Guess What? You’re Not Actually A Hero

Ganked without remorse from The Federalist:

Guess What? You’re Not Actually A Hero

by David Harsanyi, thefederalist.com
October 29

The story centers around a woman who works at Portland’s Purringtons Cat Lounge. After witnessing a pro-life protester outside, Mary Numair, who is a big fan of Planned Parenthood, decided to take matters into her own hands by making a sign and yelling at some people:

The sign, which Numair crafted out of masking tape and a piece of cardboard from the dumpster, praised Planned Parenthood for treating her chronic yeast infections when she was in her early 20s and uninsured. It also included a delightful cartoon of a vagina with a smiling clitoris and a stick figure with pigtails and prominent breasts…

Now, however delightful or political profound a smiling clitoris cartoon sketched on a piece of discarded cardboard might be, being a liberal in Portland doesn’t exactly tell us that you’re prepared to face or endure danger or pain or that you show any particular courage in the face of a serious threat. Neither, sad to say, does yelling “yeast infections!” Portland pro-life protestors were undoubtedly non-violent (as almost all pro-life protests are) and Numair’s pro-government protestation was not only protected by law but probably cheered by most.

But I’ve noticed a lot of this lately; and perhaps it’s not new. Every day there’s some story focusing on false heroes and pseudo-bravery masquerading as some valiant or defiant action. Not only on the political front, but in culture, where fake courageousness not only dilutes the genuine heroic actions of others, but is used to create the false impression that people are engaged in actions far more important than they really are. Bravery is not synonymous with “you agree with me.”

“In a Brave, Powerful Dissent, Justice Breyer Calls for the Abolition of the Death Penalty” reads the headline of another Slate piece from this summer. Is it really “brave” for a liberal judge on the Supreme Court, who faces absolutely no threat of blowback or risk to his livelihood, to take a standard liberal position? Isn’t it braver for someone, say Samuel Alito, to be the sole dissenter and argue an unpopular position completely out of step with public opinion? Being right, or wrong, doesn’t necessarily equate with fearlessness.

“Ahmed Mohamed Is the Muslim Hero America’s Been Waiting For,” says a piece in The Daily Beast. A boy pretends to invent a clock that looks sort of like a bomb. Teachers overreact. Family shops kid around as the poster child of victimhood. No one risks anything. The kid meets the president. A monarch offered the kid a scholarship. Is this really the Martin Luther King Jr. of American Muslims? Hero is not synonymous with “this person allows me to lecture you about how terrible America is.”

Hero is not synonymous with ‘this person’s experience allows me to lecture America about how terrible is.’
“Caitlyn Jenner is Glamour’s Woman Of The Year” and “The Bravest Girls in the World are Glamour Women of the Year.”

Jenner, even in the most compassionate reading of his situation, isn’t particularly brave, unless you consider working near a chilly air-conditioner at a Glamour photo shoot or dealing with stress of sagging ratings on your own reality show acts of heroism. In a multicultural society, Jenner might feel somewhat uncomfortable in his new identity (although that too seems unlikely, considering his many public appearances) and he may endure some rare criticism about his lifestyle choices from those still willing to be called transphobic (which technically speaking, is a more “courageous” position to take these days), but that doesn’t make Jenner anything like Rosa Parks.

I don’t want to just pick on lefties. Anyone can be considered a hero these days. And I mean anyone. “Anyone who puts on pants and goes to work for their family is a hero,” explained Donald Trump spokesperson Michael Cohen not long ago. He was offering this as apology after Trump questioned Sen. John McCain’s heroism as a captive during the Vietnam War.

You’re not a hero simply for being wealthy, or for being poor.
Sarah Palin went further and claimed that both billionaire Trump and war vet McCain were heroes. “Both blazed trails in their careers and love our great nation,” she claimed. This sort of excitable populism—the kind that casts everyday people as heroes, simply for loving their nation—is not unique to presidential candidates, though it is almost always untrue. Ronald Reagan once said that “everyday Americans” were heroes. We’re not. You’re not a hero simply for being wealthy, or for being poor.

Politicians love to tell you that going to work or being a mom or dad is an act of heroism, when it’s really nothing more than a basic act of responsibility and adulthood. Novelists are not courageous for writing books, unless someone is threatening their lives. Artists are not brave for upsetting or confusing people. Farmers—a large percentage of whom are millionaires—are not heroes for having a good public image. Neither are small-business owners.

With all that said, I’m not always certain I know what true heroism looks like, though I’m pretty certain I know what it isn’t. Over at National Review Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews Tod Lindberg, author of “The Heroic Heart: Greatness Ancient and Modern.” Lopez wonders “how the adjudication of heroism been democratized and wikified:”?

LINDBERG: Socrates was put to death for corrupting the youth and refusing to honor the gods. In the old days, political authorities enforced their ideas about who the heroes and gods were. You disagreed at your peril. In an open, pluralistic society like ours, people can decide for themselves who counts as a hero, and they will often disagree (especially when politics enters the picture). Mass media are no longer the gatekeepers they once were. If you have 36,000 followers on Twitter, as you personally do, that’s an impressive affinity group that has voluntarily gathered around you. I do think this free-wheeling wikiculture makes it all the more remarkable that there is a near-perfect consensus figure of heroism in our society: the 9/11 firefighter, someone who puts it all on the line to try to save the lives of strangers.

I think this is a pretty satisfying answer. Few people would argue that someone who puts it all on the line to try to save the lives of strangers is not a hero. But it’s pretty rare. Maybe in a pluralistic and free society we don’t need as many heroes. That might be a good thing. But what we shouldn’t do is confuse heroism with the actions of someone who is merely reaffirming our own worldview. Yet that seems to be the case quite often.

The Tyranny of Suffrage


The Tyranny of Suffrage

by Reed Perry, socialmatter.net
“The worst form of inequality

is the attempt to make unequal things equal.”

– Aristotle.

I visit cemeteries when I travel. The old monuments are important for understanding a place. Who visits Egypt without going to the Great Pyramids? It’s a tomb. It says a hell of a story. So do the mounds in Ireland. Fewer people will visit the boneyards of abandoned prisons or war cemeteries in Spain or Virginia. They can tell as immense a story if you look deeply. I’ve been to graveyards all over the world, big and small. Archeologically they’re important. They’re also the best way to see past the superficiality of a city by getting a glimpse of its heritage outside a curated museum or official cultural show. They’re usually raw–unfiltered.

There is a gravesite nearby my residence with a stone unlike any I’ve seen. For some reason, – I try to understand why, – it is more important to me. I don’t know who it is.

It’s a tiny worn tombstone in an old rural cemetery. The leaves around it were soggy from melting ice when I first saw it. It was among the older markers in this western yard, crumbling and blue with lichens. Its few legible words read:

“Our Boy



I don’t know if it was the desolate simplicity of it, or the thought of the people who had placed it there, whose sadness seemed to hover, but it said so much with a rock.

“Our Boy” is their only boy? “Our Boy” was their gift to the national effort. “Our Boy,” a sacrifice to the war-god of democracy. And they paid taxes for the rest of their lives.

“Our Boy” was not a “privileged” male. He was a poor boy, as his gravestone proves, – a site that’s nearly gravel. The stone may have been provided by the church, or chiseled by his weeping family. It sits out there in the ice now.

What great honor does this man deserve? Perhaps he was a fool. Maybe he was fleeing some twisted crime and joined the army. I don’t know. All I know is that he died at battle, and that he was one of the men who roamed this territory before me. So I see something in those words. I can see the highest rank of honor a man can achieve. Not for the war. Not dying for the politicians and bankers who caused it. But I can see the selflessness and courage in all men, which is beautiful, yet endlessly tragic when misguided.

Men will die for their communities. Men will sacrifice their youth, their adulthood, their entire lives, slaving to earn for their families, to bring them a better life. Men are expected to walk through the gates of death for women and children, and they do constantly all the time, and have for so many generations. Yet I live in these strange days, when men are self-destructing, self-hating, blaming themselves, or all men collectively, for any fault in the World. If there is any injustice, we are told it was likely due to a man or their patriarchy.

Two years after Our Boy was put in the ground, women obtained the “right to vote” in the States. Many believed America would enter a new era of world peace and superabundance. They believed the feminine would end many social divisions, bringing a time of harmonious understanding.

But then came Prohibition, the early police-state, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. The influence of women grew with the dearth of men, due to war casualties and inheritances from all classes shifting to the purse of domestic females. The most bold and nationalist were the first to die, leaving less assertive men who, it seems, were more likely to capitulate to feminism.

The flappers of the roaring 20s were dancing on tabletops gilded by working men, indulging in wealth hard-fought in trenches. The towers climbing higher every year were engineered and forced upwards by men. The automobiles and telephones were all the work of men. The appliances that would relieve women of their daily work were designed and built by men. The birth control that allowed women to cancel out the consequences of their sexual behavior: invented by men. The entire male half of the race had facilitated female ascendance upon masculinity, a piggyback game that would soon overburden men in ways undreamed of.

The “struggle for rights” became an endless celebration of cushy office-jobs and cosmopolitan lifestyles from “Mary Tyler Moore” to “Sex in the City” and now “Girls.” The wild party of “liberation” began: an epoch of female luxury marked by consumer excess, advertising, consequence-free sexual recklessness, and preferential legal treatment, which, as we will see, extends far beyond divorce proceedings or discrimination lawsuits. Having warped every aspect of American life starting in the polling station and the home, the feminist putsch would play the largest role in the malignant growth of the American police state.

The modern white female lifestyle is cushy as anyone can possibly imagine. There is no demographic more pampered than the Western woman, yet this subject is most likely to complain about oppression, undermine her own male relations, and decry the circumstances of her civilization. The feminist has since devolved to a horrific slore who is never content or polite, who reneges on holy oaths, finding an offense in whatever remains – nearly always an offense of male origin.

Anything that is masculine must be emasculated. Anything that is sacred and virginal must be desecrated. This process is undertaken for “the good of women,” or for “equal rights.”

Our Boy knows about this high-and-mighty talk of “equality.” But in one long breath of nothingness, the men sacrificed for liberal ideals in the World Wars would be forgotten, treated like flies in vinegar, for the mighty desires of loose women bent on their narcissistic fantasy of empowerment.

Men are “evil,” but the feminist wants to do what men do. The male workplace is “misogynistic” but they want in it. The products of men’s work are “bigoted” or “unjust,” but they want credit for the same.

The Cultural Revolution was the Armageddon of the battle of the sexes. It was the patriarchal apocalypse, a dramatic collapse that unfolded in less than ten years and sealed the fate of generations of unwitting men who only meant the best, but had been so woefully misguided. From the start it was men who had imagined a female power that would benefit them. In the sixties this was reduced to easy sex and cheap ideas like “free love” that would produce a culturally homeless generation of “X,” soon to be a nation fraught with mass fatherlessness, – functions of the home outsourced to the expanding government.

How did the simple idea of “women’s suffrage” culminate in butt-naked acid-heads screwing in the street and “Lady Gaga” parading in front of children wearing a strap-on dildo? Largely via voting.

Wyoming was the only US state to grant suffrage before Utah, but Utah’s women lost their vote shortly after because they didn’t ballot like obedient liberals. They were obedient Christians, to the surprise of urban politicos. Suffragettes were counting on Mormon girls to betray their patriarchal faith. They believed they could undermine Mormon traditions using their voting girls as a fifth column. But they proved loyal and had their “right to vote” confiscated after a Republican Congress (then the liberal party) declared it illegal, 16 years after Mormon women had obtained it.

The strict Mormon housewife wasn’t destined to be pioneer of American feminism. As Thaddeus Russell discusses in A Renegade History of the United States, the trailblazers of feminism were, appropriately, prostitutes. These women had composed the only exception to strict codes of conduct – being legally permitted to commit adultery, use birth control, and wear scandalous clothing. Many of the madams of western expansion had accumulated fortunes that would make them multi-millionaires in today’s currency, which they used to influence public opinion, buy politicians, defend their whores in court, and acquire choice pieces of property in wealthy boomtowns. In Helena, the capital of Montana, nearly half of all property transactions were made by women in the late 1800s. They were mostly whores. This was unheard of in more developed eastern cities. Liberal politicians were more than happy to welcome these rich, manipulative liberals into their ranks of donors and influencers.

Many of the policies argued by suffragettes half a century later found their origin in American whorehouses, where lonely working boys squandered their pay. Many behaviors of modern women would be unthinkable in the pre-suffrage era outside a “house of ill repute.”

Similar to the United States, the first regions of the British Empire to grant suffrage were its frontier territories, such as South Australia. But these tendencies managed to permeate the Anglosphere, as industrialization weakened the household awhile millions of men were systematically annihilated on the battlefield.

Well over a half million Britons died in World War I. They were almost entirely men (over 99%). Because the British military is traditionally conservative, we can assume a large bloc of right voters were sacrificed in the war. The Liberal parliament opened the gateway to female suffrage in 1918, at the end of this hellish conflict, as the corpses of young men were still being shipped home by the boatload.

At first it was only women above the age of thirty (who had college degrees) who could ballot in the UK. Prior to this, English suffragettes (and they were almost entirely English, not Irish, Scots, or Welsh) had been some of the most bitchy and rancorous activists in Britain. Today, we would call them “terrorists” as they engaged in sabotage, fire-bombings, and smear campaigns. Hundreds were jailed. But the wartime Liberal administration granted them amnesty. Never-mind what the boys may have wanted, – they were busy not voting in trenches, hospital beds, and graveyards.

The American suffragettes were less terroristic and found themselves in an advantageous environment as new western states needed more official citizens in order to be incorporated and industrialists believed suffrage would grow demand and profits, which it did. Just as in Britain, the liberal bloc in America saw women as a tremendous reservoir of votes that could be unleashed to permanently alter the political spectrum. Feminist hysteria was fostered as a political weapon.

The deep impact of introducing so many millions of females to voting rolls across the world can’t be underestimated. Today in the US, women vote in far higher numbers than men. In some states, there are nearly 20% more female voters, awhile taxpayers nationwide remain predominantly male. Subtracting the female voters from the equation would result in an unrecognizable political landscape.

Volumes ought to be written on the economics of who votes and who benefits. But the unjust nature of women’s suffrage should have been clear from the very first elections.

During WW1, a 20 year-old American soldier who lost his legs fighting on the front line did not yet have the “right to vote” awhile a 21 year-old female who had no high-school diploma, no property, and had never left the house, could herself vote. And they voted in massive swaths. They voted prodigiously. They voted liberal.

And what’s the result? Laws. – Broken families and new laws. Feminists love laws.

By disbanding traditional marriage, fatherlessness has skyrocketed. In an attempt to justify the abomination of “single parent homes” feminists have been forced to glorify the “heroic single mothers.” Never-mind the children, who will be cursed to a life of confusion and anguish. It is much more important that these “independent” and “empowered” women have the opportunity to hunt down “careers” where they can power-test others and squander their youth in offices, or fiend for random men for sex.

Astonishingly, blacks were more likely to be married than whites until the 1960s. Marriage was their social security, their division of labor, which conserved scarce community resources. During the 60s feminist mobilization, which yielded such abominations as widespread abortion, “no-fault divorce,” alimony, and child-support, black families were utterly annihilated. About 20 years later, as the results of all these broken homes and fatherless children came of age, the black incarceration rate quintupled. The black family, hostage to liberal ideology, had succumbed to feminism. Doom enveloped black communities.

Mass fatherlessness ensued. Defendants are fatherless. Feminism can’t stop the crime-wave. They need more laws. Controls. Police. Prisons. Women have to be safe at night when they’re walking home with skanky clothes because they’re divorced and the babysitter is only good till midnight. But the deluge of feminist laws obviously isn’t limited to safeguarding recklessly slutty activity, or protecting life and property from the broken men of broken homes. The laws have to swing-low into every aspect of male life in order to justify the radical reorganization underway. All variety of male activity was criminalized. When they could vote a wish into existence, they did.

Even the punishment of children has gradually become illegal. Use of recreational drugs had to be policed, along with new regulations on drinking. Men are imprisoned for failure to pay alimony, failure to pay child support–even yelling at one’s wife/girlfriend can result in arrest. Assumption of guilt became protocol as prisons swelled, and community order, which radiates from the family, was overshadowed by shattered homes. Lists of new laws were legislated by moral do-gooders and pushy radicals alike. The voters of PTA meetings, MADD groups, and “women’s rights advocates” could conjure up a seemingly limitless number of statutes.

Mass imprisonment became the solution for an entire galaxy of offenses that were once the domain of family government and church regulation. As per the 13th Amendment, convicts are still technically “slaves.” This means that more slaves exist today in the United States than during the peak years of Southern plantation society.

I have never met a Libertarian woman. Apparently they do exist, because recent surveys claim about a third of self-identified Libertarians are self-identified women, which I find surprising. Yet conservatism, and the belief in limited government, seems to be increasingly an “almost entirely white male phenomenon.”

We have to embrace that feminism itself was imposed by force. It is not merely a spreading meme, an ideological or religious craze; it’s a legal regimen backed by state violence. It was imposed in phases of increasing brutality, culminating in the modern American prison-industrial-complex, which is disproportionately packed with fatherless men. I call them “children of the revolution.” Many of the other convicts (slaves) were caught in the frenzy of lawmaking applied by moral busybodies, a dragnet of male behaviors only threatening to women living in a post-patriarchal system.

Of course, many of these laws did not even exist 60 years ago. How did this happen? Did we have no use for these laws back then? Did millions of men just become shameless criminals without reason? Or was there a cause?

Supposedly, laws are made by legislators, who are elected by the voters. The voters are predominantly women. If women are not actually designing the outcomes, they are at the least, a significant resource for the justification of government intrusion. So who is the female voter? Who is this voter that dominates our ballots outvoting men? Lets examine women’s “suffrage” more.

What do women do when they vote? Do women vote with their motherly instincts? Do they think like dating bachelorettes at the polls, seeking affirmation from their peer group?

Women are more likely to be old (because men die several years younger on average). Women are more likely to be on welfare. And women are more likely to make judgments on emotional – rather than rational arguments. But most curiously, women are more likely to conform to a group consensus, meaning, women are more susceptible to peer-pressure than men.

Men tend to define themselves more by their own personal achievements. Women define themselves by their connections, their network.

Women are far more likely to vote conservative if they’re married with family. But are they just defending their household, being “motherly,” when they vote for the candidate they perceive as “lower tax” or “strong on values?” Could the defensive posture of a voting mother – as opposed to a single voter – be related to hormonal conditions? There may be a more significant sexual and biological drive to female politics than anyone wants to openly consider. And it turns out that women’s voting habits change when they are in estrus.

This should be no surprise. A woman’s mood can change dramatically over the course of her cycle–so will her eating habits, sleeping patterns, and sociability.

Free will is a subject of constant fascination to me, admitting I am incapable of understanding it entirely, I like to explore its most obvious boundaries, where it disappears into biology or the subconscious. Women seem to have less of it in the voting booth. As numerous studies conclude, men are far more likely to switch candidates based on their opinion of the platforms, or evolving political conditions. Women (overall), on the other hand, tend to stick with one party regardless of anything. You can guess which party that tends to be.

Technically, the USA does not have “universal suffrage” because felons and the criminally insane are not allowed to vote. It is fairly obvious, even to the liberal mind, that not all people should be permitted to ballot. When it comes to mentality, what are the proscribed limits?

One quarter of all American women are on psychiatric medications for depression, anxiety, hysteria, bipolar disorder, and psychotic conditions. These women are, presumably, voting.

These hatefacts beckon a reassessment of the conditions under which women were first granted the vote. To say they are “equal” is quite vague, incompatible with every measurable statistic. We end up in a circus of rationalizations which serves only to weasel women into positions of political authority.

This can be summarized strictly: calling men and women “equal” is libel. We could say it’s “like comparing apples and oranges,” which would be necessary, because if both men and women were “apples” then female apples would consistently be lagging behind men in nearly every form of mental and physical assessment invented. Male college athletes routinely beat female world records. The fact a woman may be involved in the periphery of major study or scientific project makes the news.

So why would such dramatic efforts be made to place men and women on the same political plane?

“That all men are equal is a proposition which at ordinary times no sane individual has ever given his assent.” –Aldous Huxley

Let’s be liberal for a microsecond and edit Huxley’s assertion by replacing “men” with “people.” The devastating circumstances of the World Wars were no “ordinary times.” So it appears that the WWI situation of the suffragettes and WWII situation of “Rosie the Riveter” were not ordinary. They were horrific, unspeakable. This was an era where millions of (primarily) European men had been blotted out on the field of battle, the carnage of genocidal trenches and fire-squads of the first nuclear war (WW2). Far from normalcy.

So, this extraordinary phenomenon of female equality and suffrage was born from the most lopsided and twisted of human conditions. This is beyond any comparison to horror films or serial killer fiction. This is a real, collective hell. It was the ticket for the mad act that would follow.

In the grave of “Our Boy” and millions of other men across the western world is the patriarchy we were denied. It is upon those graves that modern feminists dance. But “Our Boy” is still whispering from his cold rock.

There is a solution to the overwhelming tyranny of female political primacy. It is exhilarating to examine, but even more exciting to engage. This message is hidden in the aphorisms of traditionalism, known in the deep memory of all men, riding the savage of the subconscious.

It is patriarchy. And it’s inevitable.

To Be Continued in: Patriarchal Liberation Theory

a rebellion against sexual-consent classes by Lauren Southern

At last, a rebellion against sexual-consent classes

by Lauren Southern, spiked-online.com
October 19

At last, a rebellion against sexual-consent classes
It’s high time students refused to attend these patronising lectures.

A new phenomenon has started on university campuses, one that should have emerged years ago. Men are publicly pushing back against demeaning contemporary labels. These labels paint men as intrinsically sexually driven beings who not only misunderstand consent, but actually disregard it. On 14 October, George Lawlor, a student at the University of Warwick, wrote a piece for the Warwick Tab about why he refused to attend ‘I *Heart* Consent’ training sessions – lessons that have been pushed on university campuses by the National Union of Students (NUS) in order to teach young men and women how to obtain consent before sex.

Yes, these workshops are as ridiculous as they sound. Yet, until now, only a few commentators, most notably spiked’s Brendan O’Neill and Joanna Williams, have been prepared to stick their heads above the parapet and criticise the patronising logic of sexual-consent classes. Now, students are finally plucking up the courage to do the same. In his article, Lawlor states:

‘I feel as if I’m taking the “wrong” side here, but someone has to say it – I don’t have to be taught not to be a rapist. That much comes naturally to me, as I am sure it does to the overwhelming majority of people you and I know. Brand me a bigot, a misogynist, a rape apologist, I don’t care. I stand by that.’

Nothing Lawlor said was untrue. The majority of people know exactly what consent is, whether it is spoken or implied. Yet he received mass amounts of vitriol in response to his piece. The Independent published an article titled ‘Student refuses consent lessons because he doesn’t “look like a rapist”’ – a flippant title based not on his arguments, but on an image Lawlor used to illustrate his Tab piece, in which he is holding up a sign saying ‘This is not what a rapist looks like’. Comments on social media have also done exactly what Lawlor expected – branded him a bigot.

But, as Lawlor told me, his act of defiance has stirred up much-needed debate on this issue. ‘I haven’t dared to check Twitter, but the comments elsewhere seem to be a mixed bag’, he said. ‘Of course I’ve received the inevitable name-calling, but beneath that there has been some good reasoned debate and that’s all I ever wanted really – just getting people to think and to speak about this issue rather than let one prevailing ideology dictate its terms to the rest of us. I have also been fortunate to have received many messages of support, and for that I am immensely grateful; it has been an emotionally and psychologically difficult few days.’

It is no surprise that few students speak up on campus, given the sort of reaction you receive if you go against the politically correct narrative. Lawlor compared the dominant ideology on campus to a ‘medieval religion’ that is ‘very retributive and very punishing of dissent’. He continues: ‘Students, not only on my campus, but across Britain it seems, will lay down their views and will attempt to suppress any counterarguments, making wild accusations in the process.’

Tweets have compared Lawlor to the likes of Ted Bundy, and people have written articles about him with titles like ‘George Lawlor looks like a rapist’. All for simply saying he knows exactly what consent is, and therefore does not need to attend a finger-wagging consent session.

The response has not been entirely negative, however. Lawlor has indeed sparked a debate and has already begun influencing other students. On Friday, Jack Hadfield, another Warwick student, wrote a piece for Breitbart explaining why he, too, refused to take part in this nonsense. Hadfield said:

‘How many rapists are going to stop raping people because some pretentious student told them that “Yes means Yes”? Any at all? And why would any normal, right-thinking man attend a class that demonises them and normal, healthy male sexuality by pretending that all men are latent rapists who would take advantage of women if they thought they could get away with it?’

These classes will not stop people from raping. Most people know not to rape, just as people know not to murder or steal. Teaching men not to rape is patronising and, quite frankly, useless. Why not extend this logic and teach Muslims not to bomb buildings? Because we know it does not work, and we know these stereotypes do not apply to all individuals in a particular demographic. Criminality is far more complex.

Lawlor and Hadfield took a risk by speaking out against consent classes. They could have sat through a few hours of pretentious Newspeak from a posh, self-appointed, moral superior. They could have nodded when they were told men are inherently sexist, that we live in a rape culture and that a quarter of women are assaulted on campus. Instead, they chose to speak up and urge students to put their efforts into legitimate causes, instead of continually wasting their time on feelgood, hug-box sessions.

Both Lawlor and Hadfield have received tweets filled with absolute bile from emotional social-media reactionaries. This is a predictable reaction to the questioning of new orthodoxies. But Lawlor and Hadfield also helped to move the conversation along, raising questions about how we are infantilising university students, how we are demonising men, and how students are wasting time and effort on useless feelgood campaigns while there are real, big issues in the world to deal with.

Lauren Southern is a reporter for the Rebel and a political-science student at the University of the Fraser Valley.

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

A Patriarchal Restoration Theory by Reed Perty

A Patriarchal Restoration Theory

by Reed Perry, socialmatter.net

Every civilization in the history of the World has been a patriarchy. There is not a single exception. Sure, there are some matriarchal cultures. They exist as anthropological curios in remote hunter-gatherer areas or in archeological studies on lost tribes. A mandatory prerequisite for an advanced stage of human social and technical development is strong patriarchy. Every single civilization from China to India, Persia to Egypt, Rome to the Incans, whenever one emerged, that core feature is demonstrated. The cultivation of patriarchy is what likely lead to the advance of the Neolithic Revolution. Patriarchy has been the rule, without exception, ever since.


When English soldiers yelled “God save the Queen!” was that a matriarchy? According to feminist Lynn Abrams, the Victorian Age represented “the domestic age par excellence” for English women. This was even more so 200 years earlier during the spectacular Elizabethan Era. It may confuse modern feminists that a highly patriarchal nation can have a female as principle ruler, but the obsessions of “gender identity politics” simply do not exist in patriarchy. Patriarchy is about results. And results are what its delivered over the course of 10,000 years as social substratum.

Unlike feminism, patriarchy is the organic state, the very DNA, of civilized humanity. It flows from the bottom up. The atomic unit of patriarchy is, of course, the family. A family is a microcosm of civil life. Its nucleus and governor is the father, and it takes on his name as a symbol of ownership and responsibility. It is exactly this system that has resulted in the most advanced social and technological societies of Earth. To argue against the virtue of patriarchy is to dispute the entire course of Western Civilization and every comfort it has secured, from basic technologies such as smelting, to advanced medical sciences, telecommunication, and philosophy. None of these treasures can be found in the primitive bands of matriarchal cultures, because matriarchy does not progress past a point of hand-to-mouth foraging and landless abandon.

Marriage law, the primary social contract upon which all else is built, is patriarchal law. It dictates that the oath of marriage, “Till death do us part” is not a negotiable term. Upon this irrevocable bond, rests all else.

One of the very few matriarchal cultures available for study are the Mosuo of China, a primitive farming and yak-herding peoples who have remained entirely undeveloped in a rudimentary agrarian state without a notable achievement. The only relevant quality of this apathetic tribe is the peculiar absence of a marital contract, which they have supplemented with what they call “walking marriages.” In other words: hookups. The informal couplings from which they produce children are mostly temporary, just a one-night-stand or a few weeks booty-call. As man and woman they jointly share no familial assets. Fathers bear no responsibility for children, because there is little way to verify who are his. Men are semi-transient and rarely have a job or craft. They are skill-less studs living in their mother’s homes.

Because both property and children pass along matrilineal lines, men have no stake in society and merely look forward to their next overnight encounter with a “polyamorous,” hut-owning woman.

It should be obvious why this arrangement is utterly doomed. We quickly see why matriarchies disappear from the Earth, leaving little trace of their irrelevant existence. Predictably, obscure Mosuo culture is rapidly dissipating in ascendant China. A few half-hearted attempts have been made to preserve its idiosyncrasies by international NGOs, but its fate has long been sealed as it represents a tiny artifact of what civilized man cast aside in the Paleolithic wilderness. This social evolution has been well catalogued.

Lewis Morgan, a prominent 19th century ethnologist who studied the Iroquois tribes noticed that their style of group-marriages and polygamy had a peculiar effect on their view of family, which they saw as their entire diffuse inter-related clan. During his research living amongst the semi-nomadic tribes who were under broad pressures from European civilization, Morgan observed that human society progressed in stages according to core cultural practices most obvious in customs of marriage and childcare. According to him, the Iroquois, with their communal marriages, represented a middle-place in this civilizing process.

In Ancient Society, he reasoned that the primordial state of man was a “horde living in promiscuity,” where little to no social structure provided for the care of children, enforcement of loyalty or discipline. In this state, man had little incentive to defend territory or offspring, which were both irrelevant to his immediate bodily needs and urges. Reproductive sex would be accomplished in a bout of female horniness, by trading a piece of animal meat, or in rape. From there, societies evolved increasingly strict moral customs, traditions yielding greater and greater outcomes for their culture in the form of technologies and surpluses. The final stage of familial development after polygamy was the monogamous, patriarchal nuclear family.

In this uncompromising monogamous arrangement, men were granted massive evolutionary and social incentives to work selflessly, protect their wives, children, and property at all costs. The custom implied a division of family labor that allowed craftsmanship and innovation to flourish. Wealth was more likely to be amassed over time, as a father would not have to divide his capital amongst many various wives or squabbling half-brothers that could easily tear apart the accumulated work of generations.

Even further, the influence of patriarchy has an enduring multi-contextual impact on human conduct. As many behaviors are inherited, our behavioral biology was taken on a new course of selection. Strictly enforced monogamous customs genetically select for males who are both altruistic and loyal, offering more opportunities for them to pass on their genes. Estranged are those with selfish, unproductive, or disloyal traits, all increasingly prevented from reproducing. It therefore, to a certain extent, selected for impulse control, though there are still plenty of cads and deviants about.

Selflessness is a key component to understanding Western Civilization and Christianity, the religion of self-sacrifice. It is embodied in the unselfish Western pursuit of a greater good, whether for God, country, science, or family. This pressure has driven us on a path to great heights. But the higher one ascends, the further one may fall.

Unparalleled achievements of monogamous Western cultures are starkly contrasted to the primitive matriarchies of “horde promiscuity,” consigned to oblivion with their forgettable mediocrity, – tiny remnants of which dangle above doom, like the Mosuo tribe, – nominally maintained as little human zoos by tour guides and NGOs. The tremendous gap therein, is a rift to be feared.

Patriarchal civilization assembles an imposing edifice with an enduring legacy. It doesn’t easily dissipate into a transient horde or revert to “polyamorous” matriarchal barbarity by a referendum. It must be torn from the grip of the millions of men who carried it so far through history. Many men engage in this struggle without recognizing it.

A family must have a nucleus. The abstract assumption that a matriarchy could replace what is diminutively called a “father figure” on a grand scale, is an untested hypothesis. All we have as reference are the unsophisticated leftovers of the Stone Age that never passed “go.” There is no matriarchy to base a model on. This problem has never been reconciled by the ideologues of “women’s lib.” It continues to frustrate them deeply.

Radical feminists, fanatical with envy, lost in jealous anger, are faced with the impossibility of rivaling the stupendously monumental achievement of patriarchal monogamy. Their only choice is to resort to a nihilistic war on scientific facts and hard-fought virtues at the soul of mankind. In their eyes, civilization itself must be melted down, as it represents the hardened alloy of the patriarchal formula. Chastity in women, masculinity in men, loyalty above all else, the holiness of oaths, – the feminist is hostile to every sacred gem of the human project, which they either trivialize or demonize. The “freedoms” and “equalities” they press result in the freedom to injure social stability for impulsive desires. Their professed goals include forced “equality” amongst un-equals, the most dystopian form of tyranny.

The antonym of “equal” is “different.” Those advocating on behalf of patriarchy (civilization) are forced into the preposterous position of proving something so self-evident as the difference between male/female. To the feminist, the human self is not only devoid of a distinct male or female soul, but we possess bodies without organs. This is the vacuum of meaning feminism must defend. It insists on a deeply oppressive conflict with human identity.

As I discussed in The Tyranny of Suffrage, the feminist social war, has culminated in an anti-familial, anti-male legal regime imposed by force. It could only be achieved by force because families cannot be ripped apart and social order cannot be so disrupted without widespread harm being inflicted. Institutions, families, and individuals must be coerced into otherwise unnatural behavior. This was largely achieved via women’s suffrage, a franchise attained during a period of horrific genocide and instability. A large portion of the male population of Europe and America was either preoccupied by or slain in the largest wars endured by humanity. The class of industrial merchants also encouraged female labor and consumerism as a source of profit.

In this insecure state of affairs, where women often held large majorities due to the male death rate, radical liberals, – the feminists, – who were often rich lunatics or ex-prostitutes, found themselves in a position of astounding influence. The altruism of Western man was exploited, the unprepared opposition overwhelmed with vitriol. We’ll revisit the tremendous power (and danger) of our civilization’s misguided altruism shortly.

Without delving into all the psychological motivations at work in the mind of the “liberated woman” we determine that a straightforward dichotomy has appeared underlying their thought: patriarchy bad, matriarchy good.  This is obviously their loud opinion, but the interesting proof they carry as evidence is that patriarchy, being father of the civilized experience, is responsible for everything bad that has occurred.

In a roundabout way, the feminist is correct. She generally lays blame on patriarchy for the tribulations of civilization, yet without patriarchy, there would be no civilization at all, and we would remain a primitive species in an obscenely primitive “horde of promiscuity.” The feminist is simply too narcissistic or biased to see the other (asymmetrically positive) side of the story, which is that civilization is indisputably good considering the alternative.

As patriarchal institutions are increasingly attacked, abolished, or repressed, the morality it engineered and guarded begins to disintegrate. But liberal feminism wants to live in a world with all benefits of patriarchy, without the limitations that must be imposed to generate those privileges, conserve oppression, and accumulate surpluses.

This unstable middle-state, between civilization and pandemonium, is a chaotic attempt to maintain the high quality of life in a civilization awhile removing the source of that quality. What can only be called despotic feminism, emerges. Underneath it is an actively oppressed patriarchy.

Families are disintegrating at a rapid pace or simply failing to form. An entire generation faces a future of forlorn, marriage-less alienation. Fatherless children demonstrate a multitude of psychological problems and stunted development. Feminist and leftist drift causes an infinitely expanding, unaccountable government.

Millions of individuals go into arrears, homelessness, and dependency resultant of these newly invented policies based on untested ideas. Due to birth control, many regions of Europe and the US have shrinking populations, resulting in mounting debt. And paradoxically, feminism results in the worst outcomes for women themselves, over 90% of whom want to get married, but find fewer and fewer males willing to participate in the debased marital institution. As intelligent men, they see the cards are stacked against them.

Sadly, many more men are simply incapable of taking up the responsibility at this demoralizing point. Men not only have little incentive to work or commit selfless acts for their family/community in this backwards system, they are penalized for their successes and masculine attributes. These male virtues have become sins in the feminist cult.

Women end up in their 30s as un-marriageable childless sluts who have drifted from relationship to one-night-stand to another “relationship” for half their lives. After squandering their peak years in soulless careers imitating the caricature of a workingman or “liberated woman” they are alone with their credit cards, anti-depressant pill-bottles, and their feminism, more embittered with each passing year.

Just beyond this depressing milieu remains the question of the future of civilization itself. We are performing a massively dangerous social experiment on our own population. There is no civilization that is not a patriarchy. Yet the phenomena of rampant licentiousness, marriage-less adults, and semi-transient men, more and more resembles the “horde of promiscuity” observed in the hell below the Third–World.

How can men possibly sit on the sideline knowing what prospects await them, – and their women, – yet do nothing in the face of this dystopian regression? Some are distracted. Some are medicated. Some are imprisoned, or enslaved in debt or alimony. But I believe the greatest obstacle in implementation of effective policy is a feature that served us well until we faced the menace of feminism and suffrage: altruism, – it has become self-destructive.

Men have been greatly weakened by technology and the luxuries inherited us by our strict forefathers, our patriarchs. We have become the Last Man, a sullen, undisciplined, culturally homeless peoples. We are distracted by the banality of social media, depleted by sedentary, hormonally disrupted lives.

Many claim, “it is too late” – that our system cannot be retaken. I see this as a massive psychological blockage, perhaps a delusion. Compare the challenge of our time to what men faced in the blood-reddened mud of WWI. – This is how fearful many men are of confronting uppity women, who are little more than confident quacks. The Last Man of 21st century America is terrified of this depraved protestor. They dread the label of “sexist” or “misogynist” – both hollow insults. But our last men were also raised with the poison of liberality in their minds, tainted by the arrogant baby-boomer (“Me”) generation that glorified “the bitch” of feminism, placing vile women on a pedestal. Their children gaze up in wonder at this idol of an “empowered bitch” to this day.

The fear of being chastised by uppity women, – who have all these ideas from media and feminist talking-heads swirling in their minds, – has become more terrifying than dying for a foolish cause those same women vote for, – the majority of voting being done by them. Are the uppity leftist women even doing anything good for themselves, much less others, or are we placing undeserved value on the voices of hysterical people? Hysterias are quite common in history, and sadly, fanatics bent on madness “for the greater good” often gain power. Can we examine, on the most friendly, basic level, whether or not the claims of the uppity woman are helpful for “the greater good?” The contraction of our culture has proven unhelpful. What about the all-important “empowered woman?”

For one moment, we’ll take the (delusional) position of a radical egalitarian woman. Let us imagine it’s a horrific crime for this woman to be denied the “right” to behave like a man: play high-school football, be pledged to a frat, get special treatment in the military, whatever she wants. – What does supplicating this being resolve? Is it best for her own good to permit her to live out her fantasy at the expense of others? Even if you believe it is a crime that women cannot be men by defying all laws of biology and civilization and history, what good is it to challenge this imagined crime all at the expense of others? Does it change history? Does it change the uncomfortable aspects of life we all dread or wish were different? Does it rectify the cosmic injustice that is part of the human condition? No. It is to play along with an act, as if we are surrendering to an adolescent brat at immeasurable cost.

Patriarchal monogamy is civilization. This is the way of the World. We cannot wish it to be different if it offends us. The passengers of a crashing plane are offended by gravity, but that won’t change the fact it exists. In order to stay in the air, the pilot and navigator must accept the laws of physics and work from there. Similarly, civilization is a structure against the hidden forces of human vice, brutality, stupidity, selfishness. If some get “offended” by the practice of civilization, so be it, the absence of civilization would undoubtedly be more offensive to us all, as our lives would collectively crash and burn.

We are doing the radical feminists a kindness by reversing all of their policies and ending their hallucination. They can fantasize privately until they dilapidate into cat-ladies. But they cannot do that if our civilization is hemorrhaging from the insides, or atrophying in its most crucial tissues.

Just as the post-political voter casts a ballot merely in opposition to the perceived greater evil, the modern man often voices his disdain of radical feminism, failing to come forward with a positive position of being pro-patriarchy.

Curiously, even feminist behavior contains the admission that patriarchy is the bedrock on which we stand. They define all female “liberation” and “empowerment” as imitating men or infiltrating male organizations. There are reasons for this rooted in evolutionary psychology we don’t have time to expound on here. But feminists are just intelligent enough to see how important (distinctly) male leadership is. Noting this tendency, many have argued feminism should rightly be called “masculism.” The moonbats that call themselves “empowered” are merely a caricature of a man, ineffectively mimicking what they see as the root of power. They cut their hair short. They wear men’s clothing. They emasculate or embarrass men they dislike. The pseudo-empowered woman has no idea how to gain power via her natural forces, an inner “goddess” of female virtues, she must attempt an often comical, theatrical interpretation of a successful man. The perverse rationale this insinuates is that women are useless in civilization unless they act like men. This one-sided stage considers the woman a “pre-man”, – she ought to be treated as the idea of a man, but has not yet been incorporated into the patriarchy by liberal action, so they “fake it till they make it.”

This silly theatre is at our expense. It’s at the expense of men who built this civilization brick by brick. Subverting that effort is not humorous or “liberating,” – it is gravely foolish. It also degrades the virtue of women as a natural check and balance to the masculine. We now have the Last Man and the female imitation of a man. No more “ladies” or “gentlemen.”

The Millennial generation is deeply confused by all this, but it acknowledges the basic contradictions at work. Our generation can still choose if it wants to wander forward into the wilderness of aimless promiscuity, anarcho-tyranny, debt, and miserable depression, or choose to transcend the liberality in exchange for the civilization we were denied. If so, we can obtain it, but we have to deserve it.

Countless men have witnessed the deleterious effect of female rule through the generations. The ancient plays of the Greeks and parables of the Bible have recorded the habits of manipulative women quite well. For a while, in the heat of frenzied progressivism, our collective memory seemed to fail us in regards to these ancient truths. Yet in recent years there has been an uptick of high caliber writers who of have paid notice to the intrinsic threat feminist creep poses to the social superstructure we exist in. Their message ought to be amplified by any who care about our posterity.

“…the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to inflict great harm onto their own families, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated.”        – The Misandry Bubble, 2010

“The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them.” – Roissy, 2008

My goal as a writer is not to track the collapse or document the passing social atrocities that accrue. My intention is to galvanize you. If I can’t compel you to repudiate these degradations, I at least want you to dwell on them freely. I’m disgusted by the dejected woebegones, the “fuck it” generation that embraces their own downfall as shameful cowards. To say, “we can’t” alter our future is idiotic.

It’s our civilization that warred on the Japanese Empire, across thousands of miles of ocean, striking them with both bayonets, choke-holds, and nuclear weapons. We were victorious. It was our people who voyaged further than any other when we sent our men to the Moon, once a deity of our ancestors. The very Internet that laces the globe is our masterpiece. Is it really so extreme and unrealistic to propose that we can reclaim authority over our own homes, schools, courts, and capitals?

Only the irremediable couch potato, whose mind is plugged up with TV and dum-dums would accept that “all is lost.”  But perhaps I am too harsh, because nihilism can be a powerful step on the course of counter-revolutionary activism. They see the “progressivism” of our society, as yesterday is already better than tomorrow. A man who has hit the lowest point in the recession of expectations can only rise. This is the best point to invest in oneself. Emotions of confusion, sadness, anger, are fundamental tools to forge an over-man, one who transcends the pitiable last man we so abundantly see today.

There are three attitudes I’ve witnessed emerge from the men who recognize how serious issues of feminism and decline have become.

One is the Cynic, who welcomes a dark biting humor about life. He can continue on in this destructive comedy when he embraces it as a sick joke. This form of fatalism allows a man to laugh at the crushing downfall being dealt. The ego can act big in this ever-narrowing environment. But the theater will always be closing in as the humor becomes less and less amusing like a joke that has been told too many times.

Because he understands its darkness so well, the cynic often attempts to “game” the crumbling system, reaping what trinkets he can from it, in turn blaming the defunct world for his own failures. His story is a tragicomedy.

Another course is the Separatist, the man who believes he can segregate himself from the World indefinitely, which is impossible, because the World is both our prison and salvation. By separating oneself, a man only ends up in an ever smaller, more alienating cage of his own design. Similar to the cynic, the separatist can never flee far enough into the wilderness or as deep into his own diversions as needed. The enemy is always on the creep in his retreat. This can be seen in the drama of Gamergate, where young men who have already largely withdrawn into virtual simulations, and may have no political inclinations, are still hounded down. This can be seen in all variety of other male subcultures on the list of masculine pursuits that cannot be allowed to exist without liberal infiltration, such as the Metal scene, fraternities, comic books, boy-scouts, or gun-clubs.

The Separatist may find some solace in virtual pursuits, one-night-stands, or withdrawal of one form or another, but like a cultural refugee, a fugitive from reality, the enemy will always catch up to him.

The final route is that of Seeker. This is the man who is troubled but undaunted. He wants to find the way up and out. He refuses to accept the desolate wasteland of amorality and sets out to refurnish a robbed future. He may not know how, but his cause is most likely to harvest rewards because he’s accepted previous defeats and sets on with no expectation other than his own commitment.

In many ways, the Seeker is a remnant of the 20th century, the era of the political soldier. The political soldier is a man. The feminist is a caricature of a man, but has the wit of a devious, manipulative woman. It knows how to exploit altruism, how to use sex as a weapon, and how to have her way, – not through positive reinforcement, but via coercion. The feminist’s method is to infiltrate and debase. The male political soldier is designed to build and rise above.

The new man, who must transcend this abysmal matrix, can eat “red-pills” and later, Viagra, until he’s sick on them, but he’ll still live in the sabotaged liberal conception of manhood and femininity. So, we can only move forward by building a sternly anti-liberal conception of sexuality.

Because the ancient thinkers are ignored and unclaimed by liberality, I’ll explore a favorite primeval conception of the sexes. Plato believed that the sexes were a divided whole, two parts of one being, which is incomplete until unification in home and family. Such a vision is toxic to postmodernism, as this archetypical, self-balancing dichotomy outclasses the randomness of hookup sexuality, or one-sided imitations of patriarchy. This concept of sexuality dictates that both man and woman can’t reach maturation without the bond of marital unity.

I mention this particular notion because the old-way of patriarchy is appealing to both the sexes. People want and need a non-liberal conception of marriage. Neoreaction exists to study how we reached our current impasse and how to traverse the wall of enigmas erected over hundreds of years of demotist drift. There must be less obvious, more innovative ways to probe and prod this twisted vortex that uses our virtuous nature to destroy the source of that virtue.

We got ourselves in a particularly nasty pickle after permitting women’s suffrage, because there will always be more women voting due to the fact that men die much younger, and many more pass away at a young age or are financially/politically disenfranchised due to feminism. This means that the prospect of leading an electoral campaign against them is utterly impossible. Plus, the democratic system is hopelessly corrupt and perverted by “politicians,” who are temp-workers, mid-level sales-associates for commercial interests of liberalism. We can easily find solutions to these problems outside the defunct bureaucracies. The question is, what are those solutions?

I offer a few ideas, which are all incomplete, but they demonstrate the study of alternative methods for shifting the direction of sexual and marital customs. The importance of examining social engineering and crowd manipulation is appreciating that the entire “electoral” department is barred from use. So, innovation is mandatory.

Marriage Insurance: One form of surety for a marriage is dowry, or its counterpart, bride price. The Code of Hammurabi details the early rules regarding this most ancient, likely prehistoric practice. Upon receiving a dowry, the man of a home obtained possession of goods with his bride. If she proved unfaithful or uncooperative, she could be returned to her family, the asset remaining as compensation to the husband. If the man had proven unworthy, this asset would be confiscated from him. This is essentially the opposite of modern “no-fault” divorce, alimony, and child-support. It provides a material incentive to maintain a unified family.

The modern equivalent of this practice, as far as I can tell, is “marriage insurance.” The man who invented the concept is a divorced Mormon. This idea, although its complete and effective implementation eludes me, appears to be the only financial instrument one may use to evade the danger of a costly divorce awhile providing a potential disincentive to separation. Its implementation, as a modernized ancient practice, must not be ignored.

Muslims, Mormons, and Amish: Why does it seem that these groups are, – not impervious, – but resistant to the ills of liberality?

When Muslims appear in a community, they create a ghetto-theocracy. They often do not acknowledge state marriage licenses, because their polygamy is illegal. What they constantly fight off is what they name “Burger King Syndrome” – based on the slogan “have it your way.” Muslim fundamentalists see this as the embodiment of liberalism, radical individualism, the globalization of non-traditional lifestyles.

Similarly, Mormon and Amish sects maintain a controlled distance from the degradations of Yankeedom with geography and enforced group cooperation.

My conclusion is that these groups have created parallel institutions that show some promise for resilience in the face of feminist corrosion. They also may survive broader social decline, having proven the test of time.

To Bleed the Beast: Trends such as the student loan bubble endanger the future of fundamentally liberal academic institutions. Can we encourage this habit of self-sabotage in comparable liberal industries? What would be the benefits?

VR and Sex Bots: Many may disagree, but I see the advance of virtual reality headsets and sex-bots to be a threat to feminism. I would compare it to “male birth control.”

Large populations of intelligent men will leave the dating scene as soon as high-quality VR appears. They will have little reason to struggle with dating brainwashed feminists when they can obtain any “10” they want for sex on a high-definition platform, preserving real-life women as platonic friends. This will reduce female dating value dramatically. Of course, VR has many attributes that will warp postmodern life even more, so its net impacts are unclear.

Although all these phenomena seem random, my goal is to find weak points, openings in the liberal social simulation.

Patriarchal restoration must abolish this liberal conception of sexuality as a transferable commodity. We eclipse it with an innovation that realigns to the core traditions. This process will take place outside the corrupt and defunct pseudo-democracy.

We approach this as a social-engineering problem. It can be resolved with a new praxis, which is discovered by exploring and testing ideas. In this struggle, the battle for our civilization’s past, present, and future, we must invent new forms of social technology. These innovations will likely be adaptations of ancient knowledge. As a social struggle, no challenge of this magnitude has faced Western Civilization, as we are confronting the “better angels” of our nature, which have proven to spread the most harmful humanitarianism.

Being so self-righteous, the adherents of destructive altruism would sacrifice the treasures of family, honor, and civilization in a misguided act cloaked in goodliness. If allowed, the offerings to this malformed “equality” will be the last atrocity of the Western World.