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


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

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!”

Beyond Good And Bad

I suppose there are some absolute moralities by a kind of natural law. For example, you should never beat and rape a girl, unless, you know, she wanted it. No, I kid, I kid. Seriously, though, you should never cheat on your wife without a one county distance. No, I’m joking again. But for realz, you should never attend church for the sole purpose of offending the people with blasphemy and sacrilege in the name of love, progress, and leftist activism. I mean, that wouldn’t be tolerant, right?

Speaking of hypocrisy, I don’t think it’s quite as wrong as we innately think it is. We all have our double standards. For example, if my dog gives birth to a litter I don’t want and I bash the puppies’ heads in with a brick, most people today would be mortified, even though I murdered them instantly. But these same people eat meat from the common grocery store, even though everyone has a vegetarian friend who won’t shut up about how brutal the slaughterhouses are.

Most people’s solution to double standards is to rationalize it away. The casual meat-eater will give weak excuses like, “Well, yes, they should reform the slaughterhouses, but I couldn’t live without meat.” The vegetarians are right that abstaining from animal products is the logical conclusion of any kind of ethical standard for treating animals. However, my solution to double standards is just to lower my standards. I don’t believe there is anything morally wrong you can do to an animal, nor do I see any reason why there would be beyond emotional appeals. Michael Vick was foolish, but he wasn’t evil or cruel. Even the bestialitist is only wronging himself.

Read More: Why You The Individual Are A Bad Person

14-Year-Olds In The Third World Marry Older Men Because Delaying Adulthood Is A White Privilege

I came across a news story recently about a 68-year-old Nigerian politician marrying a 14-year-old. The commenters on the article are calling it child abuse, which is ethnocentrism at its worst. Marrying as soon as puberty comes along is the norm in most of human history, even in white societies. My grandfather had two sisters who married at age 16, one of which had her parents’ permission. So isn’t it us modern Americans who are the freak outlier.

Hard to give her a specific number without seeing her hair, but I’d guess 9/11, WB and fill the world with half a dozen little Blairs.

Plus, she looks happy. Haters gonna hate, but that’s a woman in love. She’s got a high-status man who will protect and provide for her in a corner of the world that is terrifyingly unstable. She’ll get a luxurious and safe life. Why would she be upset? Safety is a white privilege.

In most human societies in history, women couldn’t afford to be alone outside the home because of the very real possibility of rape and robbery. This real need for security is in part why people arranged marriages instead of allowing the girl to pick whomever she was infatuated with (the other part being that women often choose poorly). I was a Classics major, and Ancient Europe was very much the wild West.

Furthermore, in older societies people understand that women do not function well without the guidance of a man, whether that man be a husband, a father or a brother. The feminine is useless and meaningless outside the context of the masculine. Today that hurts people’s feelings, so we try to pretend it isn’t true.

Fertility: Normally It’s A Necessity, Not A Choice

Also notice that it is mostly the middle and upper class white people here in America who do not breed young. Teenage bastardy is epidemic among blacks and common among poor white trash and Mexicans. For example, Mississippi has the highest rate of teen pregnancy, 60% above national average. It’s also the blackest state, with about a third of the people being black. It has some of the most poverty-stricken areas of the country. Even the financially better-off girls marry fairly young, since women always want to have the same relationship status as their friends.

The opening scene of Idiocracy. Replace the unexplained politically correct “the aging man has a low sperm count” with the scientific fact that women only have 10% of their eggs left at age 30.

Also, teenager girls are extremely fertile. Teenagers don’t have to have sex often at all to get pregnant. I can’t recall where I recently read this, but someone in the Manosphere pointed out the movie Juno in which a girl gets pregnant the night she loses her virginity. Compare that to a 35-year-old empowered career woman trying to measure her ovulation and position herself just right on the off-chance she can finally squeeze out a down syndrome kid.

Several weeks ago, I got the phone number of a cute virgin-looking 17-year-old girl who unfortunately later flaked out. It’s completely legal in my state, so I had no moral qualms about advancing so long as her father didn’t break my legs. She’s a biological adult with the free will to make poor decisions.

This excessive fertility is important in a third world society. Even 100 years ago here in America before modern sanitation and medicine, children often died of natural causes. You needed to produce ten children so that six of them would survive long enough to work on the family farm. Today we’ve replaced the farm with an office (or more realistically a restaurant), so the idealistic micro-activist on the internet is out of touch with historically normal human existence. The thoughtlessness of the Catholic Church isn’t in forbidding birth control but in condoning the cheat “rhythm method”.

Yesterday’s practicality is today’s oppression.

Read More: Charisma

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

“I met him at the bar, and I told him I’d only have sex with him if he promised to call me the next morning. But he didn’t call! Men are such pigs.”

Sound familiar? The ever-typical woman above is an absolute moron. Did anything once happen in her life that would make her think that a guy wouldn’t lie about calling the next day in order to sleep with her? Did she ever once have a friend who found love through a one-night stand?

Remember that Taylor Swift song that says, “The first time a guy tell you he loves you, you’re gonna believe him”? The implication is that after about age 15 a girl will realize that guys will lie for easy sex. But apparently women don’t understand that, despite all of her experiences telling her to.

No, what’s up is that the woman does realize men will lie. Women are expert bullshit detectors. When a nice guy compliments her, she knows it’s insincere. They can get a good feeling for when a guy is lying, or at least when he has clear motives beyond what he’s explicitly saying. She why does she disbelieve the nice guy but buy into the player?

Women believe the lies they wish were true. They know they’re lies, but they choose to buy into them and roll the dice anyway.

What Is A Whore?

And really, if she’s giving away her sex that easily, why should he respect her enough to call the next day? She’s already shown he’s conquered her. He has no reason to invest further. Did she really think he invited her to his apartment to play checkers?

Women today do not realize that all relationships are transactional. If she is unwilling to sell her sex, she will not get anything in return. Girls either put a small price on their sex or they think it’s beyond value, as though “guys should just appreciate me for my personality without expecting anything back.” Sorry, but our affection must be bought, and the currency is your body (often in addition to other things).

This was actually a talking point of second-wave feminism. All women are prostitutes. Some women are one-man prostitutes, and some women are multiple-man prostitutes. What feminists neglected is that the one-man prostitutes get a better quality client and hence a better quality of life. She offers her sexuality, and he provides food, furnishings, attention, and love. She sells the right to own her.

The definition of a whore or a slut is not a woman who sells sex but a woman who gives away sex easily with little personal connection. That’s what men find so repulsive in sluts. It’s also why we find distasteful women who show cleavage or even just girls who incessantly fish for attention on social media. Whores—whether they be regular sluts or mere attention whores—have no respect for their own product. Why do you think we refer to sluts as “cheap”?

Story Time

There was this girl I used to work with. Sweet-hearted church virgin. Went out with this player. Everyone warned her, but she knew what he was like from the get-go. Slept with him anyway. Later they broke up, and he told her all the other girls he cheated on her with. No one was surprised. And then the other girls at work started flirting with him. “He’ll be different for me.”

Update: I changed the title slightly to be consistent with the article. Oversight on my part. I left the url as is, and it shows up that way when linked to.

Read More: Music Reflects Society: Why We Have No Great Love Songs Anymore

From Blow Jobs To Bondage: 50 Shades Of Grey Shows How Errant American Sexuality Has Become

Did you ever wonder why tongue kissing is called “French kissing”? It’s because Americans used to be boring in the sack. The French—ever the secluar-liberal revolutionaries—were known for their deviancy. They also gave us our term “sadism”.

Feminism And Oral (Quote/Unquote) Sex

Feminists complain that men expect women to give head even if the woman isn’t comfortable with it. I’ve never sucked anyone’s dick, so I can’t vouch for how uncomfortable it may be. But a lot of women are quick and to the point when going down.

slow blow

The irony in this is that feminism is the reason we have blowjobs today. Well, sort of. The sexual revolution (which was feminist-driven) opened up all sorts of unintended consequences, like modern pornography, particularly the 1970s classic Deep Throat. And with easy access to porn, our imaginations have run wild.

Feminists complain that today women have to put out to get noticed. Well, who started that? Did you think men wouldn’t like free sex? In the old days, it was expected that women wouldn’t put out.

In the 1950s, virgin brides weren’t as common as one would think. The money hole known as the engagement ring was marketed as insurance, since the early-mid 20th century saw a repeal of laws where a woman could sue if her fiance broke the engagement (women have no rights today…). While it would be difficult to get married if she wasn’t a virgin, most women had sex with their fiances with the assumption that it would turn into a marriage. So diamond companies told women that they need to demand an expensive piece of jewelry they can sell in the event that the marriage didn’t happen, since they could no longer sue.

Before feminism, a woman would get married young and probably go her whole life without ever giving a blowjob. Likewise, a man probably would never get one either. We’ve been very desensitized to the concept, if you think about what a blowjob actually is. Semen is a step short of blood in how unsanitary it is. Furthermore, just as we were taught to wash our hands as children, nobody wants to accidentally put dry piss in their mouth. Most protestant pastors had no problem preaching against the practice as well as contraception, as neither produce children, bring oneness, or function as those body parts were designed. The topic of oral sex would induce the same look of revulsion in the average Your Town, USA housewife (and perhaps even husband) as my grandfather had on his face when I told him many men today like having anal sex with women. Even many Greco-Roman thinkers thought low of oral sex.

To quote South Park‘s Eric Cartman,

Statistically speaking, the most bacteria-ridden place on the planet is the mouth of an American woman! And you’re gonna let that near your penis?

The face is the most personable part of the body. In cultures all over the word, a widow touches the face of her late husband right before he is put into the ground. And in oral sex, she uses her individual identity for the pleasure of the generic male genitalia. The woman is on her knees kneeling before the man. She is doing the work, “servicing” him, as we call it. He does nothing and just smiles. Whether this is an action of degradation or selfless love, the reader can make that judgment. But whichever you decide, you can’t tell me that being a housewife was more degrading towards a woman than being the blow job queen of her high school.

Steve Sailer had a very insightful article at UNZ following the UVA hoax:

[…] Recently, I was watching for the first time the musical Grease about 1950s teens, with its talented cast of thirtysomething high school students. In the Mulholland Drive makeout scene, Stockard Channing (age 34) plays the school’s Fast Girl (presumably Channing is fast because she can hear her biological clock ticking).

My impression from the movie is that the Fast Girl is portrayed as considering a hierarchy of activities to do with her new boyfriend in the back seat of his new car that are limited to A) kissing; B) “heavy petting;” C) vaginal sex with a condom; D) vaginal sex without a condom.

When the lad’s condom disintegrates as he removes it from his wallet for the first time since he placed it there in 7th grade, she says “Aw, what the hell” and decides to take her chances with pregnancy. Potential non-impregnating sex acts known to, say, 18th Century French aristocrats aren’t on the (presumably) young couple’s mental map. […]

Okay, American Sexuality…

Despite what I just wrote, I’m not trying to convince you to give up oral sex. My point in all of this is just how much American sexuality has been broadened beyond the norm. Before merely licking another person’s tongue was adventurous, but today sado-masochism is the new edge. And just like French kissing, it seems to be all the rage.

Nobody knows how many people engage in sado-masochism, but the fact that 50 Shades of Grey and its movie have become so popular shows that society has become not just accepting but desiring of the practice. It’s not just normal but embraced. Even if not many people practice it, clearly a lot wish they could.

I wonder how long until protestant pastors begin condoning sado-masochism. People will write to the John Pipers and CARMs of that day asking if it’s permissible to practice sado-masochism in the marriage bed. They’ll respond, “Well, nowhere in the Bible is it forbidden.” God also left out of the Bible’s footnotes his thoughts about a wife strapping on and doing her husband up the ass, but are you going to condone that just because your congregation wants it? Probably.

When did sex become so boring that we have to resort to pain or role-playing? If you can’t have a good time in bed without your partner giving you some new form of masturbation, how did our great-great grandparents ever have enough sex to produce nine children?

People criticize me because I think men should lightly slap their wives in the face when they are being disrespectful, but that’s mere discipline and order. No, the domestic violence that’s all the rage today is two people who (may or may not) love each other causing serious physical pain to get an orgasm.

Lack Of Trust

I remember an episode of House (season 1, episode 20) in which there was a man who would pay a woman to choke him. The woman described it as trust—that there is something so intimate in knowing the person could kill you but won’t. It was kind of a beautiful scene, to be honest, although I still wasn’t convinced. Why do you need something so terrifying to experience trust?

And it is here that one realizes that trust is an emotion. Or if not an emotion, then something similar. And it appears to be a human need, a yearning of the heart.

But we live in a paranoid society. We think every person we run into might be a serial killer or rapist. Wash your hands, or you’ll get sick. Can’t teach gun safety classes in schools, because the kids will shoot the whole place up with no one to stop them. Save sex for marriage, because otherwise you’ll get AIDS.

Above all, I think all of this is just a symptom of a deeper social decay. And in some futuristic alternative universe in which women take pride in their modesty, perhaps this deviancy and glorified masturbation will be put back into the closet. Which brings up an interesting question. If you had to choose between blow jobs or a wife like June Cleaver, which would you pick? Because you might not get both in Red Pill Wonderland.

Read More: Why You Shouldn’t Show Women Chivalry