In recent years, we’ve all witnessed a phenomenon where right-wing men on the internet who had previously taken a line against feminism have, with their rising profile, transformed into feminist shills. In order to understand what is going on here, we might go back to our evolutionary biology, and consider the nature of female sexual attraction.
For men, women’s sexual attractiveness is judged primarily based on their physical appearance. As a far second, a woman is more attractive if she is feminine and submissive and has a pleasant personality. Another notable modifier, which demonstrates the advanced evolutionary state of male sexuality in comparison to female sexuality, is sexual availability – women who are not attached, and appear open to having sex, are perceived as more sexually attractive to men.
Because it is difficult for a man to imagine the state of a woman’s mind, most men will naturally assume that women function in the same way. However, it would be difficult for anything to be further from the truth. Women fundamentally judge men’s sexual value based on their status among other men. This is not a conniving mindset, necessarily. That is to say, women become physically sexually aroused by men who they perceive as having high status.
There is no male analog to this phenomenon, given that men will always judge a woman objectively. There is no point where a man takes into account a woman’s social status in judging her attractiveness, other than that a lower status woman may be more attractive due to increased availability.
Of course, women talk about men being “hot,” and about their height, their hair and abs, and so on. But what you must understand is that in the context of a woman’s psyche, the man’s physical appearance is an aspect of his status. An extraordinarily handsome man can represent high-status in the mind of a woman, even if he is broke, while an extraordinarily wealthy and powerful man can be attractive, even if he looks like Harvey Weinstein.
Just as some men are into tits and some men are into asses, some women are going to be more attracted to handsome men and some more attracted to wealthy men. However, both tits and asses are signs of fertility, which is why men find them attractive. Just so, both handsomeness and wealth are signs of status, which is why women find them attractive.
This is all very basic, accepted evolutionary biology. We saw at the Weinstein trial that Jessica Mann, whose private emails to Weinstein were revealed to the court and to the public, was sending him lovey messages. She was telling him how much she loved him, how hot he made her. She also comforted him when his mother died. Someone could claim that this was all a ruse, and she was faking her love for him because she wanted access to his power. But ultimately, that is no different than accusing a man of faking love for a woman because he wants to suck on her titties. When you start trying to parse out the connections between human emotion, sexuality and mate selection, you get into a murky territory where you’re necessarily attempting to read people’s minds. Jessica Mann told Weinstein she loved him, she told her friends that he was her boyfriend, and she behaved as though she cared about him, showing him affection, comforting him when his mother died.
What has happened with many men in the internet right-wing who have previously been critical of women is that they’ve become e-famous and achieved social status, which has allowed them access to women where they previously had none, and this has led them to believe “women are not so bad after all.” I will not name names, but it has happened more or less across the board. You can tell by looking at most of these men, as well as perhaps the women they were involved with before they became internet famous, that they were having a pretty hard time with women before they achieved fame. Without fame, most of them are just unattractive, often fat nerds with self-esteem problems, and their perception of women was based on their own experiences with them, rather than on facts and reality.
What these men, who are largely in their 30s and 40s, are doing is experiencing a second adolescence, which is much better than their first adolescence, which was spent with women not giving them the time of day. I have seen this same phenomenon among old men in Southeast Asia, who in their 50s and 60s have girls in their 20s interested in them, and they start to behave as though they are teenagers. These men will also develop feminist tendencies, and are prone to flying off the handle if, say, you’re at a bar with one and you refer to the local women as “filthy gook whores.” The reason that they react this way is that they are drawing their self-esteem from the affirmation they receive from these women, so they need to affirm the value of the thing that is affirming their value.
I won’t play myself up as some kind of lady’s man, but I will say that I’ve spent my life having access to women. The fact that when my public profile exploded, and I was featured on the cover of newspapers and magazines, I had vastly expanded access to women only confirmed my previously held views on their fundamental nature.
All of this is to say that someone in a position where he has great access to women is not someone who is in a position to be speaking on the nature of women to men who are not in that position. If someone is famous on the internet, no matter how fat and ugly he is, he is going to have access to a large pool of decent women, because it is women’s nature to be attracted to men who have high status among other men. So if such an individual is to call you an incel, or tell you to “just man up,” this should fall completely flat.
The standard female refrain when addressing men who criticize them is to claim that this man must have some problem and that he cannot get laid. When they say this to me, it comes across as nonsensical. I am certain that I am a very handsome man, because my mother told me so and she would not lie, and I am in fantastic shape. However, even if I were not – even, in fact, if I were a fat, annoying, belligerent alcoholic slob – I could post my media mentions on a Tinder profile and get the same number of replies an 18-year-old girl gets by posting pictures of her cleavage. That says nothing about me, at all, and says everything about the nature of women. I have no illusions about this, nor do I need illusions, given that I do not draw my value as a man from women’s opinions, but rather from my professional accomplishments, my personal relationships and the way I treat others, and from my continued quest to honor God’s will in all things. The only woman whose opinion of me matters to me is that of the Mother of God, whose blessings actually mean something.
However, given that this is a totally feminized society that is dominated and controlled by women, the approval of women has taken on an outsized, absurd value, and most men have come to use this as a measure of their own worth or lack thereof. Sexual access becomes the primary measure of a man’s perception of himself.
Some men who do not have access to women will become white knights, thinking that they can gain access to women by shilling for them (this is wrong and we know it’s wrong, but it becomes pathological for many men, who have been abused and will accept the narrative of their abusers in a feeble attempt to curry favor). This will not give them sexual access, but it will give them a pat on the head, which many are willing to settle for. Other men who do not have access to women will take the more realistic approach of becoming angry, and criticizing the system which created this situation. But among men who have access to women, the consistent pattern is one of shilling. This creates a situation where it is virtually impossible to find voices defending men, given that anyone who has status enough to be a voice has status enough to access women. Of course, these men also inevitably get screwed over by women, but because they have other women to enter their lives after they are screwed over, they generally end up blaming the individual women who screwed them over, rather than the concept of women’s liberation itself, which is ultimately responsible.
The fact is that when you are high status, women respond to you as they should be responding to all men: they are kind and respectful, they take and give compliments well. So of course, most men who are in this position are likely to lose touch with what it is like to be a normal guy, without inflated social status, in the modern feminist world. And given that women are treating them well, they are going to feel obliged to treat women well, and to defend them. We shouldn’t forget that Harvey Weinstein was a huge supporter of feminism. This is in part because he was Jewish, I’m sure, and feminism is a Jewish agenda, but it is also that wherever he went, he had women lining up to suck his dick.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of guys are getting little if anything from women. They are getting treated like shit. They are suffering an endless wave of abuse under a vitriolic regime of female terror.
Ultimately, we must simply look at the data, and draw conclusions from it, if we are to understand the modern sexual situation. A 2019 survey showed that the number of men under thirty reporting “no sex at all” tripled from 2008, reaching 28%. I suspect that the real number is at least twice that, as if there is one thing men do not ever want to admit it is that they are not getting laid. It is extremely emasculating. If you factor in the fact that our country is only 60% white (on a good day) and virtually all nonwhite men (excluding Asians) are going to be having regular sex, you get a clear situation where the majority of young white men are in the zero sex area.
Feminists will respond to this data by claiming that men “need to be better.” But what does that even mean? The average is whatever the average is. The quality of average can change, and it certainly has for both men and women, but that does not mean that the concept of average has stopped existing. And we have approximately the same number of women as we have men. This is not difficult math. If you have a system of marriage, where women are not allowed to have sex unless they are married, you can have 100 men and 100 women, women will figure out who gets to have sex with who. One thing is certain: all 100 men will get a sex partner.
This idea of “working hard to get a girlfriend” is completely nonsensical, and an attack on the basic fabric of society. There is zero reason that a man should have to “work to get a girlfriend.” Based on the simplest of math, in a system of monogamy, every man has access to a woman.
When women claim “men need to be better,” what they are saying is that they prefer to share sexual access to high status men. And of course, it should go without saying that they would prefer that situation even if the average man was of the quality he was 100 years ago. Because average is always average, and perceived quality is always going to be relative to the average.
What right-wing men who embrace feminism because they got a little bit of pussy are doing is selling out other men, often men who trusted them and depended on them to give them the truth about the distortions of reality our Jewish-controlled society creates.
I personally choose to stand with men on principle, and neither all of the female insults in the world nor all of the willing teenage girls in the world are going to sway me from this position. White men are the builders of civilization, we are the founders of philosophy, were are the originators of the greatest art and of the funniest memes, we are the people with interesting things to say about issues. We have very important work to do, and the women of our race are preventing us from doing this work by foregoing their most basic duties of sex, marriage and children in favor of the eternal disco. I will continue to stand with incels, just the same as I will stand with men who are divorced and have their children taken from them, just the same as I will stand with the men who have figured out a tenuous way to make a relationship work in this desolate social landscape.
None of us deserves this abuse, and for the sake of future generations which will never be born if we continue on this path, we must stand together.
We are brothers in arms.
No man gets left behind.
Like Davy Crockett said when the Mexican troops surrounded the Alamo, and Colonel Travis told him to take a horse and ride north:
“If we go down, we’re all going down together.”