Photo by Peter Beste. 2016.
Blog, Essays, Feature

We Are Not Brothers

I am not your brother.

I am not your “bro,” your “brah,” your “brohem,” your “brotha” or your “brother kinsman.”

Yes, that’s a thing.

I am also not your “bud,” or your “buddy.” Unless we’re actually buddies. Then that’s fine, though I can’t think of any of my buddies who I actually address as “bud” or “buddy.”  

To my ear, “buddy” always sounds a little forced and manipulative, like something some socially awkward, okely-dokely supervisor would call you right before he gave you a menial task.

If you’re actually my buddy, I’ll probably call you something stupid or some insulting nickname that we’ll both think is funny.

Or at least I’ll think it’s funny.

I do call my dog “buddy,” but I also named him Bruder, and since I feel guilty if I leave him alone at the house for more than 5 hours, he probably means a lot more to me than most of the men who call me “brother.”

If you’re a man, I’ll probably call you “man” as a gesture of respect — indicating that I recognize you as a man, and not a boy or woman or one of those damned urban elves.

If you’re a man, then you’re a man, and I’m a man, but being men doesn’t make us brothers any more than it makes us cousins.

If you call me “cuz,” then we will never become buddies, friends, allies or friendly associates.

If you’ve called me brother in the past, I was not “offended.”

Please do not apologize.

I know you meant it in a friendly way. It’s OK. We’re cool. We’re just not brothers.

Unless we are. And if we are, we both know it.

It’s not that I think men who aren’t brothers by blood can’t become brothers, spiritually. I co-authored a book on blood-brotherhood. From the Azande tribesmen of Central Africa to the early American boys characterized in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, men throughout history and on every habitable continent have developed formal or informal rites to make their friends into family. Sworn brotherhoods have always been taken seriously, and in many if not most cases, they were believed to supercede all other human bonds in importance.

So it’s not that I believe friends and allies can’t become brothers. I just don’t take the word “brother” lightly. And if you believe that the word “brother” actually means something — if you believe that brotherhood is important — neither should you.

One feature common to sworn brotherhoods throughout history is that they formalize an understanding of mutual obligation. Blood-brotherhood rites often include the promise of a curse on the brother who betrays his oath or turns his back on his blood-brother. Like brothers by birth, blood-brothers are expected to stand by each other and help each other out.

Even when they don’t want to. Even when they think their brother did something stupid. Even if it’s going to hurt.

Family implies responsibility and interdependence far beyond mere friendship or mutual admiration. It follows that created families should carry a comparable weight and burden of mutual obligation.

When men refer to each other as “brother” casually, they are imposing a fictive kinship to create a sense of unity between relative strangers.

Christians and Muslims alike have long been known to call strangers “brother” when they share the same religion.

American blacks referred to each other as “brothers” and “sisters” for decades. This reached its height in the heydey of the black power movement, as an attempt to create a sense of community and shared fate among American blacks. Blacks were even referred to collectively by other groups as “brothers,” though this is now considered politically incorrect for some fickle reason. Tarantino and others revived the funky blaxploitation vibe of the black power moment in pop culture, and references to “brothas” and “sistahs” continue to be used ironically and unironically on all channels of the mainstream media. The black power movement also inspired a variety of artists during that time who made undeniably good pop and soul music that still influences artists today who want to “‘rage against the machine” or “rise up” against the man.

The black power movement influenced the white power movement, and I’m pretty sure I’ve had guys call me brother because I’m white, or because I’m a heathen.

Richard Holt, writing for the Guardian, made an interesting point about the word “bro,” when it was revealed that Barack Obama occasionally called David Cameron his “bro.” Holt argued that by honoring someone with a name like “chief” or “boss” or even “bro,” a man is essentially saying that he feels comfortable and perceives no threat from the man so-honored. One could hardly imagine Obama referring to Putin as his “bro.”

Broadly speaking, there’s also a kind of feel-good, hippie angle to calling someone “brother” that comes across like one of those guys who ends every message with “PEACE.” You know, the guy who probably smoked a lot of ganja when he was going through his extended Bob Marley or Jamiroquai period. In his terminal chillness, he’s imposing the biggest kinship of all — the brotherhood of all humanity.

Like, one people, one world…brother.

Being one people on one planet hasn’t really ever meant enough to stop people from murdering each other or fucking each other over, so to my ear it comes across either spacey and naive or sleazy and saccharine.

A man who calls every man a brother is a brother to no man.

Like I said, if you’ve called me brother, I was not offended.

But as time goes on, I’ve realized that the majority of my career as a writer has been about zooming in on words and getting men to think about the way we use words as symbols for concepts that shape our personal worlds, identities and communities.

What is “masculinity”…what does it mean to be a “man”…what is “courage”…what is “honor”…what is a “tribe”…who is “we”…who is a “brother?”

All of these questions, all of these “words” matter.

If you say that brotherhood matters to you, why is your brotherhood so cheap? Why is it given so freely? Do you ask nothing in return for your brotherhood? What does your brotherhood offer?

These big-tent, open-flap brotherhoods that seek to unite large groups of people are all political manipulations. The big brotherhood projects the personal obligations of familial relationships impersonally, onto collections of strangers identified by a given trait that supposedly makes them “one.” Black. White. Male. Christian. Muslim. Human. By invoking the familiarity of brotherhood, people can be “guilted” into making personal sacrifices for strangers or people who they barely know — for the common cause. I’m not going to evaluate and dismiss every potential common cause between strangers here. Depending on the times and circumstances, I may be moved to find some more valid than others. I do think it’s important to be aware of the intent of the rhetoric.

I’m not personally comfortable extending my brotherhood to strangers. It’s too much to be on the hook for. There are too many unknown variables. I expect to have to earn the brotherhood of another man and likewise, he will have to earn mine. My brotherhood comes at a cost. I expect loyalty and reciprocity.

The only man who I call brother who I am not formally oathed to has been my friend for about ten years, and I know that he would do anything to help me if I needed it. I would do anything to help him, too. I trust him with my life. However, because I respect the gravity of that commitment, being a good brother also means carrying my own weight and taking enough responsibility for my own actions that I don’t need to call for that lifeline very often. When I call him for help, it’s either because I think he’ll enjoy doing what I need a hand with, or because I really need help.

That’s what brotherhood means to me. My brotherhood comes with strings attached. Actually, they’re more like chains. My brotherhood means that we’re in this together all the way to the end of our lives or our friendship. We only get out dead or dead to each other.

Is that what you meant when you called me “brother?”

I don’t think so.



Photo by Peter Beste. 


Related posts
Five Blood-Brotherhood Rituals
February 26, 2013
Everything fights.
October 15, 2009
Chia Washington
Blog, Essays, Feature

No One Will Ever Make America Great Again

Donald Trump Isn’t Your Daddy, And He Can’t Fix What’s Broken In America

British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos frequently refers to Donald Trump as “daddy.”

Milo introduces himself as, “the most fabulous supervillain on the Internet,” so calling a Presidential candidate “daddy” is consistent with his own quirky brand of camp conservatism.

I don’t know of anyone else who calls Trump “daddy.” But when I see my peers caught up in stadium-style slave wave that is ready to crown a shifty, wheeling and dealing New York City businessman as America’s savior and “emperor god-king”…

…“daddy” does seem uncomfortably appropriate.

The incontinent progressive mainstream would have you imagine Donald the “daddy” as the paternal leader — or Führer, as they put it once upon a time in Deutschland. However, Donald Trump is no artist, and his vision for American Greatness seems to be far less grand, let alone “great.”

Continue reading

Related posts
The American Flag Is Not A Phallic Symbol
September 2, 2015
Related posts
Start The World Patches
March 25, 2015
A concept image of an eerie corridor in a prison at night showing jail cells dimly illuminated by various ominous lights and a bunch of cell keys laying ominously on the floor
Blog, Essays, Feature, STW Podcasts

All They Have Is Fear

Progressives use every man’s natural fear of showing fear to manipulate him — inventing fake “phobias” and implying he is afraid of everything they want.  But what men are truly afraid of are the legal, social and financial consequences associated with challenging the progressive agenda. 

To listen to the audio version of this essay as a special STW podcast, scroll to the bottom of this page.


Progressives only have one good trick, and men keep falling for it.

They keep calling you a coward, so that you’ll do or say whatever they want to prove that you are not a coward.

Continue reading

Blog, Commentary, Essays

The American Flag Is Not A Phallic Symbol


Wake up Americucks, Your Country Hates You

Who waves the flag in America?

Everyone waves them at political rallies, but transblack lesbian Democrats don’t put flags in their front yards. They don’t wear “these colors don’t run” t-shirts and they don’t fly mini-flags on the antennae of their trucks.

The guys, and they are mostly guys, who adopt the flag as part of their identities are white men who are often also veterans, gun enthusiasts and first responders. Veterans and first responders who fly the flag may not always be white and you can try to convince yourself that it’s not a race thing, but everyone else sees it as a race thing, because the vast majority of people engaged in some sort of flag worship are white.

White guys make up most of my readership, and many are vets, gun enthusiasts and first responders. I see their Facebook feeds and I follow the same stuff they follow on Instagram.

Continue reading

Related posts
No One Will Ever Make America Great Again
July 7, 2016
Odin Illustration by Jack Donovan 2014
Blog, Essays, Feature

The Way of Men, Gods and Runes

Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honor are the four “tactical virtues” that I used to define primal masculinity in The Way of Men.

In a band-level society or “gang,” these are the virtues that men would look for and value in other men, because men who are strong, courageous, competent and loyal make better cooperative hunters, fighters and protectors. I talk more about defining masculinity in this video, but for an in-depth explanation of my “gang” theory of masculinity and the tactical virtues, read The Way of Men.

Like many of my readers, I’m drawn to Germanic Paganism and Runes. It occurred to me that each of the tactical virtues could probably be assigned a corresponding rune.

For those who aren’t familiar, the runes come from a series of alphabets that were scratched into rocks, wood and metals by various Germanic peoples. But each rune is also associated with an abstract concept or “mystery” and also sometimes a natural form — like ice, hail or a yew tree. As such, they become a simple shorthand for a bigger, more complex idea.

This was my first formulation:

Strength         ᚢ (uruz)

Courage         ᛏ (tiwaz or Týr)

Mastery         ᚱ (raido)

Honor             ᛟ (othala)

Uruz is associated with aurochs, the now-extinct ancestor of modern domestic cattle. According to the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem,

“The aurochs is proud and has great horns;

it is a very savage beast and fights with its horns;

a great ranger of the moors, it is a creature of mettle.”

Aurochs were very large, with bulls reaching a shoulder height of almost 6 feet, and weighing almost a ton. Uruz works as a symbol of raw strength. I like it for any kind of strongman or powerlifting or other “beast of burden” training, and I have it scratched into my lifting belt. “Strong like bull.”

Raido means “ride” or “journey” and it is associated with becoming and, according to Edred Thorsson’s Runelore, “rightly ordered action.” In Collin Cleary’s essay, “Philosophical Notes on the Runes” in Summoning The Gods, he identifies Uruz as the “Will to Form” and links it directly with Raido, “Dynamic Order.” I’ve been personally associating Raido with technical ability and the ability to apply concepts in motion for a while.

This arrangement makes sense, but it occurred to me that the tactical virtues align perfectly to the gods themselves. The gods can be seen as aspects not only of elemental man and nature, but also as aspects of manliness as an idea.

Strength        Thor ᚦ

Courage        Tyr ᛏ

Mastery        Odin ᚨ

Honor is Othala— not a god, but a runic concept that in this application encloses and represents the sum of the others.

The Mannaz rune symbolizes man, so, in a formula:

Man, or (Mannaz) ᛗ = ᚦ + ᛏ + ᚨ + ᛟ

There is also an optional addition to the concepts that describe masculinity which corresponds directly to the qualities of the god Freyr.

Below are my brief rationales for linking the virtues to gods and runes. As we really don’t know exactly how our ancestors might have used the runes or conceptualized them — and even then, which ancestors? in what place? in what period? — I can only speculate and make my own associations based on what information is available. The purpose here is to take something old and breathe new life into it, and make it useful to men who are alive today.


thurisazThor – Strength

Thor, god of thunder and lighting, is known for his strength and muscularity. He wields a heavy hammer, Mjölnir, and when he wears his belt, megingjörð, his already great strength is doubled.

In Gylfaginning,  Thor is said to be, “the strongest of all gods and men.” When tricked by illusion into thinking he was fighting a sleeping giant, he split valleys into mountains with his hammer, and through further deception was tricked into drinking so much of the sea that it ebbed, and lifting part of the serpent that circles the world into the sky.

The rune ᚦ is called Thurs or Thurisaz. ᚦurs means “giant” in Old Norse, and it is the work of Thor to use his strength to battle giants and split their skulls.

It’s often occurred to me that “might” could be a better word than “strength” for the tactical virtue, because it seems to covers a wider range of physical capability and power — though the words are often used interchangeably. Might includes speed, athleticism and dexterity — all aspects of strength.


tiwazTýr – Courage

Týr is best known for the courageous sacrifice of his hand to the wolf Fenrir, the monstrous offspring of Loki and a giantess. To trick the wolf into allowing itself to be bound, Týr  agreed to place his hand in the wolf’s mouth as a guarantee of good faith from the gods. When Fenrir could not break free and realized he had been tricked, the wolf bit off Týr’s hand. He is often referred to as the “one-handed” god, as in the Icelandic Rune Poem.

“Tyr is a one-handed god,

and leavings of the wolf

and prince of temples.”

The Romans identified the Germanic worship of Týr with their own worship of Mars, the Roman god of war. Týr has long been associated with courage, martial valor, victory and doing what must be done to maintain a right order of things.

A man who will take no risks or make no sacrifices for the group when risks are necessary can’t be counted on, and his aversion to risk could actually make the group more vulnerable as a whole. He won’t hunt the aurochs or fight the enemy.


ansuzOdin – Mastery

Odin hung himself for nine days and nights, until the forms of the runes revealed themselves to him. He ripped out his own eye for the opportunity to drink from Mímir’s well and gain knowledge of the past, present and future. Odin has many names and aspects, but in his essay, “What is Odinism?,” in TYR: Myth, Culture, Tradition.Volume 4, Collin Cleary argues that “Odin’s key feature is his ceaseless quest for knowledge.”

“Closely connected with this is his striving for power. But these are so tightly linked that they are almost corollaries of each other. Greater knowledge — increased insight into the nature of the universe and its secrets — brings with it an increase in the ability to manipulate and to control all manner of things. So that, as the saying goes, knowledge is power.”

Odin wants to know, understand and master the world. Mastery is the tactical virtue that critics of the tactical virtues always seem to skip over.

Engineers and programmers and researchers and philosophers always seem to want masculinity to be about being an engineer or a programmer or a researcher or a philosopher. If they don’t see themselves as being strong or courageous, they tend to discount the importance of those virtues and re-stack the deck so that their own virtues are the most important ones.

Understanding, judgement, wisdom, knowledge and technical proficiency are essential virtues in any survival group — because otherwise you have a bunch of strong, clumsy guys who don’t know anything taking risks for the sake of taking risks. Mastery is technology, and technology is a kind of magic to those who don’t understand it. Martial arts require mastery. Tool and weapon making and operation require mastery. Strategy and tactics require mastery.

Knowledge is power, but without the courage or the ability to use that power — apply it — knowledge is just information. Knowledge is only useful when it is used, though having no immediate use for knowledge does not make that knowledge useless.

Mastery alone can’t define masculinity, and while Odin is the Allfather, he’s not the only god, because human life is also a physical endeavor. We are our bodies, and our bodies must survive to make the seeking of knowledge possible. To think otherwise is a conceit of the spoiled. Violence is Golden, and that conceit depends on the outsourcing of strength and courage and the protection of the perimeter to “someone else.”


othalaOthala – Honor

Honor, as I defined it in The Way of Men, is about loyalty to a group. You behave a certain way, make sacrifices and do things you wouldn’t normally do because you care what the other men in your group think of you. If you act like you don’t care what anyone thinks of you, you are more attached to a group than part of it. You’re a wild card. Your honor is your reputation among your peers and your commitment to them. Honor is about the “us” — those who are “within the perimeter.”

In Runelore, Edred Thorsson refers to Othala as “the sacred enclosure” and writes that, “in it is embodied the central concept of Midhgardhr and of the whole idea of ‘in-sidedness’ and ‘out-sidedness’ so prominent in Germanic (and Indo-European) thought.”

Because masculinity is both a physical reality and a way of being, a man who does not care about masculinity or being regarded as masculine cannot be masculine. Now, many men will bluster and tell you they don’t care what anyone thinks of them, but they will draw lines in the sand quickly if you start asking them to dress or behave like women in public. They still chafe at being called weak or cowardly. They still care about being seen as masculine by others, but in many cases those “others” may be absent or abstract. Men who barely have any friends at all still care about “others” seeing them emasculated.

In a globalized world with billions of humans, choosing who you are loyal to and which men you agree to be judged by is especially important, because you can’t please everyone. There are feminist men who have inverted masculine virtues to the extent that if you show that you value strength, courage, mastery and honor, they will (hypocritically) call you a coward for clinging to “old ideas” about masculinity.

Your honor is your reputation as a man among men, but because there are so many men with so many ideas about masculinity, to stay sane you have to decide which group or kind of men. Define your boundaries and close the circle, or leave yourself open to judgment by a thousand codes and billions of eyes.

The sowilo or sig rune ϟ has also been associated with honor and victory, as well as the sun. Depending on how the rune is formed, two facing sig runes can be joined to create an othala rune.


ingwazFreyr (Ingwaz)

It is likely that the majority of the warriors who fought and died in wars probably did not have children. A lot of them probably died virgins. Many young men have joined dangerous expeditions, war bands, pirate ships, armies and so forth with the hope of one day being able to afford a wife or children or even a regular whore. A man can demonstrate all of the tactical virtues and be regarded as an exceptional man among men, but remain a bachelor or without children. Two Odin-like adventurers, soldiers, researchers and writers — Lawrence of Arabia and Richard Francis Burton — both died without children, and they would be regarded as having been good at being men by almost anyone. I’m sure you’ve encountered fathers who appear to be extremely weak, passive, cowardly or effeminate. Masculinity can exist without fatherhood, and frequently does, and extremely effeminate men can become fathers, so fatherhood cannot define the phenomenon of masculinity as a way of being.

Still, fatherhood follows naturally from manhood, and without children, no band, gang or tribe can survive more than a generation unless it continually recruits from outside. Most men who survived long enough eventually fathered children by a wife, mistress, slave or concubine. Fatherhood is an aspect of masculinity and a role that most men eventually take on in some form. It’s not essential to masculinity, but it’s still important and relevant.

The god Freyr is associated with fertility, the harvest, wealth, peace and prosperity. And just as fatherhood is separate from but linked to masculinity, Freyr is separate from but linked to the other gods, who are known as the Aesir. Freyr is one of the Vanir, a distinct tribe of gods who fought with the Aesir until a truce was called and Freyr, his sister Freya, and their father Njörðr – a god of seafaring and wealth – went to live with the Aesir. Odin is, of course, “The Allfather,” and could be associated with fatherhood as well, but Odin as a concept is more concerned with big ideas than with home life and the everyday reality of fatherhood.

Related posts
The Conflict Bindrune
May 10, 2016
On “What is a Rune?”
May 28, 2015
Polly Prissy Pants
Blog, Essays

Drinks, Fonts and Gendering Objects

Polly Prissy Pants

Paying nine bucks for a simple drink seems like a waste of money, so when I go out to one of Portland’s many great restaurants, I try something made with ingredients I can’t afford to keep stocked in my globe bar at home.

I’m not going to play Garth Brooks and pretend I’m just too darn simple to appreciate anything but Jack Daniels and Budweiser. Dude probably laughs and guzzles champagne with Beluga and blinis every time he does an encore of “Friends in Low Places” for the Wal-Mart country crowd. I’ve been around good food for years, and I know what I like.

We’re living in a renaissance of fine drink mixing, and while you’ll never hear me say “mixologist” or “artisan cocktail,” bartenders really are doing some nifty things with booze. I’ve had some truly inventive, artfully-balanced and complex drinks in the past few years.

Unfortunately, the hipster trend is to serve them in foofy stemware.  Having learned this, I order whatever I feel like drinking, but ask the waitress to have it poured into a double-old fashioned glass, because I don’t want to sit around with my pinky out, pinching the fragile little stem of something that looks like it belongs at a tea party for Polly Prissy Pants.

So, last night I ordered this beverage I really like at a fine establishment that will go unnamed to protect the innocent, and told the waitress I wanted it in a DOF or “something a little more manly” than the champagne flute or whatever they were going to serve it in. She comes back with my drink the way I wanted it, but told me “the bartender says that glassware has no gender.”

Obviously, the bartender was a woman, and she must have confused her job pouring drinks with a Huffington Post comment thread.

But more importantly, she was also incorrect.

Many objects can be gendered, including glassware.

Hell, one of the guys at the gym told me the other day that I was using the girly ab roller and I should switch to the manly one. Apparently, you can also gender ab rollers.

One of the reasons I developed a comprehensive theory of masculinity was that I wanted to be able to apply a formula to reasonably assess whether a behavior or even a thing was more or less masculine.

Men all have their opinions about what is masculine and what isn’t, but they can’t usually explain why they think the way they do. Usually, they are just repeating something they’ve heard or making some kind of cultural association.

Culture matters — because culture is theoretically about what the men of our tribe associate with masculinity. It makes sense to care about what your father and grandfather thought was masculine.

But out in the gray zone of globalist modernity, where most people don’t even have a tribe or much of a culture that wasn’t advertised to them by some corporation, I think the formula is what really matters.

The opinion of some female is irrelevant — masculinity is primarily about signalling to men. My drinking buddy was a guy from my gym, and we agreed that we were probably the biggest, manliest guys in the dining room at that moment. (In downtown Portland, that isn’t a big achievement.)

We had no one to impress, but masculinity is a way of being. You don’t turn it off and giddily act like a teenage girl just because no one is there to judge you. I’m still watching me, and I have to respect myself in the morning.

Speakers of Latin languages have long believed that objects can be gendered — though sometimes strangely, arbitrarily, or for long lost cultural reasons. I can’t tell you why the French think a day is masculine or a table is feminine. They just do.

I was recently searching for the right font for a project, and users have tagged certain fonts as being “masculine.” The masculine fonts are predictably sturdier and stronger-looking, tend to be sans-serif (because serifs are kinda fancy), and related tags include “legible,” “clean,” “geometric,” “technical,” and “sturdy.” They read as direct, solid, functional, bold and authoritative. The “masculine” fonts fit the pattern and more or less communicate the universal masculine tactical virtues of Strength, Courage and Mastery as I laid them out in The Way of Men. (It’s hard for letters to have Honor.)

You can look at an object, compare it to other similar objects, and gender it according to the tactical virtues based on both how it looks and how a man would use it. It’s somewhat subjective, but if you asked a room with 100 men from all different cultures to pick out glasses and determine which ones were masculine and which ones were feminine, the more fragile looking glasses would consistently be rated as less masculine, and the heavier, sturdier glasses would be rated as more masculine. The masculine virtue of strength alone would be enough to gender the glassware. (I’m not sure how courageous a glass can really be.)

There’s another reason why men prefer certain kinds of glassware — it has to do with the way you hold the glass. For instance, a few years ago I had a little debate with a pal over martini glasses.

As a gin drinker, if I’m not driving anywhere and I really feel like getting my drink on, I’ll open with a dry martini or four. It’s basically a glass full of gin, and a classic man’s drink. (Ladies’ drinks like “chocolate martinis” are not regarded as martinis proper by any competent drinker or bartender).

After ordering my martini “up” in a martini glass, the guy I was drinking with chuckled in that snidely bemused way that men do when another man does something that seems a bit off.

I argued that, for me, the martini glass was a Las Vegas, Sinatra, “rat-pack” kind of thing. I started drinking martinis during that whole 1990s lounge music and cocktail revival period, so that was my cultural association. I’ve had a martini at Musso & Frank’s in Los Angeles, and that’s the way they’ve been serving them since Humphrey Bogart and Gary Cooper were drinking there.

I still think that’s perfectly valid, but my friend Andy won me over to the idea that the gesture and hand position required to hold a martini glass was more meaningful than the cultural association.

A pint glass, double old-fashioned glass, and a beer mug all offer a solid hold. With a mug, your hand is basically making a fist, and if you actually clobbered a man with the mug itself, you wouldn’t be the first. Same goes for bottled beer. Cans can be crushed on the forehead as a threatening gesture, but only at a hillbilly barbecue or a frat party. What are you going to do with a champagne flute or a martini glass? That’s right, not a damn thing. Pint glasses, beer cans and DOFs probably don’t make the best weapons, granted, but the hand position communicates strength and control, compared to the delicate pinching required to hold a martini or cocktail glass.

It’s a small thing, and it doesn’t matter much, but why not make the manlier choice?

These days when I’m out in public, if I order a martini, I order it shaken and neat, or on the rocks. And if I’m sampling a complicated drink with bitters or some imported liqueur that’s been made by monks for 300 years, I make sure I don’t have to drink it out of a vintage pink champagne coupe.

When I write about things like this, there’s always going to be some guy who says, “real men don’t think about whether what they do is masculine or not.” This is the fetishization of stupidity and the confusion of stupidity with masculinity.

One might as well say that real men don’t think about what they do at all. This is strange position, given that men invented philosophy.

Clearly, men do think about what they do and why they do it, and I guarantee you that if I were given a position of authority over any man who says he doesn’t care how other men perceive him, I could give him something to do that he would grumble about because he felt like it was emasculating.

“You don’t think about masculinity or about how other men perceive you? OK. Your new uniform is pink spandex with sequins, and every morning we’re going to start the day by doing pole dancing to “Single Ladies” by Beyoncé. We’re going to do this in public where hundreds of people will see you.”

If that’s not going to be a problem for you, you’re probably already too far gone to be reading this.

Granted, most men don’t sit around philosophically contemplating the relative masculinity of glassware. That’s my job.

Gendering objects, actions and gestures is an educational project, and doing it can bring you to a deeper understanding of masculinity and the behavior of other men. It’s also a good way to check yourself and determine whether you’re sending out some signals you’d like to change, or craft a better argument for why you’re going to keep doing it the way you want to anyway.

Blog, Essays

Draw the Line

What is feminism, if not refusing to exclude women from groups of men?

Feminism is branch of liberal egalitarianism. It’s a lie that comes from a lie. The lie that “all men are created equal” engenders the lie that “all men and women are created equal.”

Equality is a roller that flattens human social topography. There is no hierarchy – no up or down or in or out. There’s nowhere to climb and nowhere to fall. Everyone is everywhere. No one is excluded. Nothing is closed. The space is open. No one and nowhere is better than any person or place. All movement is lateral.

In practical terms achieving equality between men and women is predominantly about achieving political, legal and economic equality. In practice, the success of the feminist initiative has been measured by the ability of women to infiltrate previously male spaces. There can be no separate sex roles, because everyone must be everywhere, and no one can be excluded from anything. No difference between what men do and what women do can be defined, because to define is to exclude. The doctrine of equality demands that women do whatever men do and be wherever men are.

Refusing to exclude a woman from a group of men as a matter of principal is a feminist act.

If you can’t exclude a woman, you are the problem.

Continue reading


Vote with Your Ass

Posted first at In Mala 


“Hey man, I still think we can turn this thing around.”

That’s what your vote says.

That’s what you’re telling people when you argue in favor of a candidate, or against one.  You’re saying that a change in management could, at least potentially, create a better future. It’s not the system that’s broken; it’s those head-niggas-in-charge who are ruinin’ everything. The bright idea is that if we get their guy out and put our guy in—our nigga—he could really turn things around.

Where, exactly, is your nigga gonna turn it to?

How far is he going to turn back the clock? How much cleaning up are they going to let him do?  How many agencies is he going to close? How many amendments is he going to repeal? How many policies is he going to change, and why is he going to do these things for you? What’s in it for him?

Let’s say there’s an honest man in the race. Let’s just say there is—for the sake of argument.

Let’s say it for the laughs.

Let’s just say there is an honest man in the race who believes in the things that you believe in, a guy who is on your side.  Let’s imagine a candidate—because there isn’t one, not one—who is willing to take a stand against global business conglomerates that wield more power than most nations. Let’s imagine a nationalist candidate—an anti-globalist who isn’t going to make things easier for companies to export jobs, import cheap goods, and price Americans out of their own market. Let’s imagine there’s a guy who is actually willing to draw a line where our borders are supposed to be and say “no more.”

Conjure in your mind, if you will, a fella who is going to side with men when women want something—who won’t beta down and give in every time women nag him a little. I’m trying to keep this fantasy realistic, so let’s not get crazy. Let’s not get into divorce laws or domestic violence polices or sexual discrimination lawsuits or women in the military. Just try to imagine a guy who can stand up and say that men ought to feel free to exclude women from a private golf club if they want to. Imagine that guy—because he’s about the best you can hope for.

This guy, your best hope, is going to get up every morning and tell companies wielding the wealth of nations and 51% of the voting population to go fuck themselves, because he’s on your side.

You see how unrealistic that is, right?

Funny stuff.

What’s your best-case-scenario for America? I think the best that most men can reasonably hope for is for this thing to keep limping along and not get too much worse—that we’ll still be able to find a way to make it, to play the system and win sometimes.

(Some men will inevitably prosper no matter how bad things get for most men. Maybe you want to be that guy. Good on ‘ya. The point here is about changes in your odds.)

The likelihood of feminist laws being rolled back, even as far as the 1980s, is slim. The best you can hope for from elected officials—who also depend on the votes of women—is to fend off deep, hen-pecked “Swedish” feminism.

Whites are going to become minorities in a lot of areas, and hopefully being a minority white man who isn’t wealthy won’t suck too much. We can hope that all of the “youths” and “vibrants” who have been taught that we are their natural oppressors—and that we are naturally to blame for everything bad that happens to them—will be kind and benevolent to us. We can hope that they won’t hold a grudge or take advantage of us or attack us in an angry mob whenever the media winds them up.

We can hope that we’ll still have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves, and that we’ll be treated fairly by a legal system run by and for others.  The average guy can hope that judges and legislators will at least be reminded of the Constitution when they give decisions and write laws.

We can hope that freedom of speech will outlast us. We know that writing or saying the wrong thing may get us fired, but we can hope that they won’t put us in prison for it, like they do in more “evolved” nations like France, Germany, or England.

Basically, we can take a conservative position.  We can try to hold on to what remains from the past and what is good in the present. We can vote to keep things from changing too much, too fast. Maybe, if we’re really lucky, we’ll be able to regain some ground every once in a while—to right some wrongs, to correct some errors. Voting for the guy who is going to fuck things up the least is a conservative position.

Progressives—feminists, multiculturalists, socialists, and others—are more enraptured by their leaders and more excited about the future because they have an end goal in mind. They aren’t voting to keep things from getting too much worse, they are voting to achieve a State of Kumbaya. In the State of Kumbaya, every person of every sex and race is equal in every which way. Everyone shares and shares alike, and no one has a bad word to say about anyone else. In Kumbaya, there is no one to kill or die for (and no religion, too). This is not a radical position, because it is more or less the official position, but people who vote toward Kumbaya are still voting forward.

Conservatives vote to block them, or to go backward. They vote to restore, reclaim, and prevent. Conservatives believe that they can still turn this thing around.

I’m not a conservative.

I don’t believe we can turn this thing around by voting to put a new head-nigga-in-charge.

I’m not going to argue with you about why this nigga is better than that nigga.

I’ll be sitting it out entirely.

From now on, I’m voting with my ass.

I’m not advocating apathy. I don’t want you to stop caring. I want you to stop believing.

Voting implies consent. It implies that you still believe in the system and that you are satisfied with your options.

I want you to withdraw your consent.

In 2008, voter turnout was around 57%. That’s actually high for elections in recent years, and for a variety of reasons I doubt we’ll see that kind of enthusiasm again soon. However, the fact that we are being governed with the active consent of less than 60% of the population is worth consideration. In 1924, less than 49% of the voting age population turned out to elect an established incumbent challenged by a lackluster candidate who was actually a compromise between two other deadlocked candidates.  2012 looks like a great year to aim for under 50% again.

Let the head-nigga-in-charge claim he has a mandate from the people, when half of the voting age population couldn’t be bothered to vote either for or against him. And this isn’t even about him. It’s not about any one candidate. It’s about a system that can only produce globalists to act in our national interests. It’s about a system that makes it easier for men to pander to women than it is for them to stand up for men.

America is losing faith in its public institutions. In a 2011 Gallup poll, only 12% expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress. 35% had faith in the presidency, 37% in the Supreme Court. As few had confidence in newspapers (28%) as they did in television news (27%).  Less than 30% trusted the criminal justice system, the banks, the unions or big business.

Withdrawing your support for America’s political system is a more powerful statement than your vote.

Not voting is a vote of “no confidence.”

Your vote isn’t going to turn this thing around. The best thing you can do for your country—for the men around you, for the future—is to let the system tear itself apart. The way to increase personal sovereignty for men is to decrease the sovereignty of the state by withdrawing the consent of the governed.  Sure, this could and probably will result in naked power grabs by “elected” officials. These actions will only decrease confidence further. That’s short-term. I’m thinking about the long game. If American men stop thinking of the government as “us” and start thinking of it as “them”—if we stop thinking of ourselves as Americans and start acting in our own interests, things could get really interesting.

So this year, don’t argue about politics.

Don’t vote.

Vote with your ass.

Or, if you really want to vote, don’t vote for any of the official candidates. Have fun with it. Vote for a write-in.

Vote for Zod. Vote for Cthulu. Vote for Crom. Vote for fucking Cobra Commander for all I care.

Just don’t vote for any of the assholes on the ballot.