Dread Techlord: Why to Worry about the Dark Enlightenment

Your premise and understanding of Neo-Reaction is poor, but your proposed defensive actions are sufficiently thoughtful to at least warrant comment. here goes.

1. Anti-union sentiment exists in part because unions failed to successfully combat international trade agreements, market shifts, and entrepreneurial competition with established unions. Despite assertions to the contrary, no person may be forced to hire a union employee, even if the alternative is criminal punishment up to and including death. There are men among the Silicon Valley who would make that choice if that was the only one available. Other will simply leave union-enforcing jurisdictions for other jurisdictions. Exit is a key principle of Neo-reaction.

2. Collectivist thought relies upon progressive change to assert power. Neo-reaction, in contrast, advocates for first-principles legal standards and ancient and established law. Were your suggestion that liberal leadership slow change, most neo-reactionaries would respond by offering their established proscription of rapid change – even arguing that the shift from modern society to a neo-reactionary society should be gradual. You cannot defeat an argument your opponent created by adopting that argument.

3. Intersectional thought is divisive, not uniting. It is already wrecking the feminist movement. If you are serious about opposing Neo-reaction, you should oppose – not support – intersectional theory. Observe the deafening silence from the Dark Enlightenment regarding intersectionality. That isn’t an inability to combat the argument. It’s a recognition that intersectional theory can kill feminism, an outcome neo-reactionaries will applaud.



The “Dark Enlightenment” or Neo-Reactionary movement (“NRx”) has been the object of curiosity and condescension as its most high profile writers and adherents in the tech industry attract more mainstream coverage. The perils of the NRx’s sexist, racist, and hyper-capitalistic techno-utopian thought are evident to most observers. Rather than write off the movement as a nerdy non-entity that is beneath one’s concern, it is important to see how this reactionary strain is uniquely positioned to cause severe damage in the event of a social crisis that leaves people open to anti-liberal beliefs. This is a situation which has been made possible by the persistent libertarian ideology of elitist tech sector employees, whose material advantages leave them uniquely positioned to spread reactionary thought and practice. As remote as the possibility may seem, the potential explosion in popularity of NRx ideas gives a strong incentive to begin laying down frameworks of opposition against them today in the form of labor organization and…

View original post 1,870 more words

The Responsibility of MRA’s for a recent man-killer.

Regarding a Facebook link posted by an aquaintence.

Ben, you don’t know the first thing about the men’s rights movement, nor this madman’s non-relationship with it, or you’d be capable of contributing something other than the usual nonsense spouted by ignorant men who haven’t read anything written by any men’s rights advocate. This latest loon frequented a website called PUAhate, known for advocating AGAINST so-called pick-up artist websites, which are men’s advocates who almost universally advise men to avoid deep emotional expectations for women, since it tends to lead toward exactly the kind of obsessive and dangerous behavior just witnessed in S. CA.

Also, since we’re talking about misogyny, would you please explain the gender disparity of the body count, why he started stabbing his male roommates first, how one of three shooting deaths is male, why he promised to kill all sexually active MEN, and several other things that don’t make a lick of sense for somebody motivated by misogyny? Can you tell me which pro-PUA websites he frequented, or which MRA’s he quotes? Miss Valenti sure didn’t in the article you linked.

While we’re discussing this article you linked, how about you explain Miss Valenti’s assertion that, ” Rodger, like most young American men, was taught that he was entitled to sex and female attention.” Is this how you were taught to think? Do you support her assessment of American men? Do you want to paint your fellow countrymen with that libel? What about me? Do you think that’s the approach that’s got me through 20 years marriage, or a daughter set for college? Exactly how much longer must we all endure such bologna in place of truth?

Also, have you done the basic homework to ferret out from media reports his family’s anti-gun background, or his hatred for his brother, or his subscription to The Young Turks (not a conservative misogynist bastion, that bunch). Was he reading RooshV? Return of Kings? Was he a lurker at Chateau Heartiste? Did he have Paul Elam on speed-dial? Did he subscribe to YouTube’s “GirlWritesWhat” or Amazing Atheist (a well-known anti-feminist) or Redonkulous? Was he reading MGTOW websites? Gosh, in tens of pages of biographical info, does he say anything about even Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck? ‘Cause if he doesn’t what’s your f’ing EVIDENCE for this claim that MRA’s have anything to do with this tragedy? Have you even skimmed his written statement for any of his thoughts?

No, sir, I don’t think so. To use the MRA’s jargon, the man was “blue-pill” all the way. He believed his race, his money, or his superficial appearance mattered, when any MRA/PUA/MGTOW website of any note will repeatedly proclaim all that means nothing. He hated successful men, when every MRA/PUA/MGTOW advocates observation and emulation. He blamed others for his problems – especially men – when nearly every MRA/PUA/MGTOW utterance is about personal responsibility, no matter the social and cultural barriers to success.

If only he’d contacted some branch of the men’s rights movement, then maybe somebody could have helped him learn how to interact with women successfully and in terms he could comprehend, maybe he’d have got laid, and maybe nobody would have died. If only.

But that’s not what happened. Instead he found PUAhate.

So, go ahead, Ben, start an MRA hate group. Let’s see what that gets us. Just keep that shit away from my son, ’cause I’d rather he loved people, especially fellow men, and didn’t stab his roommates as preamble to a killing spree.

A Message from the Patriarchy: About Confident Women

Gaikokumaniakku says it very well.

“Just in case it wasn’t clear, confident women are NOT hard to come by. There are a lot of women that are so very confident that men avoid them no matter how physically attractive they are. No sane man is eager to sign up for servitude to a woman who is always in charge. There are plenty of megalomaniacs running businesses – they pay better than wives, and they let you go home at the end of the day.”

Gay Marriage

The thinking argued everywhere in Arkansas regarding so-called gay marriage is disengaged from reality. Marriage contracts are simple. A woman agrees to be sexually monogamous with a man so that he knows her children are his children, and his work to support her and her children is work to support his children and his children’s mother. All the rest is related to inheritance. In that context gay marriage is an oxymoron. With modern genetic testing, we can reasonably dispense with marriage for establishing paternity, but I doubt that will satisfy the advocates for gay marriage. The fight is not now nor has it ever been about some purported right to marry as such a thing has never existed. As things stand, any person can copulate with any other person without restriction, so it’s not about sex or “love” either. Finally, it’s not about inheritance for shared or adopted heirs, because no heirs were included in arguments regarding the tax law case at the US Supreme Court, whose decision Piazza relies upon for this novel judgement. No, this is about enforcing tolerance of depravity with the force of law, complete with punishment for rejecting depravity as such. If tomorrow the people of Arkansas amended their law to disregard all marriages, that, too, would be found unconstitutional by men such as Piazza.