As the alt-right expands in terms of the number of people who identify with it and the influence it holds over the political discourse, it is inevitable that the ranks of people alienated by it and disillusioned about it will swell as well. The types of people who are and will be alienated by the alt-right are various; the alt-right combines several core agendas and different people will be put-off by different agendas contained in the alt-right worldview. In this post I will examine the different alt-right agendas, the people that these agendas are prone to alienate, and how we can move over those kinds of people to our side.
Let it be noted that we don’t seek to recruit everyone alienated by the alt-right. Many people who are enemies of the alt-right are also enemies of us, and likewise, some people sympathetic to the alt-right can also be sympathetic to us.
Propaganda, aka public relations, aka marketing, is supposed to be effective. It’s effectiveness is measured by its ability to change minds to be favorable to whatever it is it’s trying to “sell.” However, the inner core of a movement cannot be composed of anyone willing to join it, but only of select individuals who are fit to constitute the leadership stratum. Furthermore, it’s pointless to try to appeal to everyone; done intelligently, recruitment-propaganda focuses on those people who are likely to be of benefit to the movement. This “battle of ideas” we are in is not democratic elections. We aren’t politicians seeking as many votes as possible. We are politicians to the extent that we seek to have our sexual-politics made influential. Let’s see how it can be done properly.
Have You Heard About The Gray Tribe?
One group of people alienated by the alt-right is the libertarians. Libertarians are people who value individual liberty and oppose governmental intervention in the private affairs of citizens, be it economic intervention or other kinds of statist regulations of private conduct. Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists (I won’t get into the differences between them here) have no desire to see a fascist Big Government coercing the citizens to do its bid. One saying among libertarians is “scratch a nazi, find a commie.” A forced allocation of wealth from the rich to “society” is a notion which libertarians detest. Many (but not all) Libertarian thinkers were Jewish, and don’t think for a moment that the anti-Libertarian alt-righters are unaware of it.
Considering all this, an alliance between Libertarians and Male Sexualists instantly suggests itself. As I wrote here, our narrative is a narrative of liberation: we seek to gain liberty for ourselves from the tyranny of Puritanism-Feminism. A place or several places in the world with an alternative and parallel order, if you will, to the totalitarian Puritan-Feminist World Order. Surely, then, people who strongly value liberty would be closer to our camp than people who don’t care about liberty. People who “hate it when the government tells me what to do and what not to do” are by their nature very likely to view with skepticism the ongoing and increasing criminalization of male sexuality by powerful world governments. If we can convince them to translate their skepticism of this trend into outright opposition to it, we will gain an important alliance.
“Politics is the art of the possible” said Otto von Bismarck, which means that possible opportunities should be seized upon, rather than given up on. This potential alliance between Libertarians and Male Sexualists is one such possible opportunity to advance our cause. The people here defined as Libertarian belong to what the Left-Libertarian psychologist Scott Alexander called the “Gray Tribe.” This Gray Tribe is conceived in opposition to the Red Tribe (traditional conservatives) and the Blue Tribe (statist progressives). I suggest you read Alexander’s post here where he explains what the Gray Tribe is, and Pax Dickinson’s reflections on it here. It’s these members of the Gray Tribe — who are neither “conservatives” nor “liberals” in the American sense of those words — that we can persuade to support Male Sexualism. Indeed, I believe that many of the Manosphere writers, and many of those who were involved in #GamerGate, belong to the Gray Tribe. Take the time to read what Alexander and Dickinson had to say about it and you’ll realize the logic behind the alliance I propose. A final note on the Gray Tribe: these people are smart, and usually well-off economically. We want them to support us.
The Racially (and Sexually) Rejected Men, and Their Families
Not only am I ethnically Jewish myself, so is my wife, Einat Grauer (nee Levine). You can judge for yourself how white she looks, and yet by the alt-right’s definitions she is racially non-white, and as a Jewess, they would like to “pop her in the oven.” While commentator and fellow blogger Caamib has warned me that my “white family” is “deemed for destruction by liberal scum,” the truth of the matter is that my Jewish family is already deemed for destruction by other kinds of scum. These things are not mutually exclusive anyway: bloodthirsty Progressive Socialists and bloodthirsty National Socialists both want me and my family dead. Objectively speaking, that’s hilarious. Subjectively speaking, that’s tragic.
Now, let me propose three thought-experiments.
You are a tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed, broad-shouldered man. You were raised your entire childhood by a white family. The majority of your childhood friends, and most people you grew up with, were white. Your entire life you have identified as a “white man.” Why wouldn’t you, right? Who in his right mind would define you as anything but a white man? Except, there’s a tiny problem that you were not aware of. You see, there is a vociferous segment of the internet that thinks that you don’t belong in a white society. The reason? Your great-grandmother was a Negress. You are 1/8 racially black! It doesn’t matter that you look perfectly white and identify as white. The only thing that matters to these people is that genetically — within your blood — you are partially black. What that means is that, at best, these people would give you a one-way ticket to Africa, or worse, would exterminate you. Think about that for a few moments, my octoroon friend.
Now, another thought-experiment, if I may. You are an authentic, 100% Aryan white man. Not a drop of non-European blood flows in your bloodstream. You look like a Viking warrior. Think you have secured for yourself a spot in Richard Spencer’s white paradise? Think again. For while you are white, your Chinese wife is not, and likewise, your mutual hapa children are also considered non-white. According to the alt-right agenda, you don’t belong in a white ethno-state unless you break up with your Chinese wife and send her and your mixed-raced children to China. The alt-righters would forcibly separate you from your family if they could. Your wife may be “the sunshine of your life,” as the romantics would say; you may have vowed to do “anything and everything” for the sake of your mutual children; it doesn’t matter – she and the kids have to go back, and if you want to remain with your family, you’d have to go with them. Also, you will forever be reminded that you are a “gook-fucking race traitor!” Think about that for a few moments, dear Aryan.
Finally, a third, short thought-experiment. Like in the above example, you’re a fully white man. You may even be a White Nationalist yourself. Alas, you’re a homosexual. And according to the alt-right, that means that you “get the bog.” I’m not sure if you know what that means, but let’s just define it as “an unpleasant experience, resulting in death.” Yeah, I think you get my point.
See, I personally have nothing against White Nationalism. I see it the same way I see Jewish Nationalism or Black Nationalism or Yellow Nationalism or what have you. I am not against “white countries for white people.” I’m not saying this rhetorically, I mean it: white people have a right to live by themselves, according to their own rules, without non-whites in their midst. But what I want you to consider is all the people who are, and will be, rejected by the alt-right. All those white people, whether partially non-white or fully white but married to non-whites or homosexual, who are told by the alt-right that they have no place in the society that the alt-right is designing. Just think about the sheer number of such people, who may be sympathetic to 80% of alt-right positions, who may even have tried joining the alt-right at some point, but who cannot be involved in the alt-right and cannot be existent in the ideal White Ethno-State, because of their assorted “impurities.” These are very many people.
And many of them are very high-quality people. Just look at it in terms of influence: many whites with non-white spouses have been instrumental in creating modern White Nationalism itself, and are now — ironically — told to get the fuck out. Many mischlings (half-Jews or quarter-Jews) have been involved in alt-right activism along the way (see: this guy), only to find out that they should “get gassed.” And many gays have been into it, too; the examples are numerous and well-known, so I don’t need to tell you about it. Again, these are talented, creative men we’re talking about here, men who are now told to GTFO for reasons that, to them, seem silly and just plainly wrong. There is going to be a lot of disappointment if and when the alt-right succeeds. And that’s something that we should keep in mind.
“But how is that even relevant to Male Sexualism?”
Excellent question, my friend. In fact, it’s very relevant. Because all those men who are rejected by the alt-right due to racial reasons or due to homosexuality are men in search of a new ideology. And what we offer is exactly that – a new ideology.
Setting aside the issue of the alt-right’s rejection of gays, the alt-right ideology is primarily a race-centered ideology. As we’ve seen, this race-centeredness has resulted in the rejection of multitudes of people. Multitudes of men, to be precise. As Male Sexualists, it is our task to offer these men an alternative to alt-rightism. The ideology which we offer has a place in it for white men, black men, Jewish men, Asian men, racially-mixed men, and so on, because it is a sex-centered ideology. We don’t seek to fight against White Nationalism, and we don’t seek to unite with White Nationalism; we offer an alternative discourse, an alternative agenda, to the race issue altogether. Yes, you can technically be a White Nationalist and a Male Sexualist at the same time, just as you can be a Vegetarian and a Male Sexualist at the same time. These different agendas need not be in conflict, and generally speaking, there is no reason to get into unnecessary fights.
But if for some reason you don’t have a place in White Nationalism (or Black Nationalism or Jewish Nationalism or whatever), why shouldn’t you fully support our sex-centered agenda?
(I think that special emphasis may be given to white men with non-white spouses and to white-Jewish mischlings. From what I’ve seen, these groups have a lot of potential in them in terms of being creative and overall talented, but also, these groups tend to be particularly butthurt over what the alt-right says about them. We can use that to our advantage)
There is No Reason to Alienate Socialists
I wrote above that unlike the race-centered alt-right, we are a sex-centered movement. And that extends beyond the issue of race; being sex-centered, we are not economy-centered. While there is a natural affinity between us and the Libertarian-leaning Gray Tribe mentioned earlier, that doesn’t mean that we need to be explicitly Libertarian. I’m against that. If someone is a Socialist and at the same time supports Male Sexualism, there is simply no reason to reject him or to turn him off by bringing up privatization, low taxes, deregulation, etc. There are enough places on the internet to discuss Libertarianism (or “Libertarianism vs. Socialism”) and the Male Sexualist movement need not be one of those places, necessarily. Of course, we should talk about whatever we want to talk about. However, economy-related stuff should not take the center of our debates.
What we need is to walk a fine line between being friendly to Libertarians (who are our natural allies) and not being too annoying to Socialists. We must never forget that Ernest Belfort Bax, the first MRA and a critic of the AOC, was an avowed Socialist. TheAntifeminist wrote about him here, for instance. Bax saw Socialism and Men’s Rights as complementary; in his view, the government, which is essentially a male enterprise, should serve the needs of its productive citizens, which can be translated both to Socialism and to “MRA-ism” (or, in our parlance, Male Sexualism); and in his case, that’s exactly how he translated this notion into ideology. That tells us two things: you can be a Socialist and a Male Sexualist at the same time; there are intelligent Socialists and if we can gain their favor, we should do that. Again: “politics is the art of the possible.” It is possible to have Socialists on our said. Let’s be open to this possibility.
In fact, one of the bloggers I link to, Red Shambhala, is a Marxist-Communist. While I am myself not a Marxist-Communist (albeit I praised Stalin, but that’s just my kind of humor), I find value in a diversity of perspectives, and I recognize that even people whose economic theories or philosophical worldviews I do not support can join the Male Sexualist movement. Hopefully, the rest of you can understand my position here. Now, if you want to get into furious fights about economic matters, by all means do so, just — y’know — don’t outright reject people because you disagree with their economic theories. That’s counterproductive.
The Skeptic and Rationalist Communities are Fertile Grounds for Outreach Efforts
As I have already said, religious fights are really retarded, and we should try to avoid them. That said, we want to be effective, which means that we need to know how to structure our message properly. Now, there is this Skeptic community, made of people who are usually atheists or agnostics, that wants to logically question all manner of phenomena, from issues of metaphysics to contemporary social influences. Many of them are dedicated contrarians, sort of. While atheist militants come across as just as close-minded as the religious militants they seek to challenge, the truth of the matter is that atheists tend to be pretty open-minded, overall. That should give us enough reason to structure our message in a way that appeals to them.
After all, if they are genuinely open-minded about things and seek to look at reality from a logical viewpoint; and furthermore, if they are “novelty seekers” who simply like to examine different new ideologies if only out of curiosity; well that means that they are bound to eventually discover the Male Sexualist movement, on their own. What we want is to give our positions a logical basis, so that the skeptics could relate to them, discuss them, and eventually even adopt them. The is no reason to be anti-religious; but there is a reason to explain why criminalization of male sexuality should be opposed without invoking God, religion, etc. Perhaps I myself have been too focused on humor and sensation and have not spent enough time explaining the logic of my positions. While humor is generally more convincing to the masses than logic (and I seek to convince the masses), we should keep in mind the existence of the skeptics, who tend to be high-IQ individuals; they can be convinced to at least consider pro-pedophilia positions if these positions are presented to them in a logical way. A leader of the atheist community, Richard Carrier, is a proponent of polyamory; can there not one day arise an atheist leader who’s a proponent of pedophilia?
Maybe logically convincing the skeptics is a task for someone else and not for me – as I said before, I may be intelligent, but shock-humor and outrageous trolling are things I much prefer doing. I’m sure that people like AmericanRifleman09 could do a great job appealing to the skeptics.
I also mentioned the Rationalists. These people are similar to the Skeptics, except that they are less about questioning religion, and more about questioning social phenomena and issues of morality. At least that’s what I gather from them. Their community seems to be centered at Less Wrong, and their leader is Eliezer Yudkowsky. One thing that is noteworthy about them is that, unlike the Skeptics, the Rationalists pay a lot of attention to futurism and transhumanism; and so futurists and transhumanists are often attracted to Rationalism, and vice versa. While futurists and transhumanists are both small communities, by their very nature, these people are extremely open-minded. They are also very high-IQ, more-so than your average atheist. Despite often being quite deep into Progressive politics, these are individuals who are open to discussing pedophilia in a rational way. Like Libertarians, they tend to belong to the Gray Tribe. So, what I’m saying is: we can talk to them. It’s productive. And perhaps we should tailor our message to be appealing to them. My short futurist-fantasy posts (e.g.) are a fun way to at least draw some attention from them. Generally, talking about the future and suggesting various scenarios that can occur in it is pretty fun, at least to me.
The Neoreactionaries are a Lost Cause
Just as we should be realistic about whom we can convince, we should be realistic as to whom we can’t convince. The Neo-Reaction (NRx) movement was pioneered by Curtis Yarvin, and was originally composed of individuals who had come from left-wing backgrounds but then made a 180 degree turn and became Monarchists. However, despite being a “far right-wing” movement, its original members were very open-minded about many things, and on many issues were in sharp disagreement with Tradcons, e.g. Curtis Yarvin supported Gay Marriage and wanted to advance Artificial Reality technologies. Yarvin himself is an atheist and is connected to the homosexual billionaire Peter Thiel. Basically, Neoreactionaries rejected democracy and rejected much of leftism, which technically makes them “extreme right-wing,” but nevertheless held many positions that were completely contrary to what we know as Traditional Conservatism.
But then the alt-right ‘revolution’ happened, and whatever brains the NRx had originally possessed have been surgically removed from them in a kind of “reverse Frankenstein.” It’s not alive! Now NRx is basically a movement composed of ethno-nationalists, Throne-and-Altar Catholics, and various other tradcons, many of whom fall into the typically right-wing hysteria about how “the liberals want to legalize pedophilia, hurr durr.” Whatever non-right-wing positions they once held have been replaced with the “proper” right-wing positions, and the open-mindedness is all but gone. The average Neoreactionary IQ has also sharply declined; I have been following NRx since 2014, and the output has become shit-tier during this period. We could have convinced the NRx of 2011-2012 to examine our positions, but engaging with the NRx of 2018 is a waste of time, and there is no point doing it. There’s a reason why the founder, Curtis Yarvin, and others have left the movement.
Are We Part of The Broader Pervert Community? (No)
“LGBTP” doesn’t work, and only exists in the delirious fantasies of frothing right-wingers. In reality, the Gay Coalition, the Queer Alliance, the BDSM Brigades, the Kink Community, all of these, are vehemently opposed to pedophilia. Their logic is actually quite simple to grasp: “if we associate ourselves with the cause of pedophilia, our own cause will be at great risk. So, we must disassociate ourselves from pedophilia.” That is probably the kind of thinking that led Fidelbogen to accuse me of being a “feminist impersonator.” People with this conformist mentality see pedophilia as the worst thing ever, and any association with it as “political suicide.” Most of the perverts tend to lean left-wing, which is understandable, because the right-wing rejects them; but as left-wingers, they have fallen into the worldview of victimology, and see “children” as a victim group that must be “protected.”
(The reason Gay Liberation succeeded while Pedo Liberation failed is the worldview of victimology; never forget that. And while we’re at it: are you beginning already to grasp one of the reasons that I promote the positions which I promote? Let me spell it out: I want to cleanse you off whatever victimological convictions you possess — using shocking humor — because if we could delegitimize victimology, we could eventually obliterate Blue Knightism, and much of White Knightism too)
So, sorry, but no, we aren’t a part of any such Perv Coalition. They’ll never support us. Sure, individuals who are into all kinds of perversions and “lifestyles” may support us; but the “community,” such as it is, will forever be opposed to pedo-acceptance and generally to advocacy of abolishing sex-crime legislation. These are people who frantically believe in “Sexual Consent,” and as someone who rejects this very modern and very retarded notion, they’ll never ever accept me. Again, we must be realistic about whom we can move over to our side and whom we cannot, and the pervert community belongs to the latter category.
Now, we can support them. Sure, okay. Whatever. But we’re not going to conduct propaganda to win them over, because that is not a possible prospect, and you already know what politics (including sexual-politics) is all about. Remember: it is equally important to know who our allies are as who are enemies are. These people — while not necessarily our enemies — aren’t our allies.
Note: There is a War Between Homosexuals and Muslims
Simultaneously, we attract homosexuals and Muslims to our cause (and people who shill for either the former or the latter group). I won’t get into the reasons for it here, but that’s what is happening. And that is bound to lead to infighting, since these two groups of people cannot coexist. Islam manages to coexist with some non-Islamic things, but one non-Islamic thing which Islam simply won’t tolerate is homosexuality. The idea that gays and Muslims will unite under the banner of Male Sexualism is retarded. A conflict within the movement is inevitable as long as we have both groups within it. The only ways to actually deal with it are either to kick out one group and embrace the other, or simply kick out both groups, or to have as many non-homosexuals and non-Muslims in the movement as possible so as to mitigate the conflict. I choose option 3: I don’t want to kick anyone out, and therefore, I want the mass of the movement to be composed neither of gays nor of Muslims, but of Western heterosexual men. When most of our members are Western heterosexual men, any intra-movement conflict between gays and Muslims will be of little consequence to the movement overall. They will fight each other, but they won’t kill the movement itself in the process.
No doubt, there exist many positive things in the Islamic teachings regarding male-female relations. And without a doubt, gays have a place in the Male Sexualist Movement; we stand for the full spectrum of male sexuality, and that includes a minority that is homosexual. But, in my opinion, these two minorities should not be allowed to become the majority of Male Sexualists, for the reason herein outlined. So, we will — inshallah — attract primarily Western heterosexual men. Which brings us to the last point for today.
We Need Western People Close to Unconventional Politics, But Who Aren’t Alt-Righters
Listen. We need to be realistic about who will start the next sexual revolution. I personally harbor no ill-will against Chinese peasants, but something tells me that it won’t be Chinese peasants who will commence the next sexual revolution. Just a hunch. Nor will it be impoverished Third Worlders. The previous sexual revolution happened in the West, and so will the next one. It is the Western World — primarily the Anglosphere and Europe — that will be the center of any sexual revolution which may come. Generally speaking, world-sweeping revolutions such as the Industrial Revolution and the Rise of Democracy come from the Western World. You can chalk it up to the “Faustian Spirit” if you will, but that’s what it is.
Also: I personally get along very well with white people. In fact, I get along with white people much better than I get along with fellow Jews! So, here is my point: while we should not engage in racism against anyone, and we should not be White Nationalists or Jewish Nationalists or Arab Nationalists or any kind of Nationalists, we should respect the people of the Western World, which are primarily whites. In general, we should treat with respect the people whom we want to convince. If it’s primarily the people in the Western World whom we want to convince, and the people in the Western World are mostly whites, that means that we must respect white people. We cannot engage in anti-white rhetoric. In fact, we should not even insult too much the Anglos. I want to have as many Anglos on my side, actually. Sure, we can criticize what some whites are doing (that’s not anti-white) just as we can criticize what some Jews are doing (that’s not antisemitism). But we should not be anti-white.
The alt-right is creating friction within Western society. It’s creating wounds. This friction and these wounds will lead to an anti-alt-right backlash. Just as the alt-right is a Western phenomenon, the anti-alt-right backlash will also be a Western phenomenon. And it, too, will come mostly from white men. What I want is to take white men away from the alt-right. Which means, as I said, that while we are not going to engage in White Nationalism, we will also not descend into anti-white racism. There are enough white people who hate themselves, and there are enough Jews who hate white people – I am not one of them. I want to unite, not to divide.
Get this: identity politics is inevitable. It is not something that you can pretend that doesn’t exist. It exists and it’s omnipresent. But here’s the deal: if you’re a white man who is actually 1/8 black, I want you on my side. If you’re a white man who is actually 1/2 Jewish, I want you on my side. If you’re a white man who has an Asian girlfriend, I want you on my side. And in general, if you’re a white man who may be sympathetic to the kind of message that this blog stands for, I want you on my side. Of course, I want you on my side even if you aren’t a white man — we should definitely have people who are 100% black or 100% Asian, and Mexicans and Arabs and Eskimos and Iranians and Indians — but you have to understand that I write to a Western audience, that the language I use in my writing is the English language, that most of my traffic comes from white countries, that most of my readers are white, and that my goal is to convince the people of the Western World of the veracity of my ideas. We should try to avoid alienating non-whites. But we should also try to avoid alienating whites.
That doesn’t mean that race can’t be discussed. Jayman is an HBD (Human Bio-Diversity) blogger who writes a lot about race, naturally. HBD is the study of race from an empirical, i.e. non-dogmatic, i.e. not necessarily egalitarian, perspective. In fact, Jayman is partly black himself, and is critical of the alt-right, so it’d be ridiculous to accuse him of being some sort of a racist. Now, the reason I bring him up is to show that there are forms of discussion of race that, in my view, are perfectly legitimate, and do not constitute a bad thing. Another HBD blogger who’s interesting is this one, who happens to be a woman. (As I wrote here, women should not be part of our movement, but it’s okay for them to run their own blogs, in my opinion) We can discuss the works of Jayman or EvolutionistX or similar things, and it should not be verboten. In the long-run, there is no avoiding the reality of race. The people who read Jayman are not necessarily White Nationalists — presumably most of them are not White Nationalists — and I want them on my side.
I don’t want a race war. I don’t want anyone killed due to their 23andme Ancestry Results. I don’t want alt-rightism to become the official ideology of white men – I want to offer white men an alternative worldview. They are welcome in Male Sexualism, just as non-white men are welcome in it.
The alt-right is telling people of different races that they must be prevented from associating with each other. As a believer in the liberty of association, I reject that; I believe that people of different races should be able to associate with each other. However, the liberty of association runs both ways: if some whites support white separatism and want to associate exclusively with fellow whites, they should be able to do that. And likewise, if some blacks support black separatism and want to associate exclusively with fellow blacks, they should be able to do that. Liberty of association means that you are free to associate with whomever you want, and also that you are free to not associate with whomever you don’t want to associate with. The government should not break or otherwise interfere in your association, and it should not force any kind of association upon you. While I don’t define myself as a Libertarian, this is definitely a Libertarian position. You don’t have to hold this position to be part of Male Sexualism, but it seems like a fair one to hold, so I hold it.
That more or less sums up what I have to say about these matters as they pertain to our movement. You are free to accuse me of too much racism, or too little racism, or just call me “a subversive kike who belongs in the oven,” in the comments’ section.