Updated: Jan 31
Aristotle described man as a rational animal; and, as a sample from the online “manosphere”, I have just reread Rollo Tomassi’s The Rational Male. Rollo Tomassi is counted among the “three Rs” of the manosphere: Rollo, Roissy, and Roosh—each name is, naturally, a pseudonym; for what each man actually says would see them hounded from respectable society—or severely marginalised, anyway. The three developed from the emergent order forged from a myriad of forums and blogs in the early 2000s, forums and blogs mostly devoted to how to seduce women; initially, the movement started with the so-called “Pick-Up Artists” (PUAs) and concentrated on the tactics required to pick up a woman—usually derived from evolutionary psychology and behaviourism, but always with a healthy accent on practical experimentation in the field. This eventually terminated in definitive online books entitled Bang Latvia or The Fifty Golden Rules of Poon.
The manosphere itself branched out from those early PUAs and began to elaborate a worldview: a vision as regards positive masculinity. The movement gifted us the terms “red pill” and “blue pill”, in the political sense; for the manosphere contends—correctly—that Western societies live in a dream-world where the feminine imperative forms and interprets the rules in sexual relations, whereas the bleak reality is quite, quite different. “Welcome to the desert of the real.” The term “red pill” has now become a generic right-wing term to refer to any information that disrupts an individual’s programming, their programming being, in the West, liberal progressive in nature—a worldview based, in particular, on the denial that sex and race differences exist. The red pill wakes you up from the blue pill delusion.
The term was eventually taken up by the wider right, partly through Curtis Yarvin’s blog, and expanded to be a generic observation about the unreality crafted by the Western media, education system, and experts. Taken from gnostic film The Matrix (1999), the red-blue pill division dovetailed with the right’s predisposition to gnosticism—the desire to “be your own priest” in religion is the same as the right’s desire to scorn corrupt bureaucratic “experts” and work out your own diet, worldview, sexual stance, and so on. Our matrix is progressive liberalism (“wokeness”), a worldview that dominates the universities, think tanks, and mass media—a worldview that is basically normative, and especially excludes biological differences among humans. Just as the gnostic Jung urged his clients to explore their “shadow”, their darkness, so too the contemporary right explores “the darkness” in obscure anonymous forums, blogs, and YouTube channels—all to better survive in the sunlit, though corrupted, overworld. As it happens, “matrix” literally means “mother”; so this idea that the matrix is a place where feminine delusion and lies rule has a basis in the very language used to describe it.
What started as emergent behaviour to work out “how to pick up girls” took on a right-wing perspective by default—a radical right-wing perspective, in fact—because if you delve into how human sexual dynamics work then you will discover the following themes: the merciless Darwinian struggle for survival; the Pareto distribution, 20% of the men (the alphas) get 80% of the women; the attraction that power and violence hold for women that terminates in rape and strangulation fantasies; the reality that dutiful law-abiding “niceness” is often useless and that practical Machiavellianism gets results; the hypergamous nature of women, their desire to “marry up” and their short-termist willingness to detonate a relationship to pursue a stronger horse; and, finally, the realisation that human sexual dynamics were formed by tribal competition—archaic wars were mostly caused by tribes kidnapping women to rape—and so it follows that tribal (racial) politics constitutes base social reality.
This is why people who start with a desire to understand how to pick up girls end with a racial nationalist perspective on life: to understand the dynamics that underpin sexual competition and acquisition is to understand the wider struggle for life—and this struggle is concealed at all levels within the West, just as it was concealed in the Soviet Union.
The Internet’s anonymous emergent order uncovered certain concealed facts about life; and, in turn, it revitalised the organic emergent order that has long been obscured in the West—cast into outer darkness. In a sense, it rediscovered society—a word that, etymologically, means a group of men who follow a king; by contrast, most Western states have been vast administrative bureaucracies for at least a century: there is no “society”, the bureaucratic state atomises the population—there is no king, only committees that manipulate procedural outcomes and use the committee structure to avoid responsibility for the decisions they take. Hence a popular website that sprang from the manosphere is called The Return of Kings—start out trying to get laid, end up in an attempt to restore throne and altar.
From Hegel to Marx to Rawls, the commonality in leftist thought, broadly put, remains the idea that biology is not important to human affairs—biology is incidental, only skin deep. As a Ghanaian biology student once said to me, “Race is just melanin! It’s just skin colour, that’s all!” Well, I suppose sex is “just tits and a vagina”; if you have those you are a woman—and, indeed, this is what our system believes; and it will provide you the documents to make it so, even before the surgery. Biology is the big no-no—it was so when Hegel brusquely dismissed phrenology as nonsense, perhaps because he himself was an ugly beggar.
Biology is the softest science, yet it is the hardest for the left to swallow—the left is happy with big-brained nuclear physicists who can tinker with an atom bomb, but the humble bug-hunter or monkey-man gives them the chills. This is one reason why anthropology—a field that could be defined as “the study of the races of man”—was among the first sciences to be trashed and utterly corrupted by the left; it was a big threat—and if it were properly conducted today it would provide constant refutations to the popular nostrums put out by the establishment. Hence it is firmly muzzled and reduced to participant-observer field trips to the local Starbucks to produce papers entitled: “Lipstick and Lattes: youth socialisation and rites of passage in Southwestern American white females aged 15-23”.
So the Internet, itself an organic web of life, naturally developed—all on its own—biological perspectives on human behaviour; and the manosphere represents these views as they pertain to sex. Unlike information about race, there was a market for this information—people want sex, whereas information about race is a slightly more luxury and recondite item; and this is why the information on sex relations thrown up by online collaboration is high quality, whereas the information on race is still a bit tainted by genuine prejudices or beliefs. This is not to say the information on race online is not inegalitarian, nor is it to say that race is not a biological and spiritual reality—online information is still better than the establishment’s lies, and confirms race as an objective reality. It is just there is less incentive and competition to fine polish the information. However, there is a market for information on sex (and how!): there was competition among PUAs and their descendants—among the “three Rs” and more—and so the information was refined through competition upon competition until it reached its informational climax in Bang Latvia.
However, there is a certain limit to what the manosphere produces: for example, to produce a saleable product “the three Rs” and their imitators had to tell certain lies. Tomassi provides a useful example as to how this is so, for he asserts that it is possible for a person to change their personality. To go from an “average frustrated chump” or “beta male” to being “alpha”—the manosphere promises to take you from beta to alpha; although, as we shall see, it eventually takes you from alpha to omega. Tomassi has to make these promises because he sells a product—just like all the other manosphere content-producers—and there is no product if you cannot tell people that they can change themselves and change their lives!
The manosphere is an American phenomenon, and the “you-can-change-your-life” view is itself typically American: you can leave the Old World and become someone entirely new, shed that Catholic or Jewish skin at Ellis Island and be whoever you want to be. In a sense, America, as an idea, remains inherently on the left: it views a person as a blank state that can be formed into whatever they wish, if they are enterprising enough—and this applies to sex as much as money-making as much as learning a hobby. It also makes America more brutal, because in the Old World you knew your place—if you left it you might succeed or fail, yet there was no recrimination if you did nothing or it went wrong; in America, everyone is supposedly “self-made” from the blank (or almost blank) slate. Therefore, to fail in America is to fail completely—to be a literal nobody, it is all your fault.
The European attitude to these matters, perhaps best encapsulated by Michel Houellebecq, remains more pessimistic and realistic. Not an alpha male? Look like a malformed jug? Autistically shy? Thailand or Japan—go there, drown in pussy. Change myself? Put on a leotard like some pédé from California? Improve myself? Be my best self? What the fuck is the fucking “manosphere”? What the fuck is this gay shit? Fuck you! (Sticks another Gitanes in his mouth, books flight to Thailand).
At this point, some terms should be clarified. The basic insight that the manosphere has into human sexual relations is summed up in the old expression: “Treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen.” All its tricks and hacks—known as “game” in the man-o-jargon—stem from that insight, perhaps because at a certain point it became politically incorrect to offer up that old saw. In a sense, the manosphere exists because many people lack the imagination or confidence to develop their own back-handed compliments—and fair enough. Similarly, to an extent, it is not about what it purports to be about (practical dating tactics, if you like)—the sexes like to talk about each other, people like to gossip about sex; and the manosphere is as much about gossip and theoretical discussions as it is actual practical advice, much as some people discuss politics or football from the armchair as a hobby—although the manosphere is sold as practical, this is just the way to make gossip or imaginative speculation acceptable to a certain type of man who sees himself as practical, logical, and no-nonsense.
During the Cold War, MI6 dug an elaborate tunnel into East Berlin to tap the Red Army’s phone lines: when a linguist who worked on the project was interviewed about it years later he recounted that the traffic on the phone line was “the officers talking about sex, mostly”; just as that practical Red Army phone line was mostly used for gossip and “fishing stories” (in other words, bigger or smaller whoppers) about sexual exploits, so too the manosphere—devoted to “rational self-improvement”—contains a strong unacknowledged socialisation or recreational element to it; although, as with that phone line, it has a practical purpose too—it is just much less practical than it pretends to be, the revealed preference is for gossip.
The manosphere’s tactical ideas, such as “negging” (a back-handed compliment) or amused mastery, are all variations on the same theme; and all amount to playing the bad boy: the protagonist in a Mills and Boon adventure, or in a vampire serial. You have to be a man who could eat a woman up (and any other man in the vicinity), but who slightly restrains himself with her—he could murder her, but… It comes down to mystique, women require their imagination to be stimulated in order to feel sexual arousal, and so it is not a surprise that the man widely recognised as the first online PUA went by the moniker “Mystery”—the mystery man, the phantom of the opera.
The idea is that what women find most attractive is “the alpha male”, and this is true—the 20%, the dominant minority. What is the alpha male? The archetype is best expressed by Harrison Ford in his roles as Han Solo and Indiana Jones. For sure, he is handsome; but being handsome is not enough—he also has a boyish charm. He is rough and aggressive, but not evil. He rides the line; he shoots first and asks questions later, but he always has a confident smirk after he does something wrong—he is a charmer. “Hey, it’s me,” he says—and gives a little smirk. “You’re just like a naughty little boy. You’re so proud of yourself when you’ve done something wrong,” one of my girlfriends once said to me—and this is the effect to aim for.
Women enjoy outrage, they enjoy indignation—the alpha male creates just enough indignation, outrage, and mystery to keep a woman guessing and excited. She can then scold him, although she is more aroused than angry: “What have you done now?” For the manosphere, this is because he serves his own interests first and does not attempt to “pedestal” a woman—he does not seek her approval; and this creates excitement, the woman does not know what to expect—and that is attractive, the mystery draws you in.
Compare Han Solo to Luke Skywalker, especially in the first film: Skywalker is the under-confident boy, he is still learning to be a man—he is goody-goody, so goody-goody he even wears white all the time. For his part, Solo shoots a guy under the table who just wants Solo to pay back a debt—and Solo shoots first. Not goody-goody. Machiavellian and effective—a smuggler, not exactly evil but always with a happy-go-lucky scheme on the boil. Luke is not very attractive to women, although he is a looker, whereas the Solo character is and remains the romantic lead for women in that film, simply because he has attitude—and this is alphaness.
Similarly, Indiana Jones has a scene where Jones encounters a sword-wielding opponent; the opponent makes a big show as to his swordsmanship and we expect there to be a desperate hand-to-hand battle. Instead, Indy pulls out his revolver and shoots the swordsman dead in an instant. The scene is funny because it suddenly juxtaposes the old-fashioned skill of swordsmanship with the modern revolver, we were keyed up for this long fight scene and now it is all over suddenly our emotions are conflicted and we laugh—further, the scene undercuts our expectation that the hero will always be fair, actually he played dirty. After he shoots the man, Jones gives a little smug shrug. Again, this is alpha: “So, I’ve been naughty. And I know I’ve been naughty. I should have fought him fair and hand-to-hand, but I had a revolver so I just shot him. Whatta-ya-gonna-do-about-it?” This cockiness is alpha.
Of course, all these characteristics—smugness, cockiness, charisma—can greatly be aided if you are handsome, physically strong, and have an open personality type in the first place. The acne-ridden pudgy man who is shy, spends his days painting Warhammer statuettes, and barely makes eye contact is just not going to be a cocky, smug, self-confident playa. He will probably be nice and obliging and polite—kind to women. “His mother says he’s never any trouble—not at school or at home. He’s good as gold.” Oh dear. As Nietzsche would observe, the physical type feeds into the psychological type: the chiselled man is tough and indifferent—to other men and women; he does not come when he is told, he comes when he is good and ready. For the other type, women never come at all.
The problem with those who make a living from the manosphere is that they have to tell people they can change their personality—otherwise, how would they sell seminars in dismal resort hotels or one-to-one coaching on Zoom? Yet, as psychologists and we ourselves know, personalities do not change, not really; the personality is fixed—shades of the biological 80/20 again. Poets are born not made—same with alfas. Now, obviously, you can improve—you can force yourself in any direction, although it will always be forced. The manosphere’s ultimate strength lies in its observations about biology’s unalterable nature; and yet at the same time, to maintain viewership, they must say one part of nature in particular is alterable—you too can be “alpha”.
True, the alpha picture is complicated: it is situational and relational—it amounts to being the man who is in control of the situation, in control of other men and the situation more generally; to able to take everything in your stride and never be at a loss. For example, I was by no means physically fit at school, but I took part in debating competitions and I was good at it and could make people laugh—and this is power, it is to be the most powerful male in the room; for example, I could mock a teacher in a debate and it was allowed as part of the “debate game” and he could not punish me—and so I now had power over him.
When we debated with all-female schools, girls would sometimes bring me their phone number at the end—if I had dominated the debate, I was situationally alpha. I was more powerful than the teachers or the headmaster (if I mocked him); ergo, I was the alpha male—the other males had no comeback with regards to what I said to them. This is how ugly comedians get laid—often it is why they become comedians in the first place. Laughter is, after all, very much like an orgasm—an involuntary physical reaction that you cause in someone else; only tickling, itself linked to laughter, is comparable. So to make people laugh, especially at supposedly powerful adults, creates desire; power creates desire—mastery of the environment creates desire. The politician knows this too; after all, politics is show business for ugly people—you can get power from a speech where everyone listens to you, even if you are plain ugly you have a certain sex appeal now.
However, if the school’s best athlete had walked into the room and cut into the conversation, I would probably have lost alpha status; his immediate physical presence would unsettle me, and then he would have the advantage over me—unless I could quickly make other people laugh at him, although this is not always easy to do with a person who is genuinely popular and good-looking. So you see how alpha-ness is dynamic and situational—the status can change hand quickly; yet, at base, the true alpha, in the most objective sense, will have looks as well as charisma—and probably money too, financial provision being the secondary thing women look out for. Further, it will simply be easier to build natural charm and charisma from a solid physical base, being already attractive to people in general and women in particular; although, that said, there are handsome men who are painfully shy and could never manage the self-assured jerky charisma that characterises alpha-ness.
You will notice, incidentally, that the characteristics women find attractive in a man are also the characteristics that many men—if not most men—find to be anti-social. The bad boy who rides the line is also…the guy who will drop out from school with no qualifications. It is funny to watch Indy shoot a guy dead with a revolver…and yet, it is not honourable; it is sneaky, unmanly, cowardly—it is womanly, actually.
The cocky jerk who walks into the army or even a large corporation with “an attitude” will be ground down by boot camp, by the NCOs—indeed, the way the military shaves a person’s head, literally de-personalises them, when they enter boot camp is aimed to immediately neutralise any cockiness; the recruit is no longer “themselves”, they are a blank to be remoulded—not so “full of themselves” now. The bad boy with attitude will find it greatly diminished after five minutes with the clippers, even more so if he smirks when the sergeant gives him an order—sure, some personalities are irrepressible, even under duress, but male institutions generally exist to grind down the cocky bad boy so that he rises up the hierarchy in a male-centred way.
The alpha male is self-centred, cocky, mysterious, unpredictable; the alpha male is…a woman. To be an alpha is to…behave like a woman—to be a prima donna. Now, obviously, you could adopt some alpha traits to be more attractive to women—there is no need to become a complete Hells Angel, and few men have the psychological constitution to do so. Yet this is what women actually want, and what most men are not—are trained not to be. The contrast is basically between culture and civilisation: the culture, the alpha male, remains primal, spontaneous, savage, and untameable—he is like the barbarian with his tribe, he sticks to the rough tribal law; kill or be killed, take women as slaves and rape them—trust instinct and intuition.
Civilisation is refined and cosmopolitan; it is universal, it is without kinship but it is kind—and polite; it does what mama says, because we are not “nasty” barbarians here. You can tell we are not barbarians because we calculate everything, everything is thought out in advance to our material advantage; we will put up with all sorts of humiliations for better material conditions—we are not proud men, we are cattle; we are herbivore men. We graze placidly where the state—the big mama—tells us; and to do so is to be “rational” and “good”. Today, the state unloaded another boatload of foreigners, but the chief scribe said: “It makes more economic sense, see. Never mind if they rape your women, that’s just emotional nonsense. ‘Your’ women, who ever heard such nonsense, anyway? You need to be more rational—women don’t belong to anyone, citizen! Here, read this tablet from the city’s school of philosophy; it explains it all here.”
When the civilised man meets the barbarian, with half a dozen women at his heel, he says: “How uncouth! How awful to treat those women this way! Simply terrible! Deplorable!” Yet, of course, the barbarian is closer to reality; the women follow him willingly—and, ultimately, the civilised man who has redefined “man” to be a “moral” slave becomes decadent; he is so “rational”, such an abstract calculator addicted to hedonism, that he permits anything to be done to him—he has become a woman, albeit in a different way.
In this sense Tomassi’s book, The Rational Male, is mistitled: the alpha male is not rational at all—he is instinctive and intuitive; it is the civilised man who carefully defers to women because feminism is normative and must be endorsed if he is to rise up the company’s ladder who is rational—the Hells Angel is not rational, he practically has a death wish. What Tomassi describes as our “feminine-centric” social mores represent normative values created by civilised rational males—by troubadours, professors, and humanitarian reformers. Women prefer barbarity and brutality, they were bred to it; rather, the civilised rational males abhor this situation and try to limit the destructiveness. However, due to the way most men experience women, the “irrationality” is seen as female; actually, it is more that decadent civilisation, built by men, has established various prohibitions that were originally meant to take the edge off the brutality but now have become decadent and perverse. The current system is only too “rational”.
The medium between the barbarian man and the decadent civilised man is the virtuous warrior; the man who retains the primal tribal loyalty found among barbarians—and that includes the attitude that women are liars, need to be treated as property, and should stick to the home. However, unlike the cocky bad boy—who is decadent in his own way, the serial killer whose online mug shot provokes dozens upon dozens of adoring messages from women—the virtuous man is not entirely self-centred, not entirely unable to work in concert with other men; not entirely a narcissist.
A problem with the manosphere is that it is often too scientific and too behaviourist; it lacks historical depth or political knowledge—it is superficial. Tomassi, for example, detests CG Jung—at one point in The Rational Male he says that his bones should rot. The reason for this is that during the 1980s Jung’s idea that each person contains a masculine and a feminine aspect (animus and anima) that need to be reconciled was reinterpreted by feminists to mean men should “get in touch with their feelings” or “become male-mothers”. In other words, men should stay at home and look after the baby or cook dinner.
Of course, that was not what Jung meant at all: Jung meant, for example, that men are mostly rational and logical but that they could also benefit from utilising their intuitions and instincts (their feminine side) in concert with their reason and logic. He did not mean they should get in touch with their feminine side by wearing a dress or looking after baby. In fact, what he said was very close to the manosphere message: men are too locked into logic and reason—accepting feminist lies because that is what is required to progress their career in a corporation—and should get in touch with their instincts and intuitions, their inner alpha or inner Hells Angel. Jung even pointed out that on occasion what women really ask for in their behaviour is a beating or a rape—an observation close to what the manosphere says; and indeed in this Jung went much further than many in the manosphere would.
This particular issue demonstrates the lack of depth in the manosphere; it is odd in a sense because it conceptualises itself as rational and logical—an offshoot from mainstream conservative politics, where “facts and logic” rule (supposedly)—and yet what it really wants to do is re-barbarise men; and this process is irrational, it is about instinct and intuition. In order to sell the product—or simply because the content-providers conceptualise themselves in this way—everything must be rational and logical, although what they say is anything but logical and rational as regards society at large. Then again, society at large is decadent and corrupt—lost in lies. Ironically, the men who want to make you more instinctive and intuitive present themselves as being rational—society at large, meanwhile, being decadent, remains rationally irrational.
The ultimate problem with the manosphere is that it reduces itself to fixes within the system. It teaches men, at best, how to act a bit like a barbarian—a bit like the school bad boy. Yet the problems it has identified, correctly identified, will never be solved by teaching men little hacks, little games—the problems are much deeper than that, the problems are systemic. In a sense, the manosphere teaches men to be decadent—not decadent like the harmless herbivore men, but decadent in an asocial way; to live a life devoted, not to placid hedonistic engagement in advancement through a corporation followed by a rip-off divorce, but to hedonistic sexual encounters.
They correctly identify a problem—female hypergamy, the tendency for women to “marry up” and break up relationships on a whim—and yet cannot propose a solution other than to “improve your game”, improve your ability to manipulate your partner with a bad-boy act. This is obviously a prescription for an inauthentic life engaged in lies: you wear a mask all day at work, now you must also wear a mask at home—the place where traditionally people removed their masks, or at least put on more relaxed masks. The manosphere can only offer the suggestion that this is just how it is and that what is required is to “do the work”, in this case in better mate selection and perpetual “game”.
And yet, I look at my grandparents and their relationships that lasted for decades and decades without any of this—or rather, yes, my grandfathers understood to tease their wives and not take their tantrums seriously, though not as part of some formal “game” that had to be learned. What was different then? The manosphere never quite hits on the answer, often because it blames “the female imperative” or “the gynocracy” for the current situation; and yet the current situation was not created by women—even feminism was not invented by women; it was invented by feminine men who looked to snooker more powerful men indirectly—with women as the human shields and blackmail devices to get what they wanted. Women never hold power or invent anything; so the current situation was created by men—not through “bad behaviour”, bad-boy behaviour, but through decadence. In short, through feminism and socialism—the latter being feminine in nature—and the abolition of marriage that both demanded, since marriage is a property relation.
At present, marriage does not exist in the West; if a woman is tired of marriage—and it is almost always the woman, women being hypergamous short-termists always on the hunt for a better deal—then she can blow it up. There is no incentive to engage in this relationship; it is spring-loaded against a man who engages in it—and it is not even a real institution; it is, as many people have observed, “just a piece of paper”. Does that mean men and women do not feel affection for each other, even in a failed institution? Of course, you can set out in a boat with a hole in it and if you do not know about the hole you can have a wonderful time together—in terms of marriage, you can experience affection, sex, intimacy, and so on. However, this does not change the fact that you set out in a holed boat—perhaps, perhaps you will make it back to shore; after all, your grandparents made it—perhaps it was because your grandfather was a better man, tried harder; or perhaps it was just because his boat did not have a hole in it.
This is why my grandparents did not need “game” and did not need a second mask at home: marriage, though already severely undermined, more or less existed back when they married—along with a whole load of social assumptions and inherited knowledge (now abolished by mass propaganda) that solidified male-female relations. Marriage does not exist now, hence “the manosphere”—an attempt to patch a holed boat. This is not to romanticise marriage; as I once pointed out in article about MGTOW (mig-tow, Men Going Their Own Way; of which more anon) the observations MGTOWers make were made centuries before by the Roman poet Juvenal in his Satires and by Chaucer with the Wife of Bath—the war of the sexes is perpetual, little that has been developed by the manosphere has really been novel; it was only hidden or forgotten knowledge because we live in a quasi-totalitarian state that was, until the advent of the Internet, superintended by a total media environment (i.e. TV)—the masses were practically brainwashed; and, for all I know, Jesus was only crucified in 1850 and the true chronology has been covered up.
You may laugh at that, but when you accept the extent to which our current system lies—the extent which man in general lies—you will countenance it. The techniques used for mass persuasion and control have been extremely effective—partly, in fact, due to the very knowledge of evolutionary psychology used to develop “game”. For decades, people were completely indoctrinated into a feminist perspective on relationships, the theme runs through all media products—we are soaked in it, in the matrix.
This is another way in which the manosphere intersects with the radical right; as with Heidegger, their truth is truth unveiled; it is truth that is known but not acknowledged due to reaction formation at the ugly horror, or that simply hides in plain sight for those prepared to break free from mass-media brainwashing and read Juvenal—or Bang Latvia. It is only then that the uncanny truth is revealed—and no wonder, every soap and sitcom and news show carries the socialist-feminist lie, often through subtle non-verbal cues. In this way, truths are both concealed and socially unacceptable.
Two exits from the manosphere: one is the route eventually followed by Roosh, a man who became religious—became a Christian (from beta to alpha, to alpha to omega)—nominally, anyway; the second is MGTOW—perhaps a movement now in abeyance. The former speaks for itself, although given that many Christian sects are themselves corrupted it is far from a solution, except perhaps at the personal level—and, then again, Internet celebrities are celebrities nonetheless and they have their own “repentance arcs”, as do the bigger stars; for a PUA to turn Christian is all part of the show—the narcissistic game.
MGTOW, on the other hand, claims—though I doubt it is serious—to be a community of men who refuse to engage with women at all, except for brief encounters and sometimes not even then. Given what I know about human nature, this is probably an act; a way to express a general exasperation at the situation and to gain a certain cachet—perhaps even from women, to be a petulant fifteen-year-old who counter-signals his peers when they talk about girls by saying: “I’m more interested in physics, actually.” (Turns up nose). The hope being that if you advertise complete indifference you will attract women—sympathetic magic; except magic only works when you really are indifferent, the mere pretence is insufficient.
Really, I suspect MGTOW is one among many Internet affectations and fads that dissolve almost as quickly as they arise; for a few people these provide an identity. It is unlikely to be serious. When I first heard about the movement I wondered if it could lead to a new series of monastic or quasi-monastic institutions, but really all it will lead to will be hypocrisy or, in the worst cases, chronic bitterness. Nevertheless, its existence, even as a semi-joke, indicates exactly where relations between the sexes are in the contemporary West—at a very low ebb.
There is no ultimate solution to these problems, in the sense that if you read Chaucer or Juvenal you will find scolds, nags, uxorious men, cuckolds, lascivious women (and men), sluts, tarts, bitches, whores, adulterers, improvident husbands, deadbeat dads, drudges, tight-fisted husbands, and on and on—there have been many miserable marriages over human history, and there are many true stereotypes and archetypes with regards to marriage and relations between the sexes. We know these very well. However, given the limited material to hand, there is no need to make the situation worse through the destruction of the one institution that could possibly make the situation somewhat bearable—and this is exactly what the West has done.
The sexual revolution created a sexual Chernobyl in the West, every year it pours out more irradiated women and men—damaged goods, incels, frustrated chumps, OnlyFans whores, MGTOWs, PUAs and so on. It is all perfectly avoidable and not, as some manosphere types seem to pretend, naturally how things are or have to be—although I sometimes wonder if these people know any history aside from a few YouTube videos and what they saw on the telly growing up. In the media-induced eternal present “it was always this way”—ironically, this leads the historyless user to blame “women in general” for what is a decadent situation engineered by men.
In a sense, the manosphere is like the Renaissance—the moment when all these forgotten ancient texts were suddenly dusted off and rediscovered; the old knowledge, in our case buried under half a century of televised feminist indoctrination, recovered and a rebirth in masculinity kindled. This rough knowledge—this barbarian knowledge—represents a prerequisite to reestablish marriage and the culture connected to it. This is essential if there is to be any future for the West at all, for any men to care to defend its legacy—the family and children are essential for a civilisation to survive, for even a small tribe to survive.
A big problem in this regard is that conservatives are not prepared to go “into the darkness” in order to get to the light. They want to pretend that the genteel civilised ideal of marriage and women that pertained in the Anglosphere around 1860 still exists—and yet that was washed away long, long ago. The problem with the manosphere is that their purely evolutionary biological approach leaves no room for any softness or intimacy; it is all manipulation, all the time. If marriage does not exist as an adamantine bond then it has to be that way, for the old marriage where a man was master in his home made even the weakest man situationally “alpha” to his mate.
This is not to romanticise the past and to say everything was fine—as Chaucer and Juvenal show, it was never so. However, it was only when a wife was a man’s property that he cared—as with a house or a car—to really maintain and protect her, perhaps even improve her; and women, being bred to that over the centuries, also want that really. So you only get the “mush”—or, if you prefer, the civility and intimacy—if you are prepared to put the chains back on, to treat women as property. Conservatives never admit this because they are all progressives at heart; they just pretend that if you work hard and are “decent” it will all be fine—except the system is chronically broken; and, indeed, if you called for marriage to be restored you would be frozen out.
At the moment, we have reestablished, thanks to the Internet and the manosphere, the barbarian knowledge and effective action required for operative relations between the sexes; however, we are a long, long way from the institutional changes that would improve this situation and allow, as the Founding Fathers in America quaintly said, “our posterity” to flourish and endure.