The Next Red Pill: Building The Family Legacy

The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” –  G.K. Chesterton

A while back, many in the anglosphere noticed that many of the notorious “PUAS” were reaching the end of their hedonic treadmills.   For some like Roosh, they were entering a new season of life.  Those of us who had discovered the Red Pill knew there had to be more.  We realized that the West had to be rebuilt with a solid foundation and a legacy that couldn’t be based on hedonism, bashing feminists, or have an identity built on opposition.

Note Roosh’s startling admission a few months ago that goes to show were he is now:

At the height of my PUA days, I declared feminists as my enemy. They were degenerate, anti-family, and promiscuous. This was at the peak of when I embarked on behavior that was degenerate, anti-family, and promiscuous. My attacks against them were one way of relieving the guilt and discomfort of my own behavior, since most of the girls I slept with had to have feminist thoughts in their minds to allow me to gain easy sex. I was experiencing pleasurable orgasms with the enemy in the evening then writing about how bad they were the day after.

We were staring into the abyss and it was turning us.  While pretending to flush the sewage, we contributed to it while calling the girls who put out easy sluts.  What was the point at the end of it?  Were we doing anything useful? Building the kind of culture and society that we kept pointing out was being destroyed, but deliberately contributing to its very destruction?

There is a next step.   Some of us may not be able to to take it and for that I will not pass judgement.  But those of us who can must, and so we have.  I’d like to bring your attention to two new sites in particular that I believe are of vast importance to building that foundation – one that wont be built off bashing feminism, sjws, and a myriad of other things that ARE NOT in our immediate local context to effect.

A Kings Castle is what I believe is the next evolution of ROK, except it focuses on fathers and families.  Those two subjects are essential for the stable foundation and prosperity of any culture and society.  It’s staffed by multiple men who all are fathers and husbands who are doing their part to try and promote healthy family growth and life.    Demographics is destiny and a demographic that is composed of strong families is what will build rise from the ashes of what is left of American culture.    You’ll notice that the race obsession isn’t a part of that.

The other is Jacobite Mag.   A particular article of theirs, “The Right Needs Joy” struck me.  It argues the definition of Thomas Aquinas in that joy proceeds from love and the truest joy is ordered love that focuses on the very things that deserve that love.  The following point is devastatingly accurate:

“This sort of joy is in dangerously short supply. Many on the right, especially those who identify as “Alt-Right,” spend massive amounts of time rejoicing in the pain of those with whom they disagree. The fact that videos about “libtard meltdowns” and “Butt-Hurt Crying Hillary Voters Compilation” have far more views than videos about Shakespeare, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Dante’s Commedia, should tell us something. Young conservatives and reactionaries, much as they flail their hands at the death of Western civilization and the loss of wisdom, do very little in the way of actually preserving the beauty and truth underlying this great tradition. If joy is truly a result of love, man must be very careful to develop the right affections in his breast. Right now many on the right seem hellbent on cultivating affection for dank memes rather than for truth, goodness, and beauty.”

“When not mocking, many give way to the temptation of defeatism, resentment, and self-congratulation. One of the clearest examples of this habit is the use of the “red pill” metaphor. While it has some communicative merit in expressing how fundamental many of the disagreements between progressives and traditionalists are, it is a troubling metaphor. It encourages a gnostic view of truth and happiness, in which only those who have seen through the fog of progressive brainwashing can recognize any meaningful truths. While I certainly agree that contemporary progressivism is a suicidal ideology, many virtuous, dedicated, and intelligent people ascribe to some part of it while still recognizing aspects of reality. Insofar as these people are living in the truth, they are able to properly rejoice in it. Meanwhile, many who rightly critique the emptiness of the progressive project fall into habits of resentment and unhappiness that actually moves them farther away not just from joy and charity, but truth itself.”

If we want to Red Pill anyone, we have to lead by example.  How much joy can you have if your primary purpose is destruction and schadenfreude instead of laying down roots and a foundation?  The Alt Reich could learn from this.  Or they can continue their descent into blaming instead of building.

They’ve been consumed by hate. Instead of building families they writhe with hatred of jews, blacks, and whoever else can be blamed for why their life isnt what it shouldnt be.   What a terrible way to go.  They’ve missed what will really rebuild not just “whites”, but everyone. Yes, that includes our black brethren in the cities.

Stable families that show love, laughter, faith, truth, beauty, goodness, and a reason to get up tomorrow morning with a purpose and hope in life.   We need to focus on what we can actually affect – the lives of those around us.  This is done through families that can build up the community and the lives of those in our community.  It’s probably the primary point that the authors of A Kings Castle will hammer home; focus on what we can affect instead of national politics and scaremongering.

See this happy face?

@makaylaarianna gave Julius a donut. It went everywhere. #toddlers #boys

A post shared by Lucas Temple (@armenia4ever) on

That’s my son. Him and his younger brother will build a legacy that affects our families, friends, and neighbors.  That’s how you Red Pill the world around you; by showing them how it’s done.  We will outbreed those who so throughout endorse abortion and create a new foundation built on the shoulders of those who came before us.

We will build marriages worthy of remembrance and praise.  Our children will rise to the top bringing those around them on the ride.  The community around us will see our lives.  We will live, drink, laugh, and not be brought down by the things in life we CANT control.   There is a better way and we will show it.

I’m far from perfect – of that my wife will assure you.  But damnit, I’m going to keep going forward and showing those around me that life is worth living, the future is worth building, and that even in the darkest of times and despair there is always a reason to keep going.

 

Should You Even Bother Grabbing Social Media By The Pussy?

No, you really shouldn’t, but let’s get into the why of the matter.

Newsfeeds far and wide on your Facebook timelines  have probably had at least a few people complaining during Trumps Inauguration in obvious righteous indignation about how Trump is grabbing women by the pussy and some fuss about “sexual assault”, #NotMyPresident, blah blah blah.

That’s merely the main culprit that rises to the top of the other myths being spread by supposed “IFuckingLoveScience” rationalists who populate social media streams with their absolute adherence to logic, reason,  Trump hate, and using the words “fascism” and “Hitler” to refer to anything they don’t like.

Why this focus on a story that is now at least 3 months old?

Via Legal Insurrection
Grab em by da pussy

My guess is that the  bit about him being unconstitutional – which isn’t necessarily an inaccurate claim – fell on deaf ears because those same people screaming about it being violated didn’t care ONE DAMN BIT about our precious constitution during the last 16 years of Bush and Obama.

What they really care about is that the other side is doing it now and is now leveling the playing field hence terms attacks with words like “whitelash”, “fascism”, and dat racism/sexism/phobia stuff.   The “anger” over the supposed attack on a free press – namely just Sean Spicer telling the press how the White House isn’t going to kiss their ass anymore – is an example of how their valued control over the media isn’t having the influence it should on us sheeple.   (Trump is going remember who lied, slandered, and attacked him over the campaign cycle and treat them in a manner they deserve. )

Obama lovers who didn’t seem to have a problem with drone strikes on sheep herders, hundreds of executive orders, starting proxy wars in Syria, plundering Libya, and too many other issues to put in one post never made any squealing noises about it.

I’ve seen it from friends, family, and all across the web.   Well what did Trump actually say concering #PussyGate?  Context is usually important.  No, wait it’s ALWAYS IMPORTANT.  Straight from the fake news that is the New York Times – thought at least they didn’t fall for the golden showers rained on prostitutes anonymously sourced transcript like Buzzfeed.

“Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.

Trump: Oh, it looks good.”

Wait, did you see that? In there was this part about them LETTING him do it.    That sounds….. consensual, rather than any nonsensical wails about sexual assault.

Of course, this will never be the end of it.  That odd “enthusiastic affirmative consent” dogmatic fantasy logic that somehow has been implemented in New York and California is applied by our Trump alarmists for a few reasons:

(1) They need some reason – no matter how fallacious, incorrect, and flat-out wrong to weaponize the people on their feed who like 99% of us think ACTUAL  sexual assault is bad with a deliberately flawed interpretation of what was actually said.

(2)  Locker room talk is something these people doesn’t believe exist until their skeletons are revealed in which they’ve been saying all sorts of un PC stuff in their chats, messengers, and snaps.   Here they are simply being dishonest with themselves for purely political reasons because it’s Trump.  Whatever.

(3) The real Kool-aid believers here that actually think this was sexual assault because of the social justice definitions they’ve absorbed as gospel over their time being “educated“, checking their privilege, tweeting in their bubble chambers about oppression, and looking down their noses at us “ist” and” ism” inbred deplorables  have a worldview that is so based in this rhetoric that they can’t see past their own self-induced haze.

(4) Many of these “activists” marched and participated in some rants, signage, and ramblings via the Women’s March about how Trump is supposedly against Women’s rights – whatever that even means these days.

If you aren’t talking about how rape culture supposedly exists on campuses and instead focusing on tackling our trade deficits in the issues on the Whitehouse site, you hate women. If you aren’t spouting more about LGBT stuff, even though we’ve spent the last decade bitching about it = homophobia, transphobia, etc.   That should tell you the intellectual honesty of these people.

No.

NO. You shouldn’t waste time on social media bothering to point out the nonsense conclusions made about #PussyGate.   Now, bothering to share this post and making your own statuses about the dishonesty floating out there is not a waste.

However, I wouldn’t bother answering any loud rant-like spew retorts about it.  Not unless there is that rare chance they are genuine in their desire for conversation about it.   Likely, you will simply make your point, agree to disagree, and move on.

Don’t lose friends or family over it, just spend your time in honest discussion and debate with people who can get past the word “Trump” when they look at the logic of an argument.  I still advise not bothering to do that over social media.  These conversations are best had in person.

An article via the Spectator posted an article about why Trump won entitled, “Trump How Did This Happen,” and it argues how politics became something to be done to us by our enlightened non bigoted peers costal elite peers and in turn treated us like trash.  Us trash grew tired of it both politically and in regards to even bothering to refute the accusation of “racist” for the 100th time.  An astute comment makes this point better than I can:

“There is no adult rationalizing with people who refuse to be adult or rational. In a way (and this is not too much of a stretch), it is a furtherance of these gender “identity issues.” The underlying motive is to negate a fundamental reality so that they can tell you what truth is in any given point in time.  So–by design–there is no foundation upon which to have an honest conversation on ANY topic. They want control, not collaboration.”

Rejecting Guilt By Association

Regardless of what mortals you follow, adore, admire, and pay homage you will at some point disagree with them.  Whether it’s most of the time or almost never, no one will ever hold exactly all the viewpoints that you have come to cherish.

A tweet from Milo Yiannapolous prompted the above line of thought in which he voices disagreement with libertarians on the NSA spying incident – color my libertarian tendencies irked.

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/591284596190347264

Obviously, he is mistaken, as his his later tweet about Snowden being a traitor and not a hero.   I’m also above reproach in my conclusion. 

Today, the internet echo-chamber or “communities” as we call them is often bereft of any actual substance in discussion when it comes to disagreement over just about anything.  Dissenters are labeled “concern trolls” or just “trolls” in general.   In fact the word, “troll” has lost it’s meaning because of the abuse of the term.

Throw in “safe-spaces” and this takes on a whole new layer of people who immediately dismiss anything that comes from an opposing side.   If you make the mistake of identifying with a label that is considered “bad” or triggering, everything you say is immediately dismissed – regardless of the validity of what you say.

We need to start judging statements, comments, and opinions based on what they actually are –  the merit and validity of them – instead of who said them.    Whether they come from a radical liberal feminist or a neo-con warhawk, it shouldn’t matter; we need to reject guilt by association.

Encountering the “Other Side”

Take for example Cindy Brandt’s site/blog which I recently came across and her post, “You Don’t Need To Tell Me You Don’t Agree.”   She actually makes alot of good points, despite certain… social justice affiliations.

Well, I don’t agree.   Okay, I couldn’t resist.  Take a look at this specific observation:

“Which one of us agrees on everything with any other single person? No one! Certainly, many of us share similar passions and congregate according to common interests, it’s only human to interact with those who you resonate easily with. But if you dig deeper, or you spend enough time together, it isn’t long before one discovers there are indeed some, if not many points of disagreements with those we are in relationship with.”

As she points out, no one will  ever agree on everything, but with today’s identity politics and culture its often either all or nothing.  If someone doesn’t share enough “similar” passions, interests, and convictions,  chances are that most people won’t give anything they say the time of day.   This is more likely if they know about your “opinions” and affiliations before they evaluate what you’ve actually said.

“If we are honest with ourselves, adding the phrase is a form of social insurance. We want to protect ourselves from the risk of being associated with certain things this person represents. “

It certainly is a form of social insurance, but why?

People seem conditioned to pre-judge and make assumptions based on labels and what they “represent”, so what choice is there but to adjust? Unfortunately, this is the reality of where we are at.  It rather sucks that these qualifiers are needed, but can anyone point to topics of conversation where they aren’t?

The risk of being associated with someone who is deemed a racist, bigot, homophobe, ect or any other culturally deemed demagogues can be cause for your employment to be revoked. Consider Razib Khan who was initially hired by the New York Times, but then let go because of his “association” with right-wing publications who were deemed to be mired in racism.    So much for diversity of opinion right?

Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint...
Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint…

Shockingly, the fact that he isn’t even white was enough to save him from the wrath of social justice warriors who usually excuse certain people from terrible actions, deeds, and statements based purely on their genetics.  Another mighty journalism giant bows before Gawker and SJWs.    Apparently, all you need to do is label someone a racist enough to make them suffer the effects of today’s modern heresy.

For instance, Cindy describes herself as “social justice-y” on the side bar of her site.  GASP!

Someone, pull the alarm.   Danger is near.

  My spidey sense is tingling.

Now a large amount of people will probably dismiss anything she has to say because of the affiliation with social justice.  Don’t make that mistake; don’t fall prey to guilt by association.  I  may fall to this ever constant trap subconsciously, but then force myself to read what is actually state.  Some exceptions are made for Tumblr…

I strongly disagree with almost everything  modern day social justice folks advocate – what normal sane person wouldn’t – but I won’t necessarily dismiss something because of who is advocating it.

“We can dialogue with people as people, other human beings with different personalities, life experiences, and ideas. We can celebrate common ground without erecting walls or drawing boundary lines. We can connect without disclaimers, embracing the whole of our conversation partner along with her ideas. Let’s base our conversations with one another from a place of shared humanity instead of basing it on fear by association. “

Is this really possible? Can we connect without disclaimers? I don’t think we can.

Tales From The Online Crypt

I recently encountered and “argued” with some conservatives on TheRightScoop about the subject of police abuse.   Obviously, they deny this is a real problem.  In order to even get them to look at anything I have to say, I had to utter the following disclaimer, “I’m not a democrat…”

This is of course true, but if I didn’t point this out, said conservatives would assume I’m some sort of liberal because I disagree with one of their viewpoints.

Behold, the current state of online discourse.

If you disagree with someone on an issue you are immediately considered to be a follower of the opposing “side”.   If you disagree with some of the trash on the Huffington Post, you are a right-wing bigot, ect, ect, ect.   If you take issue with something on Breitbart you are left-wing marxist, socialist, ect, ect, ect.    Qualifiers are absolutely necessary.

“The power of association, of tribes, of communities, is so strong that we take extra measures to ensure boundaries are clearly marked, compelling us to insert disclaimers even in casual conversation. We are so fearful of being grouped with the “wrong” crowd as perceived by the person we are speaking with.

I do not think this is a healthy way to dialogue. I think it is a sign of disrespect to curate someone’s ideas, extracting it from their whole selves with all of their complexities and personhood.”

She is right; it’s not a healthy way to dialogue.   Yes, we must consider the context of a person – if that makes sense –  which is necessary to fully understand their ideas and why they have them. However, in today’s charged, “guilt by association” culture, you absolutely have to introduce qualifiers into the conversation or anything you say will be dismissed based on you supposedly are.

The need for safe spaces...
The need for safe spaces…

One popular “Debate” tactic is Godwin’s law.   To sum that up, it means that you equate a certain argument, idea, or even person to Hitler.  This of course invalidates anything they have to say.  Or does it?

Just because Hitler said something, doesn’t qualify it as being incorrect – such as his radical environmentalism, state control of “healthcare”, ect.   In fact, I’m sure almost everyone today holds some positions that Hitler advocated on economics, state control and power, and the environment.

Color me shocked.

This time-held tactic is “guilt by association/wrong by association” and is employed by disingenuous teenagers, tumblrites, and many adults who want to shout down others based on who they are, rather then what they’ve said on extremely important blogs and websites where their comments clearly make a difference.

 

Don’t be one of “those” people.

People who engage in daily displays on their Facebook feeds in guilt by association tactics usually have something in common;  they are angry, upset, and jaded.

Their life is a never ending stream of  un-fulfilled selfies, self-loathing, and vicious attacks on anyone who looks like they wallowed in depression for weeks upon end.   All of these bitter people online have one goal in mind; if they can’t be happy – neither can you.

Go outside of your bubble and live.

It’s been said that you can’t argue with certain people, and that is true. Argument however shouldn’t be the goal of every interaction.  You don’t need to “win”.    All you need to do is engage, discuss, and see if any new seeds are planted in either your mind or your “opponent.”   In order to any of that, you must reject guilt by association.

Perhaps, you may just develop a relationship with someone where you don’t need qualifiers, but you must take the initiative to do just that.

I encourage all to go out and have face-to-face conversations with people you know you disagree with. You will be surprised at what happens when both of you or others involved have a conversation that isn’t based on “convincing” anyone of a particular point, but is focused on the exchange of ideas and worldviews.

This is how you grow and become a more rounded individual.

 It is one of the first steps in today’s vicious culture in becoming a renaissance man.

Reject guilt by association.

The Left and Right: Principled Ideological Differences?

Sometimes, you have mini epiphanies come to you out of nowhere. It’s happened to me at work, but I never have time to write it down there. This time however, I was shaving when my “epiphany” occurred. Can I really call it that? Perhaps.

Today when we think of the “right” and the “left”, most of us think of two differing ideologies that are clashing with each other on both a cultural and political scale. I suppose that’s true.  You can also be a libertarian like me and look at both sides Ideology as inherently statist, but that just isn’t relevant to this point/idea that cropped up in my rather unfocused mind. (I really am rather jealous of those who can focus their thoughts into concise points and articulate them like talking heads who know exactly what they are talking about.)

Notice alot of the issues that have popped up since the early 2000s, both culturally and politically. When you mention the word “big government” concerning an issue to someone who is supposedly a progressive or on the left on whatever the issue might be, what happens?

  • You are assumed to be a conservative.  (But I’m a libertarian!)
  • They advocate in favor of whatever action big government is participating in concerning the subject.
  • Their position on the action big government is taking becomes more valid in their mind.

Most liberals I know define their support or opposition of big government based on the concept that conservatives define it by.  So notice the trend. Depending on whatever position conservatives advocate, liberals will advocate the opposite even if that is not necessarily their position on the subject. This applies vice versa as well.   It’s almost as if a kind of “partyspeak” exists.  People tow a certain party line.

When it came to the subject of the Patriot act, note the opposition that was there when it was enacted and notice it now.  Apply that same line of thought to the issue of drone strikes. Apply it to the whole Monsanto debate.  Apply it to the War on Drugs. Apply it to recent censorship and internet piracy debates.  Keep applying it to much of the political dialogue over the last decade. Notice anything?

Liberals and Conservatives aren’t necessarily opposed to big government or in direct support of it. They are all of course opposed to whatever the other side supports.  Do you know any liberal or conservative who is actually in support of unrestricted Drone Strikes? Indefinite detainment of American citizens? Invading or participating in more foreign conflicts? Internet censorship?

I suppose the assumptions we make about either side somewhat become a self-fulfilling reality even though the specific boxes and categories we try to put people in really don’t fit as well as they should.  Could some of these attempts to categorize people and make very widespread assumptions about said people result from our Western drive to categorize, organize, and make every kind of distinction we can? Even if it is, I’m not sure if we can shed those presuppositions and our thought process that may be one of the factors in what drives party line ideology today.

I believe our very time-saving and “immediate” cultural attitude and behavior may be somewhat at fault here. We however must make the effort to not be lazy and avoid the time consumption convenience  of assuming either side or whatever the ideology may be is always wrong.   If an idea is valid, it doesn’t matter who proposes the idea.  Guilt by association just doesn’t seem to be the proper mindset if one actually wishes to examine and  filter ideas through as many individual perceptions on a subject to determine the validity of said ideas.