In my previous dispatch, I attempted to connect the dots between the sexual revolution, rampant feminist-based societal misandry (that is, man-hatred), and the PUA “Game” culture. In such circumstances, I argued, the only self-respecting choice is to opt for celibacy, or at the very least, for defiant chastity. The nature of the human male is now commonly understood to be naught but low, base, and oversexed; men are regarded as piggish and bestial when it comes to carnal matters, and while this perception admittedly often corresponds with reality, I wonder how much of it is due to the fact that we have been trained to be just such pigs, that we have been willfully debased by the overseers who rule the gynocentric dystopia we currently inhabit.
In short, if the male libido is so easily exploited that men will do anything for sex, it follows that men are easily controlled. Is it therefore so hard to conceive of the notion that male sexualization and debasement could be an instrument of domination by our so-called betters?
Our identity, after all, is tied up in what we’re told about ourselves. People become extraordinarily compliant when confronted with the sternly-worded dictates of authority figures and distressingly susceptible to all manner of trendy mantras and shibboleths. Tell a man enough times that he wants, needs, and can’tdowithout sex, and he’ll be hard-put to disagree. Keep banging home the message: “You can’t help yourself; it’s just the essence of who you are, part and parcel of being a testosterone-afflicted beast wallowing in filth,” and eventually he’ll nod his assent and behave accordingly, even if he objected to the message at some point in the past.
Thus, notions of restraint and self-control are dismissed, and practitioners and purveyors of traditional sexual morality are attacked as prudes or hypocrites, or prudish hypocrites, or hypocritical prudes. The Catholic church, which affirms celibacy as a high and exalted vocation necessary for leadership (“It is better not to marry”), is routinely ridiculed by these smug, smarmy hyper-enlightened experts, for whom promiscuity is perfectly “natural” (and that which is “natural,”, through some slippery rhetorical slight of hand, is dubiously rendered as “good”). But the real reason why the Church is reviled is because of the very real danger it represents to the control of the current ruling elite, encapsulated in the fact that it won’t bend to accommodate the dictates of the Zeitgeist on sexual matters. [Continue reading…]
– Andy Nowicki, ‘Kiss Cams, Conformity, and Masculine Defiance‘, Alternative Right