We’ve Lost

How can the left defeat the reactionaries? — They’ve already defeated us. http://t.co/WjbAgwC87h

— Free Northerner (@FreeNortherner) July 20, 2014

Reactionaries have been defeated, we have lost. Neoreaction was defeated before it began.

This is reality.

The left has either captured, killed, or subverted every major institution in the West: the family, the church, the government, the courts, the media, the education system.

The system is dying, we have lost.

In fact, having lost is almost definitional to the term reactionary. If we were winning, we would be called conservatives or centrists. A reactionary is one wanting a return to a previous order, meaning the previous the old order no longer exists. This implies that at some point in the past the reactionaries (and conservatives) were defeated.

I used the term ‘winning’ purposefully. Reactionaries and a conservatives can never win, entropy is eternal and unstoppable. Chaos is always pounding at the gates and there is never any rest nor relief for the watchmen. The barbarians are always encircling the fortress and only leave once the looting and raping is over.

There was far too much pushback on Twitter on this. Some reactionaries don’t seem to get this basic point. This is foundational reaction. Cthulu swims left. To be a reactionary is to suffer defeat after neverending defeat. As long as you are a reactionary, you are defeated.

Our goal then is to advance to the point where we can become conservatives. That is the end point of reaction, to have a society worth conserving. Once we start winning we stop being reactionaries and we become conservatives.

The goal of reaction is ideological self-annihilation.


The reason conservatism is wrong is not because there is anything inherently wrong with conservatism, it is because modern conservatives have not yet realized there is nothing left to conserve. They have not yet realized that they have lost. It is over, it is done.

In fact, the conservatives have been so roundly defeated that the best of them are conserving liberalism thinking it to be conservatism.(The worst of them no longer even try to conserve liberalism).

This is the difference between the modern conservative and the reactionary:

The reactionary suffers in endless defeat, the conservative has not only been defeated, but has been so entirely and thoroughly pwned that he does not even understand he has been defeated, so he barely suffers.

My next post will outline how thouroughly we’ve lost, but to tide you over I recommend Derbyshire’s We Are Doomed.

If you are optimistic, if you think there is some hope of a “win”, if you believe it can be turned around, you are wrong and you do not yet understand reaction.

There is only the endless cycle of struggle against chaos, loss to chaos, and rebuilding during chaos so we can continue the struggle. Death and the final winnowing are the only relief from the cycle.

Reaction should not make you happy or hopeful, the only thing it can do is is help your children survive to create more children to survive to create more children.

It’s called the dark enlightenment for a reason.


  1. Despair is a sin. He still has 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Noah preached right up until the rain started. 10 good men could have saved Sodom.
    Moses had no chance against Egypt’s might. Gideon and his 300 had no chance against an army without numbers. Samson had no chance, standing alone against 1,000 Philistine warriors with nothing but a piece of bone in his hand. David had no chance against Goliath. Daniel had no chance against the lions. The apostles saw the Son of God hung on a cross and murdered.
    None of them had a chance. None of them lost.
    Quit moping and fight. We are blessed with a target rich environment, and the weapons to attack it. Use them.

  2. Let us not lose sight of God’s plan. Read, for example, Psalm 2. God has set His King to reign and He will have victory.

    Our job is to be failthful servants/soldiers, working/striving to obey the Great Commission and the Dominion Mandate, knowing that He is with us (as He has promised).

    So, yes, let us have children and raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, teaching them to follow Christ, and they should have children, and they should have children, and so on furthering taking of dominion for our Lord. Not forgetting the preaching of the Gospel to bring those who are outside our direct families into the family of the Lord.

    The battle has been very badly waged for many, many centuries now, but we need not/should not despair.

  3. What part of Matthew 16:18 do you not understand? You may die the death of a martyr but by God you shall prevail. This defeatist attitude does not avail us. Christ died and conquered hell. Likewise with the Right, we may have died but through our death we have proven that the Left is insane and its methods unsuitable for building a stable and solid civilization. It is well known that the Right is stupid or at least near-blind, it is not well known that the Left is schizoid and insane. We are losing badly, but the light of Gnon is going to burn right through dear little Lefties falsehoods.

    To quote Cardinal George of Chicago:
    “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

    The question now is what pieces can we save and how much can we keep intact? The Church kept the light of civilization though Rome collapsed. She planted a seed that grew into the greatest civilization (in perhaps every measure) the world has yet to see despite innumerable and immeasurable setbacks. What can we save to lay the stones upon which the next civilization will be built? Most of the darkly enlightened seem busy doing this with politics, economics, philosophy and sexual economics. Your contributions have been particularly valuable. Reading YOUR blog; not Moldbug, Jim or Nick Steves was what finally convinced me that this was not some pet political salon but instead something that had a great deal of substance. You have De, your might comes from being right. Keep writing, keep fighting. You inspire and invigorate.

    Building an Antiversity is not going to be done in a year or even a lifetime. Building a civilization from the ground up is not going to be done in a lifetime or even seven generations. To go from being a colony on the complete periphery to a global superpower it took Britain nearly 1500 years. Its going to get worse before it gets better, in fact its going to get really bad, but it will get better. If it doesn’t get better us and ours shall perish, but we shall at least perish with fire in our bellies and oaths on our lips.

    Perhaps you are right and I am missing a fundamental point, perhaps the fundamental point of reaction. I guess that is a bug, nay a feature of being Christian. I will hope against hope that I am to become like Abraham a father of many nations. That to me is the fundamental point of reaction. Abraham and his descendants lost a lot on the way but every one of God’s promises were kept and paid in full. That is to me the point of reaction, doing the will of God without compromises.

  4. We are the remnant my brothers. We shall fight to the last man in the battle of our time until Christ returns. Stand fast!

  5. How can the work of a reactionary be called a defeat…ever? If, as you say, the reactionary is the gatekeeper between order and chaos, he can never lose. His is the job of the evangelist; the one called to share the gospel to those who need to hear it. The Christian is the reactionary. He is no more a loser than the Messiah is a liar. God God man, have a little faith. One you have it, for God’s sake maintain it.

  6. Naturally FN is correct. The commenters indicate they believe God is on their side and eventually they will win. If you believe in this type of God isn’t it true that he is aware of what is going on here. After all he put us here, no? So when enough people die and society is destroyed God will save us again, but why. This is all about the afterlife and being with Jesus in heaven. This whole belief system is part of the problem, Christian love, equality, liberalism is allowing our wars in the middle east, supporting illegal immigration, evangelicals supporting Israel, etc. Christian brains have turned to mush, allowing the destruction of western civilization. Today conservatives are defending liberal ideas and is part of the reason they have failed and will continue to.

  7. It is not about winning; it never was.

    It is not about having God or right on our side.

    It is about standing up for what you believe in and setting for nothing less.

    It is about knowing the truth and calling out lies to those who don’t want to hear it.

    It is about *not* marrying the slut. It is about calling out the “fat-is-sexy” mob (“I wouldn’t marry you…”)… about gently but firmly telling delusional women that they don’t get to decide what men find attractive, then telling them about what we *do* find attractive… and treating the inevitable howling and yowling with a Yoda-esque “and that is why you fail”.

    It is about rewarding the right and punishing the wrong – or having no truck with it at all.

    It is about reminding our young men that *they* are the prize, and wherever possible, refusing to subsizide the feminine imperative that wants men muzzled, neutered, and “safe”.

    It is about drawing a line in the sand, and proclaiming, with Picardian eloquence: “The line is drawn *here!*”.

    Or to put it another way…” Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” (Eph 6:13)

    (to be read in a Churchill voice) We do not fight to win. We fight because our commander-in-chief has given us orders to hold this ground or die trying.

    We fight like Klingon warriors… because “the only way for evil to triumph is for good men everywhere to do nothing.”

  8. LOL I thought that was one of your better observations Free. Nor is it full of despair. Did the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae hang their head in despair? A man who’s values what I right and proper, who places the correct level of value on life, will not see despair in such things.

  9. I think it’s telling that the responses so far are religiously motivated. Believing in Deity makes impossible situations not-so-impossible.

    We have lost, undeniably have lost, with hope of victory—and yet we draw breath. Pretend you were thrown into alterna-2014, where Hitler’s Germany prevailed and the thousand-year Reich is only 70 years in. Russia enslaved, America nuked, everywhere else 3rd-world. Why even live in such a joke of a world? Well, why even live in this one?

    And yet—still around. Commanded not to despair. And there was that other Cause that was literally dead as a doornail, but won even after having lost

  10. Excellent article that highlights a foundational tenet of reaction, as you yourself mentioned. Though a bit too nuanced for some readers, I would imagine.

    The point is not to despair and kill yourself.

    The point is to understand that there is only one way to “fix” everything.

    It’s not through politics.

    It’s not through social media.

    It’s not through campaigning.

    It’s not even through insurgency.

    It’s through raising strong families and communities, well-defended and unified. That you, as an individual, have any power to “fix” society beyond fixing your own life, family and children, is a progressive delusion.

  11. Rather than yearning to bring back an age of great privilege for one group — upper class males — why not join forces with those of us who are moving forward and striving to create an age of oneness between all humanity?

    I do understand that when society seems to be over-correcting for one wrong — in this case, that of discriminating against women and other minorities — it can be very hurtful for the group that used to take their privilege for-granted — in this case, white, middle to upper-class males.

    The fact is, there was such a thing as p.c. behavior back in the age of the monarchy — the dominant group just didn’t notice it because they were the ones deciding what was p.c. Now society is tipping heavily in the other direction — for example, it’s considered okay, in TV sitcoms, to poke fun at white males in a way that it’s not okay to do to women, gays, or ethnic minorities.

    But as society gets fairer, I think you’ll see that things will level out more for men, too. For example, one change that’s already occurring, at least in my region of the U.S., is that divorce courts no longer automatically assume that the children are better off in the mother’s custody.

    In the area of humor and satire — well, I guess it always seems to be at “someone’s” expense, and that may always be the way it is, but I think you’ll see less and less of a tendency to automatically slam white men.

    As far as mourning over what you’ve lost…how good do you think that privilege really tasted, even to the privileged, when it meant that only their one group was truly free?

  12. @thatsusan.

    UMC males is a straw man. This society is not fair. It worships infanticide and buggery. And if God is just (I’m reformed: I have bet my soul on God’s justice and mercy) then we are due as great a judgment as the CCCP.


    Agree. The correct thing to do is to raise families and live righteously. This is what the Spartans knew, as Leonidas said to his wife (for they both knew he would not come back from Thermoplyae) she should find a good man, marry, and bear more sons.


    I agree. But that is because I do not trust the nation I live in or think it is that righteous (I live in NZ). I trust God alone. And it is correct doctrine to see him active in society, moving one nation or another.

  13. pukeko60 — who are UMC males? I googled it and all I saw were references to the United Methodist Church. Were you talking about upper middle class males? Are you saying that they don’t exist — or that they never enjoyed special privileges? And I certainly never said our society was fair yet — I said we were in the process of becoming fairer.

    Of course, I’m speaking from the vantage point of being a woman, and hearing what it was like for my own mom, who raised my older sister as a single mom because her first husband abandoned her, and also what I’ve read about the lives of many women in the past. Life is immensely better for most women today,

    Back in the “good old days,” a woman’s entire life was pretty much determined by whether or not she was lucky enough to marry a good man. The choices she made when she was usually quite young and naive — and further back, the choices that her father made for her when she was very young, set her on the course that she and her children were pretty much stuck with, for better or worse.

    In today’s world, we can see where we went wrong without having to just “lie in it.” We actually have choices at each and every phase of our lives — opportunities to look at who we are and who we’re becoming, opportunities to evaluate whether we’re on the right track or whether there’s some adjustment we need to make to get back on track.

    No, the world is still not perfectly fair — but it’s getting fairer.

  14. Susan UMC equals upper middle class, not a bunch of heretics that call themselves Methodists. Your entire argument is based on the apex fallacy.

    You don’t get it: In the “bad old days” one grandfather played in semi-professional orchestras. raised bees, and gave violin lessons to supplement his income so he could raise two children — and he was lucky. My grandmother used to feed hobos if they would split wood or clear bush (brush). Many men went to work camps so their children would be fed. My other grandparents were skilled farm labourers, and if they were lucky they would save the cartage to the next job because they were on one-year contracts.

    A few people were elite, most were not.

    Go and read some quantitative history and come back here with something a tad less boring than your predigested talking points.

  15. And I see the men who are suicidal after the police order them out of their homes — which is legal in NZ without any judicial review — on the unsubstantiated word of their ex. I see men arrested for not paying their child support when they are unemployed.

    Fair? No.

    Conditions for a revolution if they continue? Well, if previous experience predicts the future, yes.

  16. pukeko60 — I agree that a few were elite, and most were not. That’s actually one of my points. You and I are in two different countries — I’m in the U.S. — so maybe some laws and circumstances and histories are very different. I actually see it as a positive thing that it’s no longer necessary, at least here in the U.S., for a father or mother to leave their family and go off to a work camp just to make ends meet.

    As far as the fathers being ordered out of their homes, that happens in domestic violence cases here in the U.S., too. And it’s also true that even before the abuse can be proven in a court of law, a woman can get a restraining order and if there are children, she also gets to stay in the home with the children even if the house is solely the man’s property. I realize that it does create an unfair situation if the man never even raised his hand to his wife or threatened her in any way, but she says he did.

    But I still think it’s good to have this protection in place for all the women who are being abused. Do you really think that the woman should be unprotected, or that she and her children should have to leave home and hide out in a shelter, until the case can make it through court?

    Or do you see domestic abuse as another boring straw man?

  17. Also, are you saying that anyone who hasn’t signed on for your particular brand of Christianity is a heretic? If you guys are even separating yourselves from other Christians who don’t think 100 percent like you do, it’s no wonder you feel like you’re fighting a losing battle.

  18. That_Susan,

    You are fascinating. At least you get that the government does indeed cater to your moods. As a woman. Dear. Dear. You’re a child holding a machine gun, spraying it in every direction but excuse yourself with “I realize this creates an unfair situation”.

    You’ll realize it when the boot is back on man’s foot. And not a moment before.

  19. As to the rest: You’re Defeated. Not us. Not me. You were as soon as you gave up. Don’t “we” anything. Speak for yourself and be ready to die alone. That’s submitting or fighting. You may die and stand alone, or cower and die alone.

    The post and most of the comments seem to be excuses to give up ranging from we’re all dead in the long run, to entropy is part of nature. But indeed my favorite is: GOD. God excuses us men from any heavy lifting.

    We just have to make sure we marry a virgin with a nice body. And pray.

    That is the religion of a slave.

    And these are the grumblings and prayers of slaves.

  20. VXXC, where on earth did I say that the government caters to my moods? Also, I said that things were getting fairer than they were in the past, but there are still unfair things that happen. That’s hugely different from carelessly firing a machine gun in all directions and saying, “I realize this creates an unfair situation.”

    For example, while I believe that A FEW men may be unfairly treated under the domestic violence laws in my state (those few who are unfortunate enough to be married to or living with dishonest women), MANY women and children are being protected from abusers because of these laws.

    This doesn’t mean that it’s ever right for anyone to lie and make a false accusation! However, from my own experience of taking a friend to the courthouse to get a restraining order against her abusive husband, I will say that the courts don’t exactly make it easy for the women. For example, I had a nursing child and was told that I couldn’t nurse my child in the office where I was waiting with my friend.

    I later learned that the treatment I received was in violation of my civil rights…at any rate, it wasn’t too traumatic for me, since I was going back to my own safe home and loving husband — but it seems awfully cold for people in an office that’s supposedly set up to help women seeking protection from abuse, women who are likely to have small nursing babies and children and to be feeling rather overwhelmed and disoriented.

    The women’s shelter my friend stayed in also made things really tough for her toddler, who wasn’t used to eating much at one time — but they still had to follow the regulations about mealtimes and no snacking was allowed between those times. And he was hungry.

    I’m just sharing these examples to explain why I don’t believe the majority of women in non-abusive marriages would make a frivolous complaint. These complaints literally turn everyone’s lives upside down, so they’re almost always made for a good reason. However, having looked up the apex fallacy that pukeko60 referred to, I gather that most MRA’s see the existence of even one woman who’d lie about abuse, as “proof” that domestic violence is a “straw man” and doesn’t exist.


  21. I just read a little more in the apex fallacy, and realized that what pukeko60 was most likely using it to say was that not all men are upper middle class. The majority are actually poorer than that.

    And I agree. And while I still do think that it’s the wealthier males who enjoy the most patriarchy-related privileges, I can see that even lower-income males can enjoy patriarchy to some extent. For example, slut-shaming is almost exclusively directed at women. Men can be sluts without anyone thinking too badly of them for it.

    In the video I’ve linked to below, sex-positive activist and feminist Lacey Green does a pretty good job of describing the patriarchal mindset that insists that women have to suffer for their mistakes, whereas men are just expected to screw up sometimes.

  22. Ms. Susan,

    The machine gun I refer to is the Law. It’s force. The Child is you and women in America. Power and madness don’t mix well.

    As to the actually abused being lost in the system – a predictable result of there being nothing but rewards for false accusations. We can’t tell when you’re lying except when your lips are moving. For men lies have consequences you know.

    Calling the cops happens to be a great way to initiate divorce, allowing you to have the beef without having to put up with that messy bull.

    Madam we men are under Sharia Law. And not even as the wife. We’re the maid. We can be abused, legally robbed and raped, imprisoned and discarded.

    Catering to moods: when they don’t [public breast feeding, which I don’t care about] it’s noticed that they’re not catering to moods, whims and so on. When they do it’s not noticed. We may conclude it’s absence is noted but it’s presence is not.

    It’s very cold in the office where they’re supposed to take care of abused women.
    This is because they understand women. They do it for a living.

    It was very cold.

    It’s going to get much colder.

    [If you can’t tell I’m not MRA or any of that nonsense.]

    It will get much colder. And you see we’re actually still lacing up our boots. Reciprocity is an Iron Law of Mankind, and you did ask for equality.

  23. This piece is pretty harsh, but that’s not bad once in a while. And, it has a consistent tone throughout so it doesn’t come across as unbalanced at all; “Free Northerner” this is pretty good writing. Yes, it’s important that “conservative” tendencies or instincts do not befall Neoreactionists when the situation is what it is.

    L.O.L… Some of these commenters are a bit much. Mentioning defeat is not the same as defeatism. Should be self-evident.


  24. Also, high five on the Neorxn.com website, I saw that “Cambria Will Not Yield Blog” made it onto the feed and that’s a perennial favourite of mine.

    Best regards

  25. VXXC — You honestly perceive women as children? And since you say, “We can’t tell when you’re lying except when your lips are moving” — I guess you also believe that most or all women are liars. This is interesting because, while I’m not for patriarchy, I actually have a positive opinion of most men. I think that most men, as well as most women, are good and trustworthy people.

    As mentioned earlier, I think law is still necessary because there still are some people who see the world as “us vs. them” — people who believe the lie that they can enjoy true prosperity while causing harm and pain to other humans as well as to the earth in general.

    And apparently you see supporting a baby or small child’s right to nurse wherever they happen to be as “catering to moods.” I guess your hyper-masculinity interferes with your ability to even care about the needs of a young child.

    You also seem to feel that showing compassion for an abused woman indicates a lack of understanding of what women are really like.

    I still can’t wrap my mind around your idea that men today are being treated like maids under Sharia Law. The men I know are pretty much going where they want to go and doing what they want to do, and aren’t getting stoned or slut-shamed if they sleep with a woman outside of marriage, or even many women.

    I’m sorry that you feel a need to threaten me, and women in general, with retribution, as if you feel that you and men in general have been the victims of great injustice at our hands. I don’t feel a need to retaliate against anyone for past injustices. I’d much rather just move forward TOGETHER and create a better world for everyone.

  26. “men today are being treated like maids under Sharia Law. ”

    We can leave this one to the general commenters, the only debate is whether we’re Sharia Wives or the maids. The maid is the plaything.

    “I’d much rather just move forward TOGETHER and create a better world for everyone.”

    Hmm. Ali ali infree?

    I honestly am questioning Turing or Troll here, it’s too cliched a foil.

    ““us vs. them” — people who believe the lie that they can enjoy true prosperity while causing harm and pain to other humans.” In case you’re not the Turing Foil, those people have among them feminists, lawyers, and politicians.

    The pendulum is swinging back. You have had quite the party at our expense. Pardon us if it’s more than schadenfreude.

  27. Of course we’ve lost. Look around you. If we still had any strength, we wouldn’t have allowed it to get like this. And yet, we’re still alive, so the struggle can (must) continue.

    Iraqi’s Sunnis in 2003: “we’ve lost”.

    Iraqis Sunnis in 2014 – have their own state again, control 1/3rd of Iraq, 1/3rd of Syria and tons of oil, have a new aristocracy, which arose organically, in the way that aristocracies have always arisen.

    How did they come back from their defeat? Not through conservatism or conserving the status quo.

  28. VXXC — you think it’s clichéd to express a hope that’s been expressed many times before — a hope for a better world for EVERYONE and not just certain groups? I didn’t think of a unique enough way to say it?

    When I looked up ali ali infree, I found something in the Urban Dictionary about the U.S. becoming the United States of Mexico — and something in Wikipedia about the rules of the game changing and everyone being safe. I’m guessing the latter definition comes closer to whatever point you were trying to make.

    Again, I’m not so naïve as to assume that our society (or in my case, United States society) is completely fair or safe. I’ve seen enough to know that it’s not wise to put all my trust in any one person — be they feminist, politician, lawyer — or minister, for that matter. The more of a voice that each person can have — right down to the very least — the safer the world will become. I see the Internet is a great tool in aid of this, because literally everyone can have a voice now.

    About the Sharia thing — it comes across like you’re saying that there HAS to be a dominant group and a submissive group….like you’re okay with living under something like Sharia law, just so long as you can be the male and not the wife or the maid. It’s as if you’re accepting the idea that oppression is just a fact of life, and you’re rejoicing in the expectation that once you finally get your boots laced up, you can kick women back into what you see as their God-anointed role.

    Schadenfreude — happiness gained from the suffering of others. Again, you seem to believe it’s impossible for there to be enough happiness and joy for everyone. Your god must indeed be a stingy and impoverished god.

  29. Susan, my motto is that of Joshua: for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

    Yield to the state? More like accommodate it on non essentials. If they get to nasty, vote the bastards out. If they will not leave, kick them out.

    I pay my taxes and I am polite. Most of the time. But my scorn is reservef for those who consider this place is fair.

    What VXXC and some of the other blokes are talking about — particularly with men being treated like maids under sharia in most US states — happens. It’s true.

    As a divorced man the solution for this non American is simple: I did not date for years when raising my boys, refuse to date anyone from the USA, refuse to travel there, and I advise my boys to do the same.

    The USA has never been good at that colonial, imperialistic stuff. The British empire would have hung every member if ISIS, and stuck a safe King over ancient Babylon. The consequences of your liberal elite is that a handful of guerrillas have taken out the largest conventional army in the world, after losing multiple times to the same group.

    Sorry, but the USA has just lost. And the elite in your country call it good.

  30. I don’t know anyone who now sees the war in Iraq as good — but maybe that’s because I don’t hang out with any of the elites you’re talking about. Most people I know see it as a tragic and misplaced overreaction to 9/11 — not that 9/11 wasn’t a hugely devastating incident. It just seemed that the instinctive reaction was to seek revenge by creating heaps of unnecessary suffering for scores of innocent men, women, and children. There are still children being born with painful and debilitating deformities and diseases due to the bio-warfare we unleashed there.

    But we definitely lost our innocence long before that — look how we treated the Native Americans. The only way in which we’re starting to win is that growing numbers of us are looking at our past and current abuses and saying, “This is wrong!” But we definitely still have a long way to go.

  31. Progressives version of a better world is one with no Christians and were White men are under their boot, toiling away to support the unproductive. Most progressive are useful idiots like the hatchet wound y’all keep trying to argue with. Only fools argue with fools

  32. From your answers, the odds are, Susan, that you are young, at an elite college or a town close to one, and the town votes 90% Democratic. There is a small chance that you are Canadian and not from the USA (and a somewhat smaller chance you are from Britain or the Antipodes) but the same things apply.

    If you are a Brit, you read the Guardian.

    If you are an Aussie, you live in Melbourne or the trendiest parts of Sydney and hate, hate, hate Abbot. If a Canuck, my bet is Vancouver or Quebec.

    And if you are in the USA, God help you. I (no sarcasm) hope you did not get her on a university or work network.

  33. Reasoning? I remember when the left wanted the government to go in. I remember Bush getting congressional approval. And I remember the debates in NZ — Helen Clark was the PM when NZ joined the alliance.

    And Clark is not the number two in the UN. A very left wing, very competent, and very dangerous woman.

  34. I’m 50, and I didn’t go to an elite college, just an ordinary state university, and am now happily married with two beautiful daughters. Was blessed to be able to stay at home with them till they were 5 and 10, then when I needed to start bringing in an income due to my husband’s health issues, was blessed to be able to find a job that I really enjoy, and that also allows me to work from home, choose my own schedule, and have a lot more time with my family than I’d have had otherwise.

    So overall, life has been pretty good to me. And I’d like for it to be just as good to everyone else.

    That may be more personal information than anyone wanted — but I’ve been seeing so much stereotyping of feminists here that it seemed like a good idea to just throw out the fact that we’re not all focused on careers. We can be every bit as focused on family as any other woman or man.

  35. So Chris — what is ending? Are you saying that you won’t be working in the enclave much longer, or that your colleagues won’t be politically correct much longer? Because of what’s going on in the Middle East?

    Back to someone’s likening of men today to maids under Sharia law, and also to the common idea that all feminists hate men and want to punish them — I want to say that if I took the behavior of a few of the patriarchs here and applied it to the group, I’d be assuming that you all just hate women and want to punish them, too.

    For example, the man who labeled me a “hatchet-wound” — I guess that’s his way of saying he sees women as nothing more than castrated, mutilated males. Or maybe that’s just how he sees any woman who isn’t meeting his needs personally — she’s useless to him so she’s just a hatchet-wound.

    I for one don’t like hearing women going around saying stuff like “All men are dicks” — but actually, the women I hear that kind of stuff from the most are those who seem to be addicted to the wrong kind of man. Maybe that’s also the case for Mr. “hatchet-wound” here? Of course, I guess he won’t reply to me directly because he thinks that would make him look stupid, while talking about me and calling me names makes him look smart.

  36. The turn will come when the world becomes poor enough, violent enough, and frightening enough to bring women to their knees in the political and religious sense.

    When there is no more wealth to extort from hard working men, when a significant portion of men become godless and violent, when there is no benefit to attention-whoring, women will suddenly turn viciously against the hedonism they now practice gleefully.

    It is inevitable that one day the smug Paris-Hilton countenances of our women will turn to looks of abject fear and terror of the sudden decline of our civilization into one of lawlessness and violence.

    Now, there is currently no shortage of white knights who will rush to these womens’ aid, however, I am of the opinion that in a period of violent decline, all but the most ideological of white knights will probably insist on some sexual down-payments against his services of protection and provision.

    For me, being a black knight, I will gladly leave them to their self-engineered destruction. Only the most Christ-centered women will warrant any cost or risk on my part.

    I would rather burn my wealth and surrender to the barbarians that have even a cent of it go to assist the “reformed” harlots that surround us today. I wish them much luck in their efforts to shame the barbarians into proper feminist-approved behavior.

    I hope I live long enough to watch their frustration and anguish.

    There is little in life more satisfying that watching a prideful soul find itself in destruction with no way out, and no one to help.

  37. And whomever above said it was right on – the feminists want to turn white men into labor slaves to supply goods and services to the women and the “noble minorities” who are “oppressed”.

    One day, the productive men will vanish, leaving the hapless women with no one else to extort value from, and no answer to give to the underclass who will be demanding payment.

    But take heart, female feminists, we are merely neutral to you. Our real hatred is reserved for those men who SHOULD know better, but turn into moral weasels and throw other men under the bus in their efforts to white-knight and show off for the ladies.

    Why is this? Because women struggle mightily to see cause and effect, that I don’t really blame them much for their ignorance and arrogance in voting. It’s like blaming a child for having hubris. It comes with the gender. Women will vote in any and all manner of tyranny of themselves and others as long as it comes with promises of “provision and security”. Women are always fools and suckers for promises.

    Because women are cowards. They have no choice.

    But men can choose not to be cowards, and men should have courage and honor. It is up to men to understand the real world and to save women from their scared-little-ninny tendencies..

    Women always vote for tyrants and strongmen, because such men know how to tug at the childish heartstrings of women. And women will vote for any amount of heartless bloodshed, as long as THEY remain “safe”.

    We MUST forgive women, because they ARE the weaker sex. Weaker in resolve, in courage, and in honor. And despite their fecklessness, we are bound by duty to protect them as much as we can against their own self-destructive impulses.

    Unless they’re feminists.

  38. Jack, I’m sorry that you’re too blind to see that there are indeed many hardworking people of all colors and walks of life, as well as many courageous women. I realize that when you’re intent on demonizing all groups other than your own, it’s just natural, whenever you’re around people who aren’t like you, to eagerly watch for any signs that they might not be as hardworking or courageous as you. And when we’re determined to look for the worst in each other, we tend to find it.

    It takes courage to look for the best in those others with whom we feel we have practically nothing in common. For example, when I’m around a man who’s always putting women down, my natural inclination is to just write him off as an irresponsible ass — someone who’s too lazy to work on his own dysfunctional behavior and would rather just blame the women in his life for his inability to maintain a relationship.

    But I’ve lived long enough now to realize that most woman-haters are really just scared of change. They’ve learned some really negative behavioral patterns that make it impossible for them to have a positive, healthy relationship. But they’re scared because they’ve come to identify these behaviors as “manly” — meaning that if they let go of them and learn healthier ways of relating, they’ll be “pussies.”

    So it’s easier to just ditch the old relationship and start a new one — only, after a while, they see that one going sour, too. So they keep moving on, or sometimes give up on women altogether other than one-night stands. And they blame women for not being able to love them enough to accept their unacceptable behavior.

    They never think about the fact that THEY’D never be willing to put up with the crap they dish out to their spouses, because they’re so entrenched in their view that women are an entirely different species, that it seems unreasonable to them that their wives would simply expect the basic respect and consideration that they’d show one of their buddies.

    And when seeing other men who’ve actually managed to make a happy life with one woman, they console themselves by saying, “Well, he’s just a pussy and a coward. He gave up his manliness to please that ‘hatchet-wound.'”

    I’m thinking you must really define courage much differently than I do. Judging by your following statement — “There is little in life more satisfying that watching a prideful soul find itself in destruction with no way out, and no one to help” — I gather that you see compassion for others as weakness and cowardice, and glee in others’ suffering as courage.

    But I, for one, don’t feel like it would be courageous for me to take pleasure in the suffering of your prideful soul. I really do hope that you get help, and that you are able to eventually enjoy a loving relationship.

  39. Basically, you’re completely wrong about me.

    And once someone repents, I forgive. It is the prideful, unrepentant soul that I take satisfaction in seeing fall into their own snare.

    And you have an absolutely uninformed view about the current landscape between men and women, especially in the Church where womens’ most egregious sins of disrespect and infidelity are pinned on the men, while the smallest of male transgressions are turned into a mortal sin.

    The simplest case in point:

    1. Cheating husband: caused by lustful, unloving husband.
    2. Cheating wife: Caused by inattentive, unloving husband.

    We have reached the point where we are no longer able to call women out on their sin, because the Church AND secular establishment have decided that there is no greater evil than a woman who experiences negative emotions or “feels judged”.

    And let’s realize something: The gender war did not exist until the feminists decided to declare it. The old myths about the “oppression of women” is nothing more than historical revisionism designed to stoke the emotional fires of female indignation.

    Once inspired to indignation, the women were easily herded into battle formation and the war on men began. Of course, the men did not realize this at first, and we tried to give the feminists everything they wanted.

    But it was never enough. It became clear that feminism was never really about equality, it was about securing every privilege and benefit possible, and making sure that men were picking up the tab for it. Feminism is nothing more than a political movement built out of entitlement mentality and a carefully crafted narrative of the “evil” of men.

    Here’s the final deal, Susan, I really don’t care if you agree with me, ever. There are a few women who do understand the truth, and are on the side of fairness and care of others.

    The real battlefield is the hearts and minds of men, who are the chief enablers of feminism. I don’t have to win over the women, just a majority of the men. This will become easier as feminism continues to over-reach in every domain (check out the “guilty-until-proven-innocent” campus sexual assault paradigm that is coming).

    The greed for power and control will be their undoing, because at a certain point, men will be unwilling to have a one-way social contract where women get all the protection, all the privilege, and men bear all the costs and responsibilities.

    So, you’re part of the grievance machine, and you probably very self-righteously think that you are doing right and doing the will of God by pursuing feminist ends. Well, the Apostle Paul was so very certain he was doing the Lord’s work as well, even as he slaughtered the innocent.

    I hold no ill will against you, Susan, but I cannot tolerate the unchecked promotion of feminist ideology any longer. So, I will convert every man possible to think like me. And together, we will stop the runaway train of lies and injustice that feminism has become.

    If you can lay down your pride and your prejudices long enough, perhaps you might even be able to see for yourself some of the massive destruction feminism has caused. Are you brave enough to do that? Or will you still tightly cling to your victim status as “oppressed woman” and use that to pry money and rights out of the hands of others?

    Here’s a woman who understands the problem:


  40. Jack, I don’t know what church you’re a part of, but in my church, we value honesty and fidelity on the part of both men and women. If you’re in a church that blames men if their wives are unfaithful — well, that’s just as bad as being in a church that blames women if their husbands stray. Both men and women should take responsibility for their own choices.

    I was indeed in a church once where some of the preaching/teaching included comments about how important it was for women to make sure they looked nice because their husbands were going to work in offices with lots of hot, sexy women and would be tempted.

    And on the one hand, I agree that caring for our appearance is part of respecting ourselves — but it seems to me that a lot of the advice floating around about “not letting yourself go” is directed much more heavily towards women than men, even though men seem every bit as prone as women towards putting on some extra weight as the years pass, and to enjoying a break from personal hygiene habits like shaving on days when they’re just hanging around the house.

    If my husband is periodically tired and doesn’t want to shave, or puts on a little weight, I certainly don’t think he needs to be scared that I’ll stray towards some guy who works out and always looks perfect. I DO like for him to take care of himself because I like for him to feel good and I want him to be around a for a long, long time. And of course I want the same good health and happiness for myself. But I’m not frantically looking in the mirror and worrying about all the younger, hotter women he may be tempted by.

    And I reject social messages that try to use fear to motivate women to take care of themselves.

    Chances are that you, being male, tend to pick up on more of the social messages that blame men for marriage problems — while I, being female, tend to pick up on more of the social messages blaming women. The truth is, I’m sure that both kinds of messages exist and both are wrong. We each need to recognize our own power to make the right choices, and surround ourselves with the people and resources that can empower us to be our best selves.

    And regarding infidelity: my primary reason for not cheating is how rotten I’d feel about myself if I went against my own moral code and broke my vows to my husband. Though I love my husband and also would never want to hurt him in this way, my not cheating is much more tied to my desire to always be able to like the person I see in the mirror than to whether he always meets all my needs. And I think any man who’s worth his salt is capable of being faithful, irregardless of his wife’s imperfections.

  41. I’ve been looking into the statistics on male and female infidelity, and also trying to find out whether men or women are more likely for forgive a cheating spouse. It seems that while more women are cheating on their husbands than ever before, the percentage of men who cheat is still slightly higher than that of women.

    However, men are more likely than women to divorce a cheating spouse.


    In my opinion, the typically male approach of just making a clean break when you know you can’t trust your spouse anymore seems a lot healthier than the typically female approach of trying to forgive but becoming increasingly bitter. Kudos to those brave and honest men! I hope more women will be empowered to follow their example!

  42. “There comes a time when a house has been so damaged by termites that you must not only kill the termites, but demolish the house and build again!”

  43. Susan-

    In this particular time, a woman is far more likely to have her sin explained away or mitigated in some way than a man would.

    The Christian community is scarcely better than the secular world when it comes to finding ways to excuse womens’ sin.

    For example, try to get a pastor to criticize the reading of “50 shades of grey”. Many women will rebel against such instruction. 50 shades is nothing but textual porn. But pastors have no problem railing away at men who look at porn.

    So, there is a tremendous double standard. I recall a story where a Christian woman wanted to get Edward Cullen Twilight sheets for the marital bed.

    Her husband was very offended, and the pastor did not back him up, calling her infatuation with fantasy vampires “harmless”.

    Okay, then the guy should be free to go look at some “harmless” Playboy magazines then.

    Then comes the typical female response: “that’s different”.

    There is a spirit of female lust, attention seeking, and infidelity loose in the Church.

  44. Jack, I agree that all double standards are wrong. It’s like what I’ve mentioned earlier about over-correction. Throughout history, women have been a lot more likely then men to be hit by their spouses, or cheated on — though the numbers of women who cheat is actually getting closer to the numbers of men now. So people’s minds are geared towards always assuming that the woman is the victim in a bad relationship — but in some cases, it’s actually the man.

  45. You’re not getting it.

    There is a universe of difference between a society that regards a certain act as shameful, and overt bullying of a person.

    All you need to do is look around and see how absolutely wanton young women are getting. Public displays of the most lascivious behavior is becoming quite commonplace.

    And it is all done in the name of “empowerment”.

    So, Susan, you can keep on with the current social structure, where there is no judgment, no criticism, no expectation of decent behavior, and just wait and see how bad it gets.

    And yes, sluts should be deeply ashamed of their actions, because slutty behavior will destroy a society and lower it to a barbaric level. I doubt you really believe that though.

    Either way, there is no going back, and we soon will have all the exhibitionist sluts we could have ever dreamed of.

    All I know is that I will do everything in my power to illuminate the minds of men to the damage that is being caused. And to help convince men to never, never, never consider marrying a woman with a promiscuous past, because there is every chance that someday she will return to it.

    If I thought it was possible to turn a formerly promiscuous woman into a suitable wife, I would advocate that such a woman might be worthy of marriage, but :

    Only if she fully and thoroughly repents of every act of sexual sin, and enters the marriage will the full humility of one who has been forgiven much.

    I will not marry a woman who refers to her serial fornication college years as “just a little fun, and you can’t judge me”.

    I can, and I will.

    No Rings for Sluts ™.

  46. One point I forgot to make, when linking to the article about the girl’s suicide, was that slut-shaming seems to be exclusively directed towards promiscuous females. I rarely hear promiscuous males being referred to as sluts (the terms used to refer to promiscuous males, such as “ladies’ man,” seem much less severe) —

    Which leads into my second point: notwithstanding the emergence of some double-standards that favor women, such as the idea that women’s preferred form of porn is somehow superior to men’s preferred form — the continued existence of slut-shaming, and the fact that it’s exclusively focused on women, is evidence that patriarchy is still a pretty strong thread running through modern U.S. society. I think that many people today still accept the old adage that “boys will be boys…and sow their wild oats.”

    The slut-shaming discussed in the article actually seemed to pretty much be carried out by young girls, which demonstrates that patriarchal ideals are still being absorbed and promoted by today’s young females.

    As far as who makes good marriage material, both men and women are free to decide whether their prospective partner has been too promiscuous, or is repentant enough, to settle down and be a good mate. That’s totally each individual’s call.

    But it seems weird that you Dark Enlightenment guys are so concerned about whether women are sufficiently repentant of any bad sexual choices they may have made. Don’t you think it’s equally important that a man who’s made bad choices is repentant? Of course, I understand that this website’s pretty much focused on advising other guys about how to have a good marriage.

    But isn’t BEING the right kind of person a HUGE part of creating a good marriage?

    Also, if you guys don’t have a sexual double standard, it might be a good idea, whenever one of you uses the term “slut,” to specify that you’re talking about both men and women whom you judge as being too sexually active outside of marriage.

    Personally, rather than having a hodge-podge of double-standards — some that favor women and some that favor men — and resorting to name-calling as a means of trying to control others through shame, I’d rather see people valuing HUMAN decency and caring about being good PEOPLE, whatever their sex happens to be.

  47. Also, FN previously wrote a post comparing the economic costs of resorting to prostitution for sex vs. resorting to “game” for sex. What do you think about this, Jack, since you seem to believe people who have promiscuous sex should be ashamed? Based on that post, FN doesn’t seem to be advocating for “shame” over extramarital sex, yet in his recent post on patriarchy, he seems to be saying that “slut-shaming” is an important aspect of patriarchy.

    For a group that tends to label women irrational — your philosophical foundation seems highly inconsistent. I mean, extramarital sex is either shameful for both men and women or okay for both men and women.


  48. Susan-

    It is not really possible to be a male “slut”, per se. It IS possible to be promiscuous, but you first need to understand that the reason for most of these sex double standards is that men and women are valued differently BY EACH OTHER.

    Women DON’T CARE nearly as much about a man’s past as men do about a woman’s. That’s a fact, and it is pointless to deny it. Oh sure, Sally Sunshine at the local church might be an exception, but let’s be honest with each other.

    All of the Christian women I know who were (or claim to be) virgins prior to marriage ALLLLLLLL dated and married men who had numerous prior sex partners. Because chastity is far down the list of important things for women.

    You can try to BS me or yourself all you want, but no one is buying it anymore.

    Chicks dig jerks, and that is THAT. You can talk until you’re blue in the face trying to convince me or anyone else otherwise, but we believe our OWN EYES, instead of your lamentations about how things “should be”.

    Now, men very highly value female chastity prior to marriage. Why?

    Because women have most of the sexual power, both before and after marriage.

    The reason men are never called sluts is because most men could not achieve slut status. Much effort is needed to get laid for the majority of men (the phrase “get lucky” did not come from nowhere).

    However, the garden variety girl next door could sleep with 100 men over the course of a year without hardly trying. A woman who craves sexual variety before marriage will likely not change after, and it is proven out by the fact that most women get divorced because “we grew apart” or “I love you, but I’m not IN LOVE with you”.

    This is all female code-speak for “I need my engine revved again, and that will require a new man”.

    So, no rings for sluts.

    Will I date them? Yes. Will I be friends with them? Sure!

    Will I even “have fun” them? Why not, but only if they’re already damaged goods.

    But there will be no ring, no commitment, no promise that I will love them until death do us part.

    Because sluts love no one but themselves. Because if they DID love anyone else, they would never have behaved as they did.

    Here’s a little challenge for you, Susan:

    Go try to convince 10 young women that chastity before marriage is something they should insist on, even if it means they don’t get a “hot” guy.

    You will get laughed into oblivion.

  49. Promiscuity is equally immoral for both men and women, to answer your question.

    However, the damage to a woman’s marriage value is – unfairly – greater than it is to a man’s.

    And there is no way for you and your feminist cohorts to “instruct” this out of the human animal.

    Here’s a little food for thought – I used to be the male version of a slut. No, I was not sexually promiscuous, but I WAS “easy” when it came to commitment and provision.

    I bought lots of dinners. I moved lots of furniture for girls. I picked them up at the airport. I allowed them to cry on my shoulder when one of their jerky bad-boy boyfriends dumped them.

    I fixed their cars.

    And all because I thought that someday they are going to stop wanting to be hurt and start wanting someone who cared for them and respected them.

    HAHHAhHAHAHAHAHAHHAH.. Lozolzolzozolzozlzlo!!!!!!

    Foolish CHRISTIAN MAN! Women will alllllwaaays want the bad boy. It’s how they’re wired. They get those deep-down tummy butterflies for the jerky cocky guys – and the tummy tingle rules all.

    I now know the truth Susan, that women never go for the “good man” until they are finally so broken from chasing “exciting” men that they finally talk of settling.

    Well, this is one man who will not be settled for, and condescended in such a manner.

    Nor do I perform acts of kindness for women anymore. They ignored me while I was young, and now I will ignore them when they are old, the bloom is off the rose, and they are no longer able to gain male attention like they used to, and are looking for a sucker to whom they can sell the fading remains of their innocence.


    I’ve been used for resources one too many times by your gender, Susan, and I will not play “fake provider slut” for your sisters any more.

    The Christian church is full of women whose hearts are hardened against men, whose minds have been filled with lies about “patriarchy” and “oppression” and so forth, and who have succeeded in removing almost all incentive to be a good man anymore.

    Being a good Christian man is to doom oneself forever to “you’re such a nice guy, let’s just be friends”.

    Yes, Susan, I am a first class jerk now and a a-hole, and you have only your own kind to blame. You made me this way.

  50. I’m sorry about your hurtful experiences, Jack — but generalizing about women is just as bad as generalizing about men. I won’t deny that there are some women who always “friend zone” all the nice guys. But there are also some sweet “girls next door” who keep hoping the nice guys will finally stop running after the girls who keep “friend-zoning” them, and notice the ones who really ARE attracted to them.

    For example, take those awful murders committed by Elliot Rodger because he was so morose over no pretty girl being sufficiently attracted to him to sleep with him. If he’d been willing to look for girls within his own range of attractiveness, he probably could have found at least one who’d love even the likes of him. But no — he was hankering after the sorority girls.

    In other words, for every woman who friend zones all the nice guys who really care about her, there’s a man who does the same thing to all the nice, sincere girls who really care about him. Because there are just as many men as women who see the one who doesn’t desire them as the most desirable.

    As you can probably gather, I was one of the “girls next door” who daydreamed about guys whom my mom used to tell me were “out of my league.” But one day, I just decided I wanted to fall in love with someone who really loved me, and I did.

    With this in mind, I wanted to respond to your last sentence — about how women are to blame for making you a jerk and a-hole. Would MEN be to blame if I’d just become bitter over never getting the attention of the Big Man on Campus, and never fallen in love with someone who loved me and gotten married and had a family? NO! I’d be to blame.

    Don’t you agree?

  51. Jack, here’s one more attempt to logically show you how inconsistent you’re being. You say women are to blame for you becoming the kind of person that you perceive as a jerk and an a-hole. You feel this is what women “dig,” so you have no choice but to comply with their fantasy.

    But what would you think of me if I said that I’d decided to dress and behave in ways that were contrary to the person I was inside, all because I’d perceived that men paid a lot more attention to the women who behaved like that than they did to me when I was being myself?

    Would you say, “Don’t be an idiot” — or would you say, “Yeah, you really have no choice — that’s what guys ‘dig’ so you just have to abandon who you are and act like someone you really don’t want to be, and it’s all MEN’s fault.” Chances are, you’d feel like me blaming men was just a copout.

    One unspoken tenet of patriarchy seems to be that women are held responsible for men’s moral conduct as well as their own. It’s bizarre because the most vehement proponents of patriarchy only tolerate their own women voting right now because they know it’s the only way to compete with the liberals. In an ideal world in which they were in charge, only the male head of each household would be allowed to vote.

    We’re seen as being responsible and “to blame” for so much — and yet how can you hold someone you perceive as too childlike to vote responsible for anything?

    One piece of advice: if a girl you like “friend-zones” you, just treat her as you would a friend — but only if she’s a real friend to you. Friends help each other — it’s not a one-sided thing. They help each other move, treat each other to dinner or a home-cooked meal, and listen to each other. If she tries to make your friendship a one-sided thing, she’s not your friend.

  52. If you see me as inconsistent, then it is because you do not understand my positions.

    I am not faking being a jerk to “get chicks”, the way a pickup artist might.

    My “jerk-ness” is a profound mistrust of womens’ intentions. I don’t even blame them wholly, because they have been so seduced by our culture. However, Christian women have a choice to be seduced by the world, so there is some blame to be had.

    Also, your reference to Elliot Rodger is beyond offensive. Comparing a Christian man who is disappointed and sad that he missed out on a wife and children is not even remotely the same thing as a man who seethes with rage that he is not able to join the Hollywood fornication society. Seriously – you really don’t get it. Your credibility really goes out the door unless you retract that comparison.

    Here’s the final deal, Susan – I really don’t care to try and change your mind, because in the end, you are a woman, and probably fairly feminist as well. Therefore, you are inherently hostile to even trying to understand the views of men. Even if you try, you will be squirming around trying to find some comparison to “men do it too”, so as to mitigate any sense of female culpability.


    Also, you make the same tired arguments that have been debated a million times, and soundly answered. You want to be right, and that is all that really matters to you.

    I want WHAT is right, and I want women to stop abusing the souls of men, to stop abusing the goodness of men, and to stop abusing the patience and generosity of men.

    The absolute ingratitude of the modern woman is grating and wearisome. More, more, more of what you want, want, want.

    I’m done trying to convince the ladies, instead I will evangelize the men.

    Evangelize them to do what?

    –To not marry.

    –To not give favors, attention, time, or resources to any woman who is not a relative or a VERY good friend.

    –To not automatically take a woman’s side when she claims a man did something bad, because there are countless documented cases where women lied about a man in order to seek revenge over something (i.e. false rape accusations, false domestic violence accusations, etc.)

    –To not “white knight” for screwed-up women by blaming men for causing the woman’s sin

    –To let all these “strong independent women” to prove how strong and independent they really are. You don’t need a man? Good – you don’t get one.

    In short, I encourage men to withdraw their time, resources, and attention/affection.

    This is a moral way to express our displeasure at the exploitive and abusive way the modern woman treats and regards the modern man. I’m tired of being treated like garbage by them, and I will respond by withdrawing.

    But look at it this way – I’m such an awful, white patriarchal bad man – why, the ladies should be thrilled that I’m not going to be involved in their lives. They will miss my tax money, though, when I finally move from the US to somewhere in SA or Asia.

    Can’t have it all, I guess.

  53. Jack, I’m sorry about the reference to Elliot Rodger. The reason he came to mind was that he got so frustrated that no woman was attracted to him — but he seemed to only be focused on one particular group of women. And I was feeling rather doubtful about your inability to find even ONE nice girl who didn’t just relegate you to the friend zone because she preferred jerks.

    But I certainly don’t see dislike and distrust of women as at all in the same league as murder, anymore than I see every angry woman as a Lorena Bobbitt.

    I wondered if maybe the nice girls who WOULD have liked to be more than friends with you just weren’t the type that excited you, at least at first glance — because just as there are women who find the men who blow them off to be the most exciting, there are also men who are always the most attracted to the women they have to work the hardest for and get hurt the most by.

    And in both cases, while I don’t think very highly of men or women who are willing to string along and use a person that they know is in love with them and that they know they don’t feel the same way about, I have to say that I don’t feel those people are to blame for the pursuers’ obsession with the unobtainable.

    For example, I recently visited Sunshine Mary’s old blog and read the story she posted about buckle bunnies — the women who follow the rodeo, and are just standing by, ready to sexually service the men, and also to provide them with a place to stay, a hot meal, and even large sums of money if they ask for it. All they supposedly want in return is the honor of being with a rodeo stud, even if just for a fleeting moment.

    I think it’s pretty crappy for any man to avail himself of this kind of arrangement — but I can’t say that the men are to blame for these women’s obsession with rodeo studs.

    I do believe in taking personal responsibility for the things that each of us has personal control over, and I think it’s a copout for either a man or woman to say they were permanently screwed up because there were no good women or men out there. If you’ve always been attracted to the kind of girl who’s caused you nothing but pain, maybe you should give a new kind of girl a chance, even if you’re not initially excited by her.

  54. why do douchebag feminists always hijack threads. Susan you are fucking retarded and all i see you type is the same regurgitated horseshit every feminist types online. your husband is doubt a beta male and you apparently have no understanding of evolutionary biology. im too lazy to try and explain to you why its not a good look for women to take up multiple partners. no one likes sluts. except to fuck. get over it. they cause distrust in communities (have some sluts hang around your beta hubby while youre gone, lets see how “empowered” you think they are) and they have blown out, pastrami sandwich vaginas. plus 100 other fucking reasons. go watch true blood and eat some ice cream.

  55. Susan-

    I’m sure you think you are stating original thoughts and “advice”, but it is the same old feminist talking points. Nothing you said was original. I’ve debated your statements over and over with dozens of women just like you, and the “advice” is always the same.

    Know what? I don’t care if you ever agree with me, because I am not trying to reach you. Because you are mostly unreachable.

    Women will not be dislodged from the lies and delusions they have been fed. Therefore, I will continue to preach the truth to MEN, and get them to stop dancing to the feminist drum beat.

    I really do not have any ill will toward you, I just regard you as a sort of robot that repeats irrelevant words. So I will expend my energy on those that can be saved.

    And I am dedicated to saving men from the evils of feminism, and from being under the control of feminist women.

  56. By the way Susan, read the comments section of a very popular blog:


    My viewpoint is slowly prevailing. I want to see men ignoring and avoiding American Women on a large scale. Freeze them out and give them no friendship or attention.

    Nothing personal, perhaps you are a very nice person. But overall, it is time men stood up for themselves and insisted on some respect from the skanky, show-off American twits.

  57. Andy – For you to be so insulting, it seems like what you call “regurgitated horseshit” still has the power to touch a lot of raw nerves. I do understand the natural tendency, if you’ve been unlucky in finding or keeping a wife, to comfort yourself by insisting that every man who’s enjoyed more success than you have in this area must have sacrificed his manhood to do so. It’s kind of similar to the unpopular girls (I used to be one) comforting themselves by saying the popular girls are all dumb, shallow, and mean. I’m really sorry that you haven’t been able to grow up and move on yet.

    Jack – Okay, so you’ve concluded that there’s no problem like the one I suggested – of you finding the unattainable or uninterested women the most attractive, so you’re going to try your luck outside the U.S. Best wishes to you. We’ll do our best to survive without your tax money.

  58. I find it very telling that you keep insisting that I am pursuing unattainable women.

    I think you are probably projecting your own over-reaching history onto me.

    No, the women I now have as options are all too attainable. Problem is, when they were younger, slimmer, and more innocent, they were too busy chasing after the kind of men you admit you were attracted to.

    I DIDN’T keep pursuing unattainable women while ignoring the plainer girls. Nope – I tried to pursue the average girls, but they were all too often clamoring around men who already had a harem of interested women.

    I remember one little Christian chubster that I thought was cute and fun. But she would scarcely talk to me, because she was so busy trying to impress the motorcycle-riding bad boy who already had a much, much hotter girlfriend.

    So, chubster kept charging away, trying to get motorcycle guy’s attention, while treating the average guys in church like we had the plague.

    This was my typical experience with Christian women – they were too busy trying to compete for a status-boyfriend rather than look for a relationship.

    And that is my final proof of why my analysis is correct and yours is incorrect. I was looking for a relationship, and the girls were looking for a “trophy” boyfriend so that they could feel as desirable as the more attractive women around them. This is nothing more than female materialism expressed in a dating sense. These women were slaves to their pride, and their pride demanded that they get a boyfriend every bit at “hot” as their much, much, much prettier and thinner sisters.

    Haha. Well, chubster never got motorcycle guy, no matter how hard she tried. And I’m sure it was humiliating and burned her every time motorcycle guy’s tall, gorgeous blonde girlfriend showed up at a group event looking HOT and how motorcycle guy paid rapt attention to her, while indulgently being nice to chubster.

    Now, I would have dated chubster, and really, she was in my league. But she would rather pine away for an unattainable guy and remain single than suffer the unbearable humiliation of dating “normal” guy like me.

    Pride goeth before a fall, and chubster fell hard. Despite being younger than me, she looks much older, and her face looks unhealthy and tired. And she did not get married until her very late 30s. And there is the weight gain, of course…

    Poor little chubster – her ego was shopping at Nieman Marcus, but her looks gave her a Sears budget.

    It must have been worth it, though. Dreaming about motorcycle guy was probably more fun than dating me, I guess.

    Now, Susan, I know what women are likely to say:

    “Gee, Jack, maybe she would have like you if you were not so bitter and angry.”

    But this bit of typical female illogic ignores the fact that being ignored and treated like crap is how I became this way. I used to be so kind, and so good, and after years of having Christian women kick me to he curb in favor of unsaved men, can you really blame me for finally giving up on them?

  59. I think I feel sorrier for you than I do for the woman you call “chubster.” After all, she apparently did get over her infatuation with the guy who wasn’t interested in her and find a real life person to share her life with. Getting married in your late thirties still gives you many good years to enjoy and make a life together.

    I am sorry about her weight issues, though. I myself had actually gained so much weight that I was morbidly obese a couple of years ago — but thankfully, I finally got “sick and tired of being sick and tired” (to borrow from Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer), and shed quite a bit of my weight. It’s great being able to go up and down the stairs, and do my housework and take walks, without being out of breath or in pain!

    I started this transformation at around age 48, so I think there’s hope for your heavy friend or acquaintance, too. One thing about women is that we’re capable at any age of being reborn — I’m not saying that men aren’t, but women seem a lot more open to it. But it’s true that our ovaries aren’t reborn, so a woman who gets married in her late thirties isn’t likely to be able to have a ton of kids, which may seem like the end of the world to a Dark Enlightenment guy.

    I did become pregnant with my second and youngest child just after turning forty, but of course there’s no guarantee that ANY woman of any age can become pregnant and carry a pregnancy to term, and the risks of infertility and miscarriage increase drastically as we age. So for a man for whom a large family directly from his loins is a must, it makes sense to pursue the young women. I just feel sorry for any one of them who marries one of you guys and ends up struggling with infertility!

    Because when you’re rigidly stuck to one blueprint for what a good life looks like, it can seriously limit your capacity to enjoy all the wonderful gifts that keep coming your way, if only you could see them.

    Here’s a link to an essay that may seem unrelated — but it’s really all about being to embrace what we have. I hope you’re eventually able to revive your capacity for love and joy, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere.


  60. I am probably going to follow the example set by the Christian women I know, which is to look after me, me, and then me, and then if they just so happen to trigger my interest, I will allow them to entertain me until such time that I lose interest.

    I’m in my mid 40s, and I really do not want to have a 15 year old when I’m in my 60s. Also, children deserve to have a fair chance that their parents will be around, so having children late in life runs the risk that they will lose their parents at much earlier age. That would have been hard on me, so I won’t risk doing it to my kids.

    And listen, you are talking to a seasoned expert on learning to live with the crap life gives us and finding ways to cope. I am no longer fighting for my own ability to experience love and/or joy but instead to prevent others from having the experiences I had.

    If I can prevent a few men from allowing women to use them for emotional support and resources while at the same time banging their non-believer boyfriend, I will consider it a life well lived.

    It is time that women no longer are able to turn men into their chore mules, crying shoulders, and scratching posts.

    A girl wants attention or help from me? Well, it ain’t free. It will cost “girlfriend services”, if you know what I mean. Hey, most girls have given a BJ or two to some guy they just met, and for nothing in exchange. Should be no problem to give one if I move their whole house full of furniture, right?

    Or is it back to the old way: BJs for random guys at parties, and a pat on the back for the guy who moves your fkng furniture and paints your living room?

    Pay up, ladies.

  61. You seem like a nice person, Susan, so I really don’t want to pick on you. But overall, it sounds like you have only an informal awareness of the realities of what men like me have faced, and frankly, unless you have directly experienced it, you’re simply not going to be able to understand or advise.

    Your energy would be more valuable if directed toward the women who are home reading Twilight and 50 shades of Grey, wondering when their hunky movie-star sexy vampire guy is going to show up and sweep them off their feet.

    Or advising slightly chubby plain janes to stop trying to get the captain of the football team to date them, and focus on what they can reasonably achieve, and to learn humility about the fact that they are plain janes, and will get an average guy, and that they are not entitled to more.

  62. It’s true that I’ve never walked in your shoes Jack. It’s equally true that you’ve never walked in my or any other woman’s shoes.

    It’s just fascinating to me to think that (this is just my guess but) if you met a woman with your degree of anger and disdain towards the opposite sex in the U.S., you’d most likely dismiss her complaints as whining and playing the victim when she really just brought her own problems on herself. Whereas your anger is oh-so righteous and justified.

    I guess if it works for you, it works for you. Personally, I prefer living in a broader and more open space, rather than being all boxed in.

Leave a Reply