.

Hitler took power capitalizing on German fears of foreign enemies, cultural decadence, and a state riddled with leftists.  Legitimate though some of the fears may have been, Hitler was in power a scant six years before plunging Europe once again into chaos.  Notwithstanding his facile reputation of being right-wing, pro-white, and Catholic, he proceeded to destroy conservative Catholic regimes in Austria and Poland, slaughter millions of Slavs and Ashkenazim, and align himself with the most advanced non-white nation of his time (Japan).  From there he moved on to an unwinnable two-front war.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Howl Back


I saw the best minds of my generation enslaved by madness, starving
hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the first-class-citizen streets at noon
looking for a fuzzy fix,

headless hipsters burning for some some any way to match your
generation for its power, its majesty, its Trotskyite glory glowing on
their album covers,

who were nauseated by their manhoods and who fed their womanhoods to monsters,

who thought America a burden and whose skinny teenage ribs were
crushed by the burden,

whom were thought burdens for the costs of the tuitions for the
schools that would take their money and that of the Truly Special and
whose degrees were risible and Common,

who spun clockwise always clockwise looking for That Which Had Not
Yet Been Done Before Better.


You saw the popular kids from your generation destroy themselves to
impress everyone,

and indeed you were impressed,

and in turn you impressed us.

I wonder now,

How's that working out for you

... being impressive?

Roissy II

In my previous post, I grumbled a little because Roissy comes off as such a complainer.  Looking back to my closest experiences with aggressive/apathetic (those words, like "alpha", start with the letter A) males, in high school, I remember distinctly being impressed with how the A/A males could complain consistently, Monday to Friday, without anyway conceiving of them as complainers.  They were always "making good points."  I have no doubt that this odd perception fooled the A/A males themselves.

In other words, I'm not sure it's entirely Roissy's fault that he comes across as negative and resentful and doesn't even know it.  He had years of training in institutional schools being taught that, as long he didn't care about anything but hurling put-downs, he could say pretty much what he wanted.  Childish insults, or "negs" as he calls them (a jargon for everything!) became a way of life for him - that is the seductive and subversive power institutional schools have over impressionable young personalities.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010


Everyone else has written about him, so I will to.

Some interesting things I've noted about Roissy:

  • He benefits from feminism.
  • He has an unusually good understanding of how women think.
  • He has crafted his personality to appeal to women.
  • He has apparently fathered no children.
  • He works (or worked) a cushy office job.
  • His writing comes off as judgemental, gossipy, and bitchy.

To me, that list doesn't exactly add up to "masculine".  I'm not trying to suggest that Roissy is gay, or even metrosexual (whatever that means), but in some sense, the man is undeniably womanish.  There's nothing wrong with that.  I am womanish too, albeit in different ways (I love cuddling small animals, talking about relationships, etc.)

I do pause a little when I see lots of young man stampeding off to his blog for advice.  Do what you want, but realize you're stampeding in the opposite direction from, say, The Art of Manliness.  Roissy will not teach you to be autonomous, not help you build a household, not keep from you being dependent on others for your emotional or physical well-being.  Getting by on your good looks and your silver tongue is callow and short-sighted gambit.

Thursday, September 2, 2010


Note: Generally I avoid using profanity in my writing, since I consider it something of a crutch.  In this post, it is not possible to avoid profanity.

It is anyone's guess how feminists could have ever been convinced that promiscuous sex was not psychologically damaging to women, especially when it happens on the terms of the "pickup artists" (cads) who dominate the nightlife in the big cities of the Occident.  Modern cads use a combination of studied insouciance, minor insults, and calculated body language to entice women to their bedrooms, where they specialize in quick, dirty sex which they can brag about.

Whether the women enjoy the physical act or not is little discussed.  What is clear is that the women are treated as toys to manipulated into sharing their bodies with aggressive strangers.  If this were a business transaction it would be considered a "rip-off".  The odd thing is, there is a more general term for what is happening to the women:

They are getting fucked.

The strange thing is, that's figuratively and literally exactly what is happening!  Seems like kind of an obvious warning, right?  This is not a mystery to either the pickup artists, or the guys who can't stand this behavior, or most women for that matter either.

The only people to whom this is a mystery seem to be the feminists, or at least the third-wave feminists, for whom "fuck" was usually a noun ("He and I had a fuck" or better yet "He and I had a zipless fuck") or perhaps an intransitive verb ("He and I fucked [ziplessly]"), but hardly ever a transitive verb ("He fucked me").  Of course, the etymology of the word (from a Germanic verb meaning "to penetrate") doesn't allow nominal or intransitive uses, and doesn't really allow the female to be anything but the object.

In other word, the English language itself is telling you:
Ladies, if you're not making love, you're getting fucked.

The language's opinion is of course just a construct I've thrown together for this post, and it wouldn't matter if social psychology didn't agree.  Social psychology does agree.  Women most certainly do get the sweetness and femininity fucked out of them when they behave promiscuously.  Sexual bonding with their future mates is reduced, which means their inclination to build up their vulnerable menfolk is lacking.

While feminists rail about women being demeaned by being "expected to do menial chores" and "used as sex toys", many women seem to eschew cooking and meal-planning a lot more than they eschew acting like sex objects.  The fact that men's day jobs are often plenty demeaning never really comes up.  If a man comes home from cleaning out deep-fat fryers all day wearing a plastic apron to a woman who tells him too "cook his own supper for a change", he may well have trouble remembering what exactly the benefit of being married and having a job was supposed to be.

It doesn't help that more and more men are opting out of the job market in favor of becoming girlfriend parasites, but it's interesting to study exactly which men can get away with this.  In my experience, it's generally the apathetic-and-hostile crowd - the same men who get away with pretty much everything else.  Since these men stand out much more, socially, than the faceless drudges and nerds who work for a living, male parasites cast a pall of ignorance on their sex.

Which bolsters the notion that now it's men who are only good for one thing ... as long as it's zipless.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Rape and War, 2006

Before I proceed, let me say that I believe the human cost of the war in Afghanistan, to all sides, is too great to justify continued US involvement in the region.  Our initial reason to attack was better than our reason to attack Iraq, but we have worn out our welcome in any case, and I urge President Obama to return the troops to the continental United States as soon as possible.

Next let me assert that I do not consider rapes and battlefield deaths to be strictly fungible, only approximately equivalent.  Soldiers do not volunteer to be killed; rape victims do not even volunteer for hazardous duty.*  On the other hand, with love and support, rape victims can recover while KIAs (and many WIAs) cannot.  (I count myself lucky; none of the young men I've known who've been to Iraq and Afghanistan were killed or injured.  Welcome back, men.)

Finally, I'll grant that the race of a rapist does not really matter, in the sense that the crime is not legally mitigated or aggravated by race.  We have been told, however, that "hate crimes" are by definition more severe than other crimes.  I maintain that, without telepathy, hate crimes are indistinguishable from noneconomic interracial crime.  Same-race rape, though obviously hateful in some sense, cannot be considered a hate crime as the term is generally used.

On to the data.

32,000 whites were raped by black men in 2006.**  (This varies a little from year to year.)

We had 20,297 troops in Afghanistan in February 2006.***  (It increased somewhat by March of the next year.)

If we lost one soldier in Afghanistan for every white person raped by a black man, we would have lost all US forces in Afghanistan in under eight months.

* They can certainly take measures to protect themselves, but this is an active rather than a passive choice.

** The white-on-white rape count for the same year was a little over 98,000.  Since we are told "predators like to hunt within their ethnic group", this figure is depressing rather than surprising.  (White men rape far fewer than 100 blacks in a given year.)

*** The President, having been elected on a platform of change, with strong support from the anti-war movement, has changed our troop levels in that country to 94,000.  (Here is Chris Roach on the subject.)  If the black-on-white rape rate stays stable, the figure quotes above would rise from eight months to about three years.