In Defense Of The Crusades

This is a guest post by Vincent Law. It was originally published on Atavistic Intelligentsia.

Of all things, why defend the Crusades? Because, there is nothing that undermines Tradition more than historical revisionism. A people dispossessed and ashamed of their own history are susceptible to suggestions from all quarters. You are not the proud descendents of Europe, the conquerors of the known world, the vanguard of christianity, you are just _____ (insert revision here). We know what gets filled into the blanks nowadays: “You are just CIS privileged white oppressors!” If you do not know your own history, what can you say against that? Or what about the claim that Christianity caused the Crusades and the mass killing of non-christians all over the world. “Aren’t you ashamed to be a Christian? How dare you be proud of your heritage of oppression!?”

Think about how few people know about their own history nowadays. This is not a chance happenstance, but part of concerted strategy to make us forget who we are. Sure, your average human ignorance plays a role here, but that is why history has always been a mandatory subject of instruction. An understanding of who you are is inseparable from what came before you, and what you aspire to be. If you don’t know the history of your own faith, you are also susceptible to the venom of those that hate everything your culture stands for, to the mad ravings of a charismatic church pastor even, or the self-flagellation of our ruling SJW Politburo. Existentialist philosopher Sam Keen diagnosed the problem well in his book, To a Dancing God.

“Until recent years the keystone of personal identity was participation in the shared stories, legends, and myths of a tribe, nation, cult or church. The past, present, and future of the individual were bound together by the memories and hopes of a people to which he belonged. With the birth of secular, pluralistic, technological society, a new type of man has emerged– the man without a story, the rootless protean man living without the stability of a tradition which her remembers with pride or a future he awaits with longing.”

So what do we do? How do we recover our sense of being part of something greater, our feeling of belonging, our belief in our own destiny? Its simple, we teach our children their own history. Lets start with the much maligned crusades of the 13th,12th, and 11th centuries. Teach then about how the crusading ideal, aka an alliance between christian princes under the command of religious authority for holy war against infidels, was born not in the 11th century, but in the 9th in the context of Muslim invasions of France and Italy. Tell them about the great battles that Christianity had to fight to maintain its existence in Europe, against invading armies of a foreign religion.

Start with this:

Then show them this:

And this:

Teach them that for about 500 years, Christianity’s very existence was in peril from Muslim invaders. And that the Crusades, were born out of a need to wage defensive warfare even before it was brought to the Holy Land. Teach them about how Thomas Aquinas basically had to create a just war theory from scratch to justify self-defense of Christianity before the Christian authorities were convinced of the morality of going on Crusade against a religion that was founded by a warlord, on warring ideals, and forcible conquering and conversion of infidels.

Remind them that they are here, that their very culture exists because their ancestors fought for what was theirs, and that when their backs were against the wall, they finally had enough and decided to stake their claim to exist in this world. Tell them that the West owes its very existence to the Crusades. And finally remind them, that fundamentally, absolutely nothing has changed in this world, and that our complacency as a people endangers everything our ancestors spilled blood and spent treasure to build. Or better yet, just show them this: crusades Read More: God Only Knows Why Women Are So Cold


How To (Not) Argue With A Leftist

The above short video isn’t particularly worth watching. An willfully ugly woman who uses feminism to avoid responsibility for why she’s so miserable and lonely mocks a group of people who try to reason with her. Supposedly she was acting flippantly after a man had committed suicide, but the video is difficult to understand.

The mistake the people arguing with her make is that they are trying to be reasonable. Perhaps you can be reasonable with a woman who is well-trained by a traditionalist man, but you can never reason with a leftist of either sex.

My solution is just to make fun of liberals. A bit of a double standard, sure, but I’m interested in results here. I’ve dropped the term “SJW” in favor of the more demeaning term “young white liberal”, because it’s makes them feel ignorant and racist. And if the person is elderly, then “aging hippie” suffices well enough.

Liberalism is an identity—particularly a smug one—so I find it best to cut down their identity however possible. Tell them they are ignorant and that they just want to feel like a good person after accomplishing nothing in life.

And really, most liberals adopt their beliefs as a fashion statement. They view blacks and queers like pets. They dote on them with affection, but they have no interest in interacting with them in depth. It gives them a sense of accomplishment after failing their way through life. All of which, when arguing with my liberal friends, I make a point to point out instead of using Aristotelian logic.

All the people who suddenly stormed Twitter to protest the Washington Redskins’s name, have they ever done anything at all to actually help the Indians? Most Indians are more worried about liver cancer or starving to death than they are about an offensive name from a team halfway across the country, because only a young white liberal or a black person gets offended over things that don’t affect them.

Why are young white liberals and blacks so often manipulated by demagogues and internet activism? Because, with a few rare exceptions, those groups are made up of painfully stupid people. Blacks have a culture of poverty, and young white liberals have a culture of narcissism. Both cultures make it near impossible to think rationally. And it’s near impossible to change a culture.

Read More: Why I Describe Myself As A “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant”

Why The Manosphere Will Win And The MRAs Will Lose Despite Whichever May Be Right

Before I ever came across the Red Pill, I was vaguely familiar with the men’s rights activists. And although I definitely agreed with many of their complaints, I had no interest in joining them before even investigating them. Why are men naturally put off by the MRAs?

Masculine Solutions

Because men are fixers. We want to solve problems ourselves. And we are economic with our resources, both material and immaterial. Complaining on the internet for something that won’t change any time soon seems like a waste of time and energy.

This is why men love the Manosphere so much. The Manosphere—despite it’s terribly dorky name sounding like a gay bar—is all about self-improvement. Take charge of your own life instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. It’s empowering.

Same reason men love Art of Manliness but are less interested in GQ and AskMen. AOM is a mentor, and GQ and co are lecturers. I made a good faith effort to get into AskMen, but the advice seemed more like opinions than life experience. This recent article from AskMen is about how to date a feminist, which conveniently fits the popular narrative to avoid the dreaded label of “misogynist”.

And of course there is GQ’s hiring of Lindy West.

End of GQ

That’s GQ’s editor doing the white knighting there. Notice how he criticizes a “sausagefest”, as though you must be gay if you think men and women should have be allowed to have separate magazines. But then he criticizes me for being “heteronomative”, when he’s the one claiming to be afraid of his own dormant homosexuality. Also, I’m the “pedantic” one, but it’s his writer who’s talking about women’s legal issues in a men’s magazine. And I have no idea what the word “creep” means.

You can’t argue with a leftist.

Why The Men’s Rights Movement Is Full Of Women

Ever wonder why there are so many women in the MRM? Because filing complaints is how women solve things. Same reason most activists for any cause—with the possible exception of Black race rights—are women.

Women are snitches. Almost every time I have gotten in trouble at a job, it has been because a woman told on me. Same thing with grade school. Men usually have the self-respect to move past a problem and not bother the manager over his personal drama, but women will go out of their way to interrupt the important things going on at work in order to receive their perception of justice.

Despite feminists’ claims of empowerment, marching in the streets is an expression of impotency. It is admitting that you cannot take control of your own life, so you are asking someone else to fix it for you. While sometimes that may be the only viable solution, it is an admission of inadequacy.

The Nature Of Belief

People believe in something not because they think it is true but because they believe it has a function. I do this. You do this. Everyone does this. Men are more easily able to see the greater rationale and function than women, but we men still must always have a use for our beliefs.

The Red Pill Movement, though named after a shitty 90s scifi movie, provides men with answers and solutions. It is irrelevant to the success of the RPM whether or not these answers and solutions are correct, much how 60s feminism promised a rainbow and a song to women regardless of the reality.

Feminism will fail because men and increasingly more women believe that it offers them no solutions. AskMen can argue perfect Aristotelian logic all day long, but it will convert no one.

Feminists are the new evangelical Christians, believing that if they just hand out enough pamphlets or spread the news on Facebook enough, they’ll be able to build back up their momentum. Feminist apologetics—like those of the Christians—can accomplish nothing but cementing the faith of those who already adhere to the dogma.

Read More: People Who Want Equality Don’t Know What The Word Means

Why ROQ Failed: Lessons We Can All Learn From

I would just ignore this altogether, but I think on some level I owe it to the 35 or so loyal subscribers I’ve got. It really doesn’t deserve it’s own post, but here we go anyway. If nothing else, I’ve been dry on content lately, so it’s given me something to write.

Remember that time long ago when ROQ, despite the hate it got, put out quality content? (Yes, it really happened.)

Well, no more. They’ve thrown down the gauntlet. My suggestion is that we leave it there and ignore it. The article isn’t worth reading, but among other things they’ve accused us of encouraging rape and then pretended it was just an April Fool’s joke.

You may notice I have a comment there. That’s not actually what I wrote at all, although I suppose it’s still my fault. If a snake bites you once, then it’s your fault for getting bitten twice.

Dining With Enemies

I recently made the mistake of interacting with Return of Queens again, now known as Kings and Queens Return. For those of you who don’t know, ROQ was an ROK knock-off for women made last January. They soon began attacking us (so I’m told), and we decided to ignore them altogether. However, I wasn’t around at the time, so when I came across them in August, I thought very favorably of their recent content I had read. One article was on why you should never vote for a woman or a black person because only white men are expected to hold the best interest of everyone. Another was instructing women who want to get married on how to write classy online dating profiles without all the games.

Because I kept an eye on them once every couple months or so, I happened to notice the day they changed the site to KQR. We had a few interactions, and I wrote about it here (they’ve since also screwed with what I wrote on their About page). Somehow Rollo Tomasi found and tweeted it, giving me a huge traffic boost. Cool. During all of this, KQR invited me to write for them, but I declined since it seemed like a conflict of interest.

A few weeks ago, I looked them up out of curiosity. They had a big image that said “Fuck you Google” for canceling their advertising. I wrote them a polite email telling them it was trashy. They sent me a sarcastic personal attack. That’s the point where I should have learned my lesson.

The Manosphere Is For Adults Only

The article from last week is played off as an April Fool’s joke, but it’s thinly veiled. I wrote a comment about how it’s sad the direction the site has gone, and they changed it to a raving compliment. Then they made it so all the comments on the article had to be approved by a moderator so that I couldn’t protest.

This is as much my fault as it is theirs. I naively assumed ROQ had a good heart underneath everything, despite their obvious devolution into bitterness and self-absorption within the last half year or so. Old habits die hard, and I’m still under the delusion that if I just present the right information, I can bring people to agree with me. Therefore I can assume that I will make a similar mistake in the future.

A few Manosphere writers—although ROQ was never quite Manosphere—have changed what commenters’ wrote, and I’ve always found it low class. It’s like a child who delights in controlling others. But at least then that’s just some random hater. No matter what I wrote, the new owner of ROQ would have changed it to spite ROK and me. This was personal for him, not business. Nor was it merely a light-hearted joke.

Normally I wouldn’t care if someone changed my comment, but on the highly unlikely chance that some of my readers actually saw it, it could hurt my reputation. It’s probably considered libel under the law, but I’m not about to sue for something so trivial.

No one reads ROQ/KQR, but it still bothered me. I sent them a message asking them to delete my comment, telling them I had far more internet influence but would keep quiet if they would delete it within the next few hours.

Predictably they haven’t responded and likely won’t. If they do delete it, then I’ll add an update commending them. But I doubt that will happen.

I find it sad. Once upon a time, I was the only ROK columnist who thought ROQ was a positive force in the alt right and had potential to be a major player. Had they changed their name and quit trying to be the lone wolf while also trying to steal readers, then they might have turned into something truly magnificent. The article is a symptom, not the cause, of various things I’ve seen on this site. ROQ didn’t fail merely because they stole our name. ROQ failed because they demand respect instead of seek to earn it, a life lesson anyone can use.

Read More: Men Only Deceive Women If The Women Let Them, Because “Cheap” And “Prostitute” Are Not Synonyms

Domestic Violence Advocacy

I couldn’t find any hard statistics for how often battered wives return to their husbands. Activist websites seem to avoid the question, often claiming that it’s more important to ask why men abuse instead of why women allow it. Red Pill sociologist and comedian Bill Burr has made the point that this is like a fireman who doesn’t investigate what caused the fire after he puts it out, as though women were quietly knitting before the man snapped over the football game.

One source said 85% (!!!) of the time women return to their abusers, and another said two thirds. But many of these sites also perpetuate the bogus “1 in 5 women are raped” statistic. RamZPaul has said a friend who worked in a battered women’s shelter told him they almost always return. Whichever is the case, it is common knowledge that women very often stay with their abusers despite having all the reason in the world to bail. Everyone knows someone.

Even if a domestic violence website addresses why women stay, they blame it on financial need or fear of more violence, despite the women having all of society and the government ready to white knight on a moment’s notice. These activists think that women stay in violent relationships in order to escape more violence. The logic of that escapes me, especially because the men are usually put in jail. My theory is that women are just terrible at choosing a mate. Really shows that arranged marriages were for the women, not for the men.

I often wonder if domestic violence is the most sure way to prevent a divorce. I mean, no, you shouldn’t beat her with your fists for merely burning dinner, not only because it sends a message that you lack inner control but also because that’s the kind of force you use on an equal.

Practical Thinking

Morally, should you ever hit your wife or girlfriend? I’m ambivalent on the issue.

If the answer is yes, then at least the punishment should fit the crime. It would only be a calm but concentrated mild slap when she’s being grossly disrespectful to remind her to be grateful—the kind she knows was not an accident or an outburst. It won’t hurt her beyond a sting and a red blush that will die away in a few minutes. The divorce rate is far higher than the rate of women who leave abusive men, so it’s in your best gamble.

On the other hand, morality is about more than functionality. Just because something works doesn’t mean you should do it. Unless she first hits you, it’s probably immoral to slap her back.

Conclusion: Why I’m Pondering This

One would think this would be a simple question to solve. “Just don’t hit women.” But my generation was left without any guidance. We were given morals without fair reasoning behind it. If “Finding your dream job is the only way to be happy” turned out to be a false moral, then what else is?

So over the years I’ve learned to question every moral or Truth I’m given. It’s a sad reality, but without reliable guidance from my elders, I have no choice but to rely on my own fallible rationality. Scary, yes, but such is the world we live in.

Read More: Self-Hating White Girl Du Jour: “White People Stole Blacks’ Music!”

“If You Want to Change the World, Love a Man” By Lauren Wilce

I came across a poem the other day I’d like to share. I can’t find any information about its origin or about the author Lauren Wilce. It’s called “If You Want to Change the World, Love a Man.”


If you want to change the world, love a man, really love him

Choose the one whose soul calls to yours clearly, who sees you; who is brave enough to be afraid

Accept his hand and guide him gently to your heart’s blood

Where he can feel your warmth upon him and rest there

And burn his heavy load in your fires

Look into his eyes. Look deep within and see what lies dormant or awake or shy or expectant there

Look into his eyes and see there his fathers and grandfathers and all wars and madness their spirits fought in some distant land, some distant time.

Look upon their pains and struggles and torments and guilt; without judgment

And let it all go.

Feel into his ancestral burden

And know that what he seeks is safe refuge in you

Let him melt in your steady gaze

And know that you need not mirror that rage

Because you have a womb, a sweet, deep gateway to wash and renew old wounds.

If you want to change the world, love a man, really love him

Sit before him in the full majesty of your woman, in the breath of your vulnerability

In the play of your child innocence, in the depth of your death

Flowering invitation, softly yielding, allowing his power as man

To step forward towards you… and swim in Earth’s womb, in silent knowing, together

And when he retreats… because he will… flees in fear to his cave…

Gather your grandmothers around you… envelope their wisdoms

Hear the gentle shussshhhed whispers

Calm your frightened girl’s heart

Urging you to be still… and wait patiently for his return

Sit and sing by his door a song of remembrance, that he may be soothed once more

If you want to change the world, love a man, really love him

Do not coax out his little boy

With guiles and wiles and seduction and trickery

Only to lure him to a web of destruction

To a place of chaos and hatred

More terrible than any war fought by his brothers

This is not feminine, this is revenge

This is the poison of twisted lines

Of the abuse of ages, the rape of our world

And this gives no power to woman; it reduces her as she cuts off his balls

And it kills us all

And whether his mother held him or could not, show him the true mother now

Smoldering in the centre of the Earth’s core

Do not punish him for his wounds that you think don’t meet your needs or criteria

Cry for him sweet rivers

Bleed it all back home.

If you want to change the world, love a man, really love him

Love him enough to be naked and free

Love him enough to open your body and soul to the cycle of birth and death

And thank him for the opportunity

As you dance together through the raging winds and silent woods

Be brave enough to be fragile and let him drink in the soft, heady petals of your being

Let him know he can hold you, stand up and protect you

Fall back into his arms and trust him to catch you

Even if you’ve been dropped a thousand times before

Teach him how to surrender by surrendering yourself

And merge into the sweet nothing of this world’s beat.

If you want to change the world, love a man, really love him

Encourage him, feed him, allow him, hear him, hold him, heal him

And you, in turn, will be nourished and supported and protected

By strong arms and clear thoughts and focused arrows

Because he can, if you let him, be all that you dream.

If you want to love your man, love yourself, love your father, love your brother, your son, your ex-partner… from the first boy you kissed to the last one you wept over

Give thanks for the gifts of your unraveling… to this meeting of the one who stands before you now

And find him the seed to all that’s new and solar… a seed that you can feed to help direct the planting…

To grow a new world together…

Read More: Why You Shouldn’t Show Women Chivalry

This Classic Joke Shows The Irrationality Of Women

fox trot

Classic, right? The husband wants his wife to be more attractive but is too afraid of her wrath to say so.

It’s such a common trope because you see it everywhere. I had a friend who was dating this obese girl who would fly into a rage if he tried to get her to go running with him.

But why is she so angry at the suggestion that she could be more attractive? Doesn’t she want to look good for the man in her life? Wouldn’t she have a more natural self esteem if her husband was better able to enjoy her body (which she can innately sense whether or not he can)?

Women no longer live just to be attractive for their men. In other cultures, women cover their heads in public out of respect for their husbands. Today women always strive to be attractive towards others—her catty girlfriends, the pastor, the bank teller.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing if women actually tried to be attractive. But suggesting diet and exercise means that there is something wrong with her, disrupting the perfect princess fantasy in her mind. So she just uses threats of passive-aggressiveness and withholding sex in order to force you to think she is beautiful. She knows it doesn’t work, but it keeps the fantasy alive in her mind, and that’s all that matters to her.

This is not unlike those Buzzfeed articles about obese models with scornful facial expressions who hated their bodies enough to cover them with tattoos trying to convince men they are lusting after ugly girls. But being beautiful isn’t a matter of politeness or labeling. If something is beautiful, it’s pleasant to look at. You can lie to other people about what is beautiful, but you can’t lie to yourself.

Do you want to know if your girlfriend is a keeper? Tell her to lose thirty pounds, and her reaction will reveal what kind of person she really is, and it will tell you whether you are just a chump she’s using for provision or someone she is truly in love with.

Read More: Women Who Show Cleavage Have Zero Respect For Men