Awesomely White is a Must-Read Treatise on White Identity

NOTE: This is a sponsored post by Tony Martel. If you’re interested in advertising on my site, click here.

What does it mean to be white?

Many years ago, on my old blog In Mala Fide, I argued that a political movement focused on white identity was dead in the water because whites don’t define themselves primarily by their race, unlike blacks. One of my readers responded by stating that whites already have been defined by their race, but in the negative, a fact that’s evident by the anti-white cultural bilge that we wade in daily.

One of the fundamental failures of the alt-right was that it tried to make race into the bedrock of social unity, largely due to the rootlessness of its leaders. Humans filter identity through a series of concentric circles, with their family at the center, gradually fanning out into wider social circles such as church/neighborhood, city/town, state/province, and nation, with race being one of the outermost—and consequently weakest—circles.

People who have weak attachments to their family, region, or nation cling to race as their focus of identity, which is like trying to build a sandcastle at high tide. Richard Spencer, for example, is a rootless man who has a poor relationship with his family (to the point where his own father is siding against him in his divorce proceedings) and lacks any attachment to his hometown (he was born in Boston and raised in Dallas, a city full of rootless transplants), state (his family has no roots in Texas), and country (he hates American nationalism and culture). No surprise that a man with no identity of his own failed at building an identitarian movement.

Despite this, race still matters. Awesomely White explains why. A treatise on the nature of whiteness and European identity, Tony Martel’s book is a well-articulated hybrid of philosophy, politics, and personal anecdote. While rough around the edges in some respects, Awesomely White’s engaging, even-handed approach makes it a worthwhile read and the kind of rare book that can actually change people’s thinking.

Feeling Awesomely White

The “protochapter” of Awesomely White lays out what separates the book from countless other tomes extolling the virtues of “Western civilization”: those books either deny or minimize the role of whites—Europeans and their descendents—in creating modern civilization. Martel’s book does not aim to be a hagiography of whiteness, but to critically examine what separates whites from other races:

There are so many books out there about the accomplishments of white people. The last few years have witnessed a booming business on the greatness of whites. My search brought me to so many books reveling in the glories of the white man. Yet not a single one of them mentioned him. Instead, they talked about the “West” or “Western civilization.” Somehow, the people that populate those places were absolutely irrelevant to its achievements. All that matters, apparently, is its location on the map. The West would have turned out exactly the same if Asians were living there instead of in the East. Western civilization would have done all it did if Amerindians populated the place instead of the other side of the Atlantic. What utter nonsense.

Martel is a writer by trade, not an academic, and as a result, his book has a breezy style that makes it instantly readable. Awesomely White’s prose reads low but thinks high, communicating sociological and historical concepts in the voice of the everyman. Like most self-published authors, Martel could have used an editor to lean up some of his prose’s quirks—his fondness for sentence fragments is a case in point—but these are minor issues, and you’ll have a hard time not inhaling the book in a session or two.

Awesomely White takes an autobiographical approach to analyzing whiteness, as Martel intersperses original research on European history with stories from his personal life. In particular, the chapters “The Destruction of My World” and “Finding a New World” examine Martel’s liberal upbringing and his gradual immersion into the dissident right, as his youthful anti-racist ship was broken on the rocks of cultural Marxism:

Every morning, I would wake up in my back bedroom and open the French doors that lead into the garden. Each night, I would enjoy the delicious variety of cheeses for dessert. In the afternoon, I would explore the city or relax in the public gardens where Edith Wharton’s house used to be. And at noon, I would head to the international school, where I befriended fellow students from England, Ireland, Denmark, and Switzerland.

One particularly profound section of the book discusses Martel’s experience studying abroad in France. Despite being a native-born American with poor French, he forms a bond with his host family and feels a gradual connection with the people around him. I experienced something similar when I relocated to Hungary two years ago: an instinctive comfort knowing that I was around people I shared an (admittedly distant) cultural lineage with. I felt an even stronger pull in Poland, where one-quarter of my ancestors hail from.

In contrast, when I visited the Philippines, I couldn’t escape my foreignness or whiteness no matter what I did, and every second I spent there merely reinforced that I was a permanent stranger in their country. Race is a reality that everyone on the planet save for whites takes for granted, but it’s a reality that reasserts itself as the liberal order chokes on its own excesses. Emmanuel Macron was actually right when he called nationalism the enemy of patriotism. Patriotism is merely loyalty to a state, which is why the Soviet Union and other communist states promoted it and why multiracial liberals promote it now; nationalism is loyalty to a people.

Martel approaches white identity from a dramatic and historical perspective, comparing his embrace of his European roots with Benjamin Disraeli’s embrace of his Jewish heritage after touring Palestine. To Martel, whiteness isn’t merely a skin color or bragging rights; it’s a connection to a heritage that extends back across space and time. It’s this connection to his heritage that enabled Martel to survive through some truly harrowing episodes, such as a stint with homelessness:

To win those battles and discover those places required overcoming incredible hardship. They had to keep going, to keep fighting. They wouldn’t have survived if they hadn’t. To remember what they endured can inspire you in perilous times. I can attest to this. For a year and a half, I lived out of my car. During the winter nights, as snow accumulated on the windows to bury me in a metal tomb, I would shiver under two blankets until the cold became too unbearable. I’d turn the car on and run the heat for a few minutes. Three or four times I’d have to do this before morning. Parts of my body would often be dark red and burning from frostbite. One of the things that kept me going was the memory of those white men who had also endured extreme cold. Shackleton and his crew in Antarctica were constantly on my mind during those freezing nights when sleep was as distant as a bed. Their feet had been as wet as mine. Their hands had been as cracked as mine. Their fires provided temporary warmth like my heaters. They had survived. So could I.

It’s anecdotes like these that lend dramatic weight to Awesomely White’s more polemical sections. Martel goes over familiar concepts such as white privilege and the Holocaust industry in an evenhanded fashion, without resorting to conspiracy theorizing or racial slurs. At the same time, he doesn’t grovel to an imaginary nonwhite audience with moronic statements like “I believe in nationalism for everyone!” (a tenth-generation Xerox of Alain de Benoist’s concept of “ethnopluralism”), meaning that Awesomely White stands a good chance of getting people to change their minds on race.

Fear of a White Planet

While relatively brief, Awesomely White is devoid of filler and tackles its main arguments with conciseness and clarity. However, readers looking for a more philosophically-inclined tome might find fault with Martel’s reliance on personal stories, while his reliance on sentence fragments could be a deal breaker for grammar Nazis.

Ultimately, however, these issues are trivial. Awesomely White’s blend of factual veracity and personal narrative make it a gem of modern right-wing thought. Martel’s book is worth a read for the seasoned identitarian, but it also makes a great read for normies who have yet to realize the importance of race. In a sea of wignat onanism and conservative cuckery, Awesomely White stands tall as an articulate defense of whiteness and European identity.

Click here to buy Awesomely White.

Read Next: The Real Right Returns is a Must-Read on Modern Politics

The Pence Principle is a Must-Read Survival Manual for Men

NOTE: This is a sponsored post by Randall Bentwick. If you’re interested in advertising on my site, click here.

For years, I scoffed at radical MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) types who refused to interact with women out of fear that they might be falsely accused of rape or some other sexual impropriety. Five or ten years ago, the idea that you could end up in legal trouble because some woman at the office or in your college class that you barely interacted with could accuse you of a heinous crime and get away with it was absurd. False rape accusations happened, of course, but those required you to have had sex—or tried to have sex—with a woman, not merely interacted with her.

Then Brett Kavanaugh happened.

In a desperate attempt to keep President Donald Trump from appointing Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the Democrats dredged up Christine Blasey Ford, a woman that Kavanaugh had briefly interacted with more then thirty years ago at a party, to accuse him of trying to rape her. When Ford emerged, the feeding frenzy began, with numerous women that Kavanaugh had interacted with at parties or in a professional setting accusing him of rape back when he was a teenager.

It didn’t matter that Ford’s testimony was full of holes. It didn’t matter that the only witness to Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s interactions said that Kavanaugh didn’t rape her. It didn’t matter that these incidents all happened back when Kavanaugh and his accusers were teenagers. The entire media and half of the country lined up behind Ford and her ridiculous accusations, smearing Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life and derail Trump’s agenda.

Fortunately, they didn’t win: Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court after Senate Republicans collectively grew a spine. But you’re not a well-connected GOP figure like Kavanaugh, and if this kind of thing happens to you, you might not be so lucky. In the age of #MeToo, where women can (and do) profit immensely from claiming to be the victims of sexual assault, you need to protect yourself.

The Pence Principle: Lessons All Men Must Learn from Ford Kavanaugh by Randall Bentwick is a book that can help you protect yourself in the age of the false rape accusation. Written in response to the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings, Bentwick’s book, while flawed, is a good roadmap for men looking to navigate the crazy world of modern gender relationships. In particular, The Pence Principle is vital for young men, who sorely need guidance in a world that is hostile to them and their interests.

What is the Pence Principle?

The Pence Principle takes its name from the Mike Pence rule, referring to the Vice President’s habit of refusing to be alone with women other than his wife. This stems from Pence’s evangelical Christian beliefs and in fact used to be called the “Billy Graham rule,” and is adhered to in order to avoid sexual temptation. When this became public knowledge after Donald Trump and Pence were elected, Pence was ridiculed by the media and the left:

Regardless of the true reason, the media and mainstream settled on the narrative that the Vice President was an old, outdated, fuddy-duddy. An overly-worried Christian, hopelessly out of touch with the progressive new world. An archaic sexist whose antiquated views proved women were oppressed, and at the highest levels of government no less. Still, the news story ran its expected lifespan, it dropped out of the headlines, Americans found a new shiny object, and Mike Pence’s policy to only dine with his wife became an interesting, quirky footnote in his Wikipedia entry.

The Pence Principle makes the point that in a world of #MeToo, the Mike Pence rule makes perfect sense. When women can destroy a man by merely accusing him of sexual impropriety—no matter how baseless the accusation—the only surefire way to protect yourself is to keep away from them. Bentwick explains this through both statistical analysis and anecdotes, relaying stories he’s experienced in his personal life of women who have tried to bring men down through false accusations:

An hour later my buddy was called into his supervisor’s office. Apparently, there was a complaint filed against him by Suzie. My buddy’s heart dropped into his stomach. A wave of dread came over him. And before he could get angry at the preposterous claim he did something wrong, a paralyzing fear struck him as his mind raced through all the possible and horrific permutations of outcomes should he lose his job.

Bentwick’s book is old hat in some respects, at least for people familiar with the manosphere, but its practical advice is of great importance to young men, who may not have received the guidance they need to survive in this world. His writing is typical of many self-published books in that it’s plain and could use some editing, but his prose is direct and gets his points across with a minimum of fuss:

The horrors suffered and the price paid by men merely falsely accused of rape is already unimaginable. But there are no words in the English language to describe what it’s like to be wrongly convicted of a crime you didn’t commit and to lose your entire youth to prison. And though there’s a very small statistical chance you might get wrongly convicted of rape, the case of Counts and Perry should make the compelling argument that you shouldn’t even let it get to the point where you’re potentially facing a judge under a false accusation.

Evidence now suggests that the Mike Pence rule is gaining popularity among men. For example, Wall Street types are now reluctant to interact with women when they’re alone, while #MeToo has wiped out the ability of actresses to trade sex for roles. The Pence Principle’s concise explanation of why—and how you can apply the Mike Pence rule to your life—make it invaluable reading.

Protect Yourself

While I’ve never had an issue getting girls, my sympathy for incels, MGTOWs, and other men who choose to avoid women has grown over the years. With pussy inflation at all-time highs and female victimization so common, who wants to risk a rape charge or jump through so many hoops just to land a fat girl who’s below your standards?

The Pence Principle perfectly articulates why you need to be careful around women in this day and age. While not groundbreaking, its simple and clear message is one that is important for men, particularly young men, to digest. I highly recommend checking it out or gifting it to a young man in your life.

Click here to buy The Pence Principle: Lessons All Men Must Learn from Ford-Kavanaugh.

Read Next: Ten Books That All Men Should Read

The Real Right Returns is a Must-Read on Modern Politics

You can’t really appreciate some books until you get to know the author. The Real Right Returns: A Handbook for the True Opposition by Daniel Friberg is one of those books.

When I read the first edition of the book nearly three years ago, after Friberg thoughtfully sent me a review copy, all I really knew about the man was that he was the CEO of Arktos, which I only vaguely knew about through reputation. I’d never even had a conversation with the man until he’d solicited me to write for Arktos’ now-defunct website Right On a few months before that. I gave the book a good review, stating that it was worth reading but lacking in substance.

In that time, I’ve not only become good friends with Friberg, I’ve slept at his apartment, gone winging with him in bars, and even spoken at one of his conferences. I even had him autograph my copy of his book (soon to be a collector’s item due to the boners in the intro). Friberg is a man who is generous and loyal, standing by his friends even when throwing under the bus would benefit him and helping them to succeed to the best of his abilities.

It’s because of this that I can approach the recently-released second edition of The Real Right Returns with a different eye. This version of the book includes a large number of corrections and additions, as well as a new intro by Arktos Editor-in-Chief John Bruce Leonard. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it feels like an entirely new book, the changes to The Real Right Returns make it both more substantial and more concise, and thus make it more than worth buying if you missed it the first time around.

Meet the New Right, Same as the Old Right?

While it seems strange to talk about a book’s intro as one of its selling points, Leonard’s intro to the new edition of The Real Right Returns does a good job of easing the reader into the currents of Friberg’s thought. The philosophical underpinnings of many of Arktos’ authors are not well-known among many American or English-speaking readers—I certainly was not aware of them when I read the first edition of Friberg’s book—and Leonard does a stellar job of summing them up:

There is thus nothing melioristic nor pollyannish about Friberg’s hope. His hope is rather identical to the awareness that a man is endowed with certain powers; that those powers have effect or can have effect on the world surrounding; that so long as one lives and breathes, with one’s powers intact, one can influence and affect the world, and bring about or encourage the ends that one seeks therein; and finally that no limit can be assigned to the potential sphere of these powers, prior to their activation. For no man among us has ever weighed the balance of the world, to learn the extent of our strength as against that of our enemies; nor could any man ever do as much even hypothetically. The limits of our powers are proved in their attempt; they make themselves known only in the act itself: “In the Beginning was the Deed.” Then the one thing totally incumbent upon us, the single absolutely binding imperative in this our battle, is to make trial of these powers through the right employment of principle, and to manfully face the fires that crop up around us without gratuitously supposing that they are unconquerable.

From there, the layout of the book is similar to the first edition, albeit with many corrections and additions. One of Friberg’s biggest contributions to right-wing discourse is pointing out why the right has consistently failed to keep the left from eating away at society: their near-total ignorance of metapolitics, defined as the cultural values and trends that influence politics:

Metapolitics can be defined as the process of disseminating and anchoring a particular set of cultural ideas, attitudes, and values in a society, which eventually leads to deeper political change. This work need not — and perhaps should not — be linked to any particular party or programme. The point is ultimately to redefine the conditions under which politics is conceived, which the European cultural Left has pushed to the extreme. The metapolitical chokehold that political correctness has over Western Europe stems from the consistent cultivation — or rather misuse — of this strategy. Only by understanding this tool, countering its misuse, and rechanneling it to serve our own ends can we overcome the miserable situation that our continent is in.

While American readers may not recognize the word “metapolitics”—and to be fair, I thought it was a ridiculous neologism when I first read it, in large part because “meta” has been disastrously misused by many left-wing academics—Friberg’s definition of it mirrors Andrew Breitbart’s contention that “politics is downstream from culture.” Political changes that are happening today are the product of cultural changes that happened years ago.

For example, the sudden fixation on gay rights in the Western world is not sui generis, but came about due to years of deliberate cultural subversion by the left. Millennials, the “gayest generation,” were raised on 1990’s TV shows like Will and Grace and Sex and the City that depicted homosexuals as sassy shopping pals instead of the empty, narcissistic pederasts they actually are. The power that Hollywood has in shaping peoples’ minds is immense—just look at how many young leftists take their inspiration from Harry Potter or Star Wars, for Christ’s sake—and by depicting homosexuality as positive for society, an entire generation was brainwashed into thinking that you’re committing a human rights violation if you don’t bake the fucking cake, you bigot.

Friberg zeroes in on the right’s metapolitical failures as one of the biggest causes of their political failures. Particularly in the U.S., the right abandoned culture to leftist control for the longest time due to their penny-pinching attitudes. Leftists are perfectly willing to throw money at unprofitable causes or leave money on the table in order to advance their goals: look at the “rural purge” in American TV back in the 1970’s or the constant deplatforming of figures like Roosh or Alex Jones even when their products make money for Silicon Valley. However, right-wingers refuse to fund culture (or defund the left when they have the ability) because of their childlike belief in the “free market”:

But metapolitics does not simply undermine and deconstruct; it creates, encourages, inspires, and illuminates. Taken in its totality, our metapolitics aims to set an authentic Right in motion; a force which is growing in strength through our own alternative media channels, as well as through gaps in the establishment’s censored channels. Once it reaches critical mass, this force will live its own unstoppable life, broadening the narrow confines of public discourse in a revolutionary manner and paving the way for a European renaissance: a successive, irresistible social transformation which will restore dignity, strength, and beauty to Europe.

The Real Right Returns seeks to resuscitate the right-wing from its post-World War II stupor, to strip it of neocon and libertarian pretensions and return it to the only sustainable basis on which it can function: blood and soil. Defense of the community, the family, and the nation against not only external threats, but internal ones. The bomb-bearing Muslim rapefugee is not nearly as dangerous as the gift-bearing gay rights activist, for it is the moral turpitude introduced by the latter that paves the way for the predations of the former:

Gramsci came to a similar conclusion regarding culture. As he saw it, the exercise of political power rested on consensus rather than force. As a consequence, the state governed not because most people lived in fear of its repressive capabilities, but rather because it adopted ideas, meaning an ideology which saturated society as a whole. This gave its actions legitimacy and granted them the appearance of something ‘natural.’

Friberg’s other major point—insofar as it separates him from the majority of right-wing political authors—is that he addresses the Woman Question. Steadfastly ignored by the braindead Boomers who’ve dominated rightist discourse for the longest time, The Real Right Returns devotes some of its length to issues of feminism and sexual relationships in our Tinderfied era, in the chapter “Brief Advice on Gender Roles”:

The result of all this is the emergence of confused gender identities; a society where young men achieve less and less in education, suffer from completely irrational insecurities and even have reduced testosterone levels — far lower than has been normal since they began to be measured.

While not earthshattering, merely acknowledging this issue puts Friberg a notch above his contemporaries.

Not Sick of Winning

Revisiting The Real Right Returns nearly three years after I first read it, the book retains a freshness that most political writing lacks. This is in part because the trends that Friberg derides are still tearing our societies apart, though their progress has been slowed by the rise of right-wing populism across Europe and North America. However, Friberg’s dissection of metapolitics gives his book longevity beyond the changing headlines, and John Bruce Leonard’s introduction to the new edition helps make the book’s ideas easier to digest.

The bottom line is that The Real Right Returns is well worth your time, a metapolitical masterpiece that sums up the problems of modern society and even provides some decent practical advice. While I don’t know how valuable the second edition will be to those who’ve already purchased the first one, the changes made definitely improve the quality of Friberg’s prose and ideas.

Click here to buy The Real Right Returns: A Handbook for the True Opposition.

Read Next: The Real Right Returns: A Handbook for the True Opposition by Daniel Friberg

Smart and SeXy is an Incisive Look at the Differences Between Men and Women

NOTE: This is a sponsored post by Arktos. If you’re interested in advertising on my site, click here.

If you’re a regular reader of Return of Kings or other dissident right websites, I don’t need to explain to you why feminism is a bad ideology. It’s scientifically unsound, personally abhorrent, and goes against every tenet of natural law and social organization. However, while we may know deep down that feminism is bad public policy, where are the facts showing this? Where are the studies and reports that will convince the “citation needed” crowd?

Fortunately, we no longer need to do our own research into this subject, because Roderick Kaine has done it for us.

Smart and SeXy, released recently by venerable dissident right publishing house Arktos, is a thorough compendium of scientific research debunking feminism. Kaine, a neoreactionary blogger also known as “Atavisionary,” has done yeoman’s work into not only examining the differences between men and women, but explaining how these differences make feminism not only wrong, but insane.

While much of Smart and SeXy’s content may seem like old hat for many ROK readers, Kaine’s exhaustive research and meticulous citations make the book a must-read for anyone who wants some solid data to back up their arguments. Additionally, the book is also a good read for newbies due to its breadth of facts and neutral, even-handed tone.

Just the Facts, Ma’am

Smart and SeXy is structured in a logical fashion, focusing on hard statistics and science initially, before opening up into more esoteric and opinion-based content. Kaine frames the introductory chapters by dissecting the popular claim that women lag behind men in various metrics due to widespread discrimination, often defined as the “patriarchy.” Kaine explains that scientific research consistently shows that differences between men and women are rooted in physiology rather than social conditioning, comparing patriarchy theory to Lysenkoism in its near-total lack of factual grounding:

Moving in the controversial direction of studying gender differences in intelligence, no doubt, would thus be professionally untenable for a Psychologist even if they wanted to. The former president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, was on the receiving end of a great deal of hatred for just suggesting the possibility that men and women might have innate aptitude differences even though such ideas are robustly supported empirically. The entire world revealed their spite for truth in its response to his honest inquiry, which ultimately forced him to resign from Harvard and later prevented him from being appointed chairmen of the Federal Reserve despite being the better candidate. Nancy Hopkins, a “biologist” who no doubt achieved her position through affirmative action rather than raw skill, notably allowed her emotions to overwhelm her during his talk and walked out. She bleated “I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow.” Her excessive sentiments are notable as a female stereotype which in this case has the ring of truth. If she hadn’t walked out she “would have either blacked out or thrown up,” she quaveringly mused. All this is strangely reminiscent of the emotional fainting trope in older movies. That she has the audacity to claim to be a biologist is astounding.

Kaine’s tone through the book can best be described as “edgy academic,” explaining the facts with little fuss. While fans of more polemical prose might find his style dry at times, his detached attitude helps bolster the credibility of Smart and SeXy by giving the book a neutral tone. People who are on the fence when it comes to gender issues could easily have their thinking changed by Kaine’s approach. Despite this, he still manages to slip in a zinger every now and then, keeping the book from getting dull.

From these initial chapters, Kaine moves to a point-by-point discussion of various gender-related subjects and the relevant science involving them. These include obvious points such as gender disparities in IQ to more obscure ones such as autism and its greater prevalence in men: indeed, the chapter “Autism and the Extreme Male Brain” is one of Smart and SeXy’s standouts. Another pair of chapters analyze the evidence for “hypergamy,” the oft-ballyhooed manosphere term for the female tendency to date up:

Studies have found that mothers, and not fathers, are the main influence on daughter’s sexuality. Mothers talk much more to their daughters about sex than any other parent-child interaction on the subject. In so far as fathers talked to their daughters about the topic, there was no influence on sexual behavior, whereas the greater a mother talked with her daughter, the later she began having sex. Again, female influence leads to lower rates of promiscuity.

The final chapters of the book are where Kaine moves from the realm of pure factual discussion to an analysis of feminism’s effects on government policy and society. Kaine explains why feminism is economic and cultural insanity, pointing out how wealth redistribution to women (in the form of welfare programs such as TANF, combined with the fact that women pay less taxes on average than men) amounts to a mass “cuckolding” of Western men. Kaine singles out Obamacare as a recent example of this, pointing out how socialized medicine primarily benefits women at the expense of taxpaying men:

The recent introduction of the “affordable” health care act also acts as a wealth transfer from working age men to women. Men go to the doctor and need medical care much less frequently than women. Before the new health care law, insurers were able to adjust prices based on gender to reflect actual costs. No more. Now men and women cannot be charged differently based on actual medical care use and single men are even required to pay for personal coverage which can only benefit women, such as maternity coverage. The result is that healthcare costs for young men have increased substantially more than for women of all ages. The average increase was 56% for men compared to 4% for women though in specific areas the average increase for young men has been as high as 200%. Car insurance shows the opposite pattern where men are made to pay more due to their greater likelihood of getting into catastrophic crashes (women are more likely to have an accident, but those are usually minor). Unsurprisingly, there has been no attempt to enforce “equality” in this situation.

Feminism isn’t merely a fringe ideology: it’s a societal cancer that is dragging down economic growth, slowing scientific progress, and driving a wedge between men and women. Fortunately, in “The Extinction of Feminism” and a number of other concluding chapters, Kaine points out that feminism has ensured its own destruction by breeding a generation of women ill-suited to the pressures of life in late-capitalist society.

At every turn, Kaine’s claims about feminism and gender differences are assiduously backed up with citations, a sprawling mass of endnotes pointing the reader towards the countless sources he used in composing the book. For more skeptical readers who demand hard proof of everything, Smart and SeXy’s endnotes are one of the most valuable portions of the book, showing that anti-feminists’ claims are rooted in solid science and economics.

Taming the Shrews

Where I dispute Kaine is in his confidence that feminism will eat itself. It’s true that feminism—or “white feminism,” as it’s now being termed by racial grievance-mongers—is slowly being ejected from the Coalition of the Fringes that is the modern left. One only needs to look at the popularity of attacks on “BBQ Beckys,” “Permit Patties” and other leftist white women who call the police on black people for minor criminal infractions. This change has been happening for some time and will accelerate as Western countries become increasingly non-white, as minorities have little sympathy for “manspreading” and other white girl problems.

However, these attacks come at a time when white women are at the peak of their power. A combination of male thirst and technologically-induced social retardation have made it possible for even plain or unattractive women to attain unearned status. Any marginally attractive woman can open a Tinder or Instagram account and have her head gassed up by numerous orbiters pledging to suck farts out of her ass, swelling her head and making her believe she’s a supermodel. As Delicious Tacos commented recently, the female wall no longer exists, and until it returns, women will never feel the consequences of their dissolute lifestyles. Add in such things as #MeToo and it looks like feminism won’t be going down without a fight.

Having said this, the current social paradigm is one that cannot last, and Smart and SeXy is a thorough and detailed explanation as to why. Roderick Kaine’s book is one of the absolute best on the subject of feminism and the sexes, whether you’re a veteran manospherian looking for some debate ammunition or a normie who wants to know what the fuss is all about. I heartily recommend Smart and SeXy as a one-stop shop for anti-feminist talking points, backed up by solid science and economics.

Click here to buy Smart and SeXy.

Read Next: The Smart Man’s Dating Checklist by Johnny Montoya

Make Americans Great Again: The Owner’s Manual

NOTE: This article was originally published at Right On on November 2, 2016. I’m re-posting it here as the site is now defunct.

Mike Cernovich’s MAGA Mindset is not just a great explanation of the formula behind Donald Trump’s success, it’s a smartly-written primer on the political situation in the West. However, dedicated alt-Righters might find it a bit thin.

With Donald Trump having blown every bit of conventional political wisdom to smithereens on his way to the White House, perpetually humiliated pundits have resorted to increasingly hilarious rationalizations of their failure to predict his success. “He got lucky.” “He entered the race as a publicity stunt and he didn’t really want to win.” “The GOP didn’t do enough to take him down.” Only a handful of commentators had the foresight—and the honesty—to admit that Trump not only could win, he had a plan to win from the start.

One of those commentators was Mike Cernovich, free-speech attorney and journalist. When I first became aware of Cernovich six years ago, he ran a small law blog; now, he’s a superstar who’s been featured on (and subsequently banned from) national television and occupies a top spot on Hillary Clinton’s enemies’ list due to his exposes on her corruption and health problems. The secrets to Cernovich’s boundless enthusiasm and relentless striving for success are in his bestseller Gorilla Mindset, a handbook explaining how you can achieve your goals by overhauling the way you view the world.

Cernovich was able to predict Trump’s rise because the two of them have similar mindsets, as can be seen with the former’s latest book, MAGA Mindset: Making America and You Great Again. A publication of Vox Day’s Castalia House (known for CuckservativeSJWs Always Lie and other great books), MAGA Mindset serves as both a roadmap to Trump’s mind and a good introduction to the current state of the West. Even in the (increasingly unlikely) event that Trump loses, Cernovich’s book will remain a valuable look at mindset and modern politics.

MAGA Mindset’s genius is that it fuses nationalist political commentary with Cernovich’s self-help-oriented perspective and approach. The book opens with an overview of recent events in Europe and America, laying the framework for exploring Trump’s success in business and politics. Cernovich intelligently explains that a good portion of Trump’s triumphs are due to his explicitly nationalist views:

Trump rejected globalism with a powerful statement: “Build the Wall.” Aside from the literal meaning of erecting a border between the United States and Mexico to prevent tens of millions of illegal immigrants, including drug dealers and Islamic terrorists, from entering America, the phrase is a symbol. “Building the Wall” is a powerful symbol of nationalism. It sends a powerful message that America has a right to exist in its own right. What is a nation without borders, after all? It is nothing.

Cernovich’s writing style in MAGA Mindset is the same as Gorilla Mindset and his articles: direct and forceful, without unnecessary erudition or showiness. Additionally, his prose and ideas are relatively devoid of slang terms and ideological nitpicking (he doesn’t identify as alt-Right, though he describes himself as “alt-Right friendly”), meaning that the book has a good chance of actually changing peoples’ thinking.

While MAGA Mindset states that Trump’s success is in part due to him taking advantage of preexisting trends (e.g. White anger at demographic replacement, irritation with political correctness, distrust of the mainstream media etc.), no other man could have so effectively seized the day as the Donald. For example, Ted Cruz was a counter-cultural figure, yet everyone outside of his “true conservative” cult treats him like a walking goiter. During the Republican primary, Marco Rubio’s attempt to imitate Trump’s insult style sank his presidential bid.

MAGA Mindset reveals that Donald Trump’s triumphs throughout his life are the result of his mindset. Trump doesn’t whine, make excuses, or settle for anything less than winning. While he’s had screw-ups during the course of his life (as have we all), his positive, results-oriented mindset has enabled him to continue growing his business and his brand despite the occasional setback:

So, start thinking about how to think big in your own life. You don’t need to think about how to become a billionaire real estate developer, because your situation is different than Donald Trump’s. You’re not starting with a real estate company in Brooklyn. Thinking big is relative to your situation and how you define reality. For example, I’m a writer without any employees. Now, I could hire people to write for me like James Patterson does and publish ten times more books than I do, or go on the professional speaking circuit, but for me, thinking big means having huge amounts of personal freedom. If I want to go on a hiking trip to Alaska or South Africa, I have no need to delegate any tasks or check up on my employees and their managers. I simply hop on a plane and leave.

In particular, Cernovich cites Trump’s close relationship with Norman Vincent Peale, the author of The Power of Positive Thinking. It’s easy for cynics to scoff at self-help books like Peale’s, but the results speak for themselves: Trump took charge of a middling New York City real estate business during the 1970’s—one of the worst periods in NYC’s history—and turned it into a global powerhouse. Winners try to emulate Trump’s methods; losers try to explain away Trump’s success as being a fluke or because of his “inheritance.” It’s the same reason why Trump’s female haters are middling or ugly women that neither he nor his sons would look at twice.

I can attest to Gorilla Mindset’s efficacy, having been already acquainted with Cernovich’s concept of positive affirmations. Affirmations were first explored in Dr. Shad Helmstetter’s What to Say When You Talk to Your Selfa scientifically-backed tome showing how the mere act of vocalizing your goals every morning makes you more likely to achieve them. Much of what we perceive as “reality” is in fact a construction of our minds, and with the proper mindset, you can clear away many of the obstacles you face. Having the proper mindset can also save your life; for example, when I was facing down a false rape accusation, Cernovich’s techniques helped me retain my sanity and rise above.

MAGA Mindset also shows how Trump tries to stay in touch with the common man despite being a famous billionaire. Near the end of the book, Cernovich points out how Trump suggests talking to cab drivers when visiting a new city in order to get their unique perspective on things. Anyone who’s attended one of the Donald’s rallies can confirm that he has a genuine affection for the American people, despite his wealth and prestige. Contrast this with Hillary Clinton’s condescending attempts to relate to normal peopletrying to hide her obvious contempt for them.

My main criticism of MAGA Mindset is its relative brevity; to a certain extent, Cernovich assumes that you’ve already read Gorilla Mindset and avoids retreading material from that book. As a result, those who haven’t read Gorilla Mindset won’t derive as much benefit from MAGA Mindset. While the political portions of Cernovich’s book stand on their own, you’re best off reading Gorilla Mindset first to derive maximum benefit from the mindset portions. I’m also not a fan of the awkward name, though Cernovich likely chose the title for legal reasons: a book named “Trump Mindset” might have gotten him in trouble.

Overall, despite these flaws, MAGA Mindset is a worthwhile examination of what makes Trump tick. If you’re looking to emulate the man’s success, it’s a must-read; if you have normie friends that you want to educate, hand them a copy as well.

Click here to buy MAGA Mindset: Making YOU and America Great Again.

Read Next: Gorilla Mindset by Mike Cernovich

Super Seducer: The Game That Teaches You How to Meet Girls

NOTE: This is a sponsored post by Super Seducer. If you’re interested in advertising on my site, click here.

When I first heard of the game Super Seducer, created by well-known dating coach Richard La Ruina, I thought it was ridiculous. On the surface, the idea of playing a video game about picking up women is so cringeworthy it deserves its own Mister Metokur video. From a more practical perspective, Super Seducer also seems like it would fail in its stated purpose: teaching men how to become better with girls. How could this project be anything but dumb?

Then I actually looked into the game and played it (full disclosure: La Ruina gave me a free Steam copy of the game).

Super Seducer isn’t the flashiest game out there, but as a simple FMV title, it’s actually quite fun to play. La Ruina’s game actually does teach good ideas about how to meet and attract women, so it could actually serve as an interesting aid for guys who are getting into the game. Even discounting that, Super Seducer is fun to play thanks to its simple gameplay and amusing stories and plotlines.

Play the Game to Learn the Game?

I’m familiar with Richard La Ruina’s work; I distinctly remember being on the mailing list of his company, PUA Training, a decade ago, when I first became acquainted with the concept of game. La Ruina distinguishes himself from other pickup gurus of that time period by advocating a naturalistic approach to meeting women. Instead of relying on canned openers and pick-up lines, he recommends that guys work on becoming interesting, attractive men if they want to become better with girls. If you’re out of shape, go to the gym; if you’re boring, get some cool hobbies; if you can’t dress, get a new wardrobe. Fix your own problems before you go out and meet women.

It’s an approach I like because it actually works, and it stands the test of time. Individual lines or routines might get old, but being a confident, approachable man will always be fashionable. Moreover, La Ruina’s advice will actually lead to positive benefits in your life beyond merely being better with women; there are plenty of uses for a good body or personal charisma.

La Ruina’s methodology informs Super Seducer’s gameplay and plot (if you can call it that). The meat of the game is a series of common scenarios in which men might meet girls, such as approaching them on the street to dancing with them in clubs to trying to get out of the friendzone with female acquaintances. You select options from a dialogue menu akin to an RPG, then watch your character act out your choice (and the girl’s reaction to it). Afterwards, La Ruina himself shows up to give an explanation of why your choice worked (or didn’t) and the logic behind it.

These debriefings are key to why Super Seducer can work as a game aid. La Ruina doesn’t merely hand you lines and moves; he explains why they work and how you can come up with ideas and moves of your own. The game includes a lot of obviously bad choices, such as grabbing a girl’s ass in a club or unfurling your dick (there’s no nudity in the game, it’s all implied), but the game also mixes it up with not just good choices, but choices that are merely okay. At the end of each scenario, you get graded based on how well you’ve done and how many choices in the interaction you explored.

The fact that Super Seducer actually gives the player good advice on attracting women in realistic scenarios puts it heads and shoulders above other so-called “dating sims,” which typically revolve around giving women expensive gifts in order to win their hearts. Additionally, Super Seducer can also act as a nice visual aid for newbies, allowing them to see how certain scenarios might play out instead of merely reading about them in a book, since a picture is worth a thousand words. For more visually-oriented men, Super Seducer might actually be better than traditional dating and PUA material due to the greater interactivity it provides.

Becoming a Super Seducer

Super Seducer is presented through full-motion videos featuring real actors, a significant departure from most games of its type. This is where the game falters a bit; because Super Seducer is dependent on the quality of its actors and actresses, having bad ones causes certain scenarios to have less impact. La Ruina portrays the player character and does a good job of acting out the various choices and game concepts, but the quality of the other actors tends to vary. For example, the early scenario “Two Girls in a Bar” drags a bit due to its main actresses (a pair of Russians) not being as good as some of the other actresses.

Additionally, Super Seducer is constrained by the fact that it’s an FMV game, and it has little outside of its main gameplay mechanic of selecting dialogue choices. At times, playing it was like stepping in a time warp to the early 1990’s, when FMV schlockfests like Johnny Mnemonic and Phantasmagoria were the cutting edge of game technology. Super Seducer is way more fun (and has way better acting) than those games, but its lack of interactivity and its single-minded gameplay might be a turn-off to some players who are craving a more dynamic experience.

However, these are relatively minor problems. Super Seducer is enjoyable for what it is: a simple, tongue-in-cheek game that helps men improve their skills with women.

If you’re a younger guy looking for resources that can help improve your game, Super Seducer is worth buying because it can help you visualize the attitudes and ideas you need to embody in order to be successful at dating. Even if you’re not interested in the game for this reason, Super Seducer is worth checking out because it’s easy-to-play, funny, and sharp. And of course, the fact that feminists continue to be infuriated by the game is yet another reason to buy it:

Super Seducer will be released on March 6 on Steam and the PlayStation Network. I’ve had a good time playing and streaming the game so far, and so will you.

Click here to learn more about Super Seducer, and click here to buy the game on Steam.

Read Next: Watch My Live YouTube Stream of Super Seducer Tonight at 7PM EST

Watch My Live YouTube Stream of Super Seducer Tonight at 7PM EST

Tonight, I’ll be hosting a live YouTube stream where I play the upcoming game Super Seducer, a dating simulator created by Richard La Ruina, the founder of PUA Training and “Europe’s top dating guru.” I’ll also take your questions and discuss other topics on my mind. The show will begin at 7pm EST (6pm CST/4pm PST).

You can watch the stream when it starts by using the window below, or you can click here to watch it on YouTube and join the chat. You can also use the window below to watch a recording of the stream after it ends.

Remember to subscribe to my YouTube channel for more updates.

Read Next: Watch My Live YouTube Stream of Star Wars: Shadows of the EmpireTonight at 7PM EST 

Our God is Weiner

NOTE: This article was originally published at Right On on October 1, 2016. I’m re-posting it here as the site is now defunct.

No politician is more emblematic of America’s slide towards Gomorrah than disgraced exhibitionist Anthony Weiner. Weiner is a painful but entertaining examination of the man’s fall and a warning for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Going by the logic of Johnny Cash’s song “A Boy Named Sue,” a man named “Weiner” was destined to spend his days cruising around high schools in a windowless van with “FREE WEED” painted on the side. A one-time rising star among D.C. Leftists, Anthony Weiner saw his career go supernova five years ago after he Tweeted out a pic of his own erection, fueling weeks of hysterical giggling and adolescent puns on his name. Two years later, he was a rising star in New York City politics before he was caught texting pics of his junk again, giving late-night talk show hosts and shitposters free material for two straight months. Three years after that, Weiner was a rising star in the Hillary Clinton campaign when he did it again.

At this point, it’s not even funny. Carlos Danger has slowly metamorphosed from a walking punchline to a legitimately disturbed individual. With his boss in the political fight of her life, Weiner was given the heave-ho the day after his putz hit the tabloids, with long-suffering wifey and Hillary confidante Huma Abedin kicking him to the curb. Social Services is now investigating him over the pics of him cuddling up to his four-year old son with a raging boner, and he’s been sexting underaged girls as well. Smart money is on him “mysteriously” dying from autoerotic asphyxiation between now and Inauguration Day.

Ever since the Lewinsky scandal two decades ago, Leftists and moral autists have argued that the sexual peccadilloes of politicians shouldn’t disqualify them from public office. After all, it doesn’t affect you. The problem with this is that personality traits don’t exist in a vacuum: someone who is a scumbag in one aspect of their life is usually a scumbag in other areas as well. Women who support abortion make poor wives and girlfriendsfat girls are sluttier than skinny onessexual deviants are more likely than heterosexuals to be mentally ill. This is why philanderers like Bill Clinton make poor leaders: sexual indiscretion is a sign of a disordered and malleable mind.

People forget that before he became infamous for making his wiener go bump in the night, Weiner was known as one of Congress’ most vocal and obnoxious feminists. He was loved by Leftists for his histrionic speeches attacking Republicans’ so-called attempts to curtail abortion and women’s rights, and near the end of his House tenure, he embarked on a crusade to get rid of a “sexist” statue in Queens called “Civic Virtue” (which puts his sexting addiction in a hilarious new light). He’s what Vox Day would call a “gamma male,” gerbiling away on behalf of the Jezebel set in a pathetic attempt to get laid. If he hadn’t been caught with his hand in his pants, he’d no doubt be pushing for affirmative consent laws, catcalling bans, and fines for “manspreading” on the subway.

Weiner, a recent documentary chronicling the man’s rise and fall, could just as easily been called Hubris Comes Before Nemesis or Cringe: The Movie. An account of Weiner’s 2013 campaign for New York City mayor, I picked it up on the recommendation of a friend, assuming it’d provide a few laughs. After watching it, I felt like I’d witnessed a gang rape victim getting an autopsy. Weiner is a worthwhile watch, because it not only captures the arrogance and psychosis of its eponymous subject, it serves as a depressing examination of America’s decline.

The film opens with a montage of Weiner’s feminist House speeches and news clips about his first sexting scandal in 2011. Two years later, Weiner launches his campaign for mayor, with an eye to restore his name and get his nagging wife Huma off his back. The filmmakers had nearly unprecedented access to Weiner and his family; maybe too much access, as there are far too many shots of the man lounging in his boxers at night.

The movie does a superb job of showing how close Weiner was to winning the mayoralty, and how badly he screwed it up. In 2013, with billionaire midget Michael Bloomberg term-limited out of office and no high-profile Republican to replace him, the Democratic primary was a bloodbath. Hormonally unbalanced lesbian (and City Council Speaker) Christine Quinn was the presumed front-runner, but she failed to catch fire due to her overly comfy relationship with Bloomberg, which included supporting his attempt to overturn the city’s term-limit laws. It was a wide-open race, and Weiner was there to fill that hole until it was gushing.

The first third of Weiner focuses on his initial successes, as he rockets to the top of the polls, fueled by voters looking for change and willing to forgive his past mistakes. One of the early scenes, featuring Weiner marching in various gay and ethnic pride parades, captures just how popular he was, with people cheering him on, thanking him for running, and constantly approaching him on the subway. The filmmakers contrast his popularity with that of eventual winner Bill de Blasio, who is shown marching in a pro-Israel parade with a pitiful crowd and zero onlookers. If you can fake it in New York, you can fake it anywhere.

Then it all goes to hell.

The second act begins with Weiner’s sexting paramour Sydney Leathers (yes, that’s her real name) spilling the beans. Within hours, the R.M.S. Weiner is treading water and headed for Davy Jones’ locker. Weiner’s gay and women millennial staffers revolt against him, the once-skeptical press becomes hostile, and New Yorkers turn on him almost as quickly as they embraced him.

Weiner depicts the collapse of the man’s political career as a product of his perversion and hubris. As his poll numbers dip and his staffers defect, he responds by lashing out at his critics. One of the movie’s most cringeworthy scenes shows Weiner bombing a gotcha interview with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, screaming at him and threatening to “kick [his] ass.” Showing the interview to Huma later, Weiner brags about acing it; she’s so horrified that she has to leave the room. In another scene, he gets into a vicious argument at a Jewish deli that makes the evening news.

Indeed, Weiner will provide ample fuel for the rumors that Huma Abedin is Hillary’s lesbian lover and Weiner was her beard. The two of them have zero chemistry in the film and even seem slightly revolted by each other at points. A scene early on sets the tone, showing Weiner playing with their son while Huma sullenly stares at them from a corner. Even after his second sexting scandal becomes public, she doesn’t seem hurt in the way a wife would ordinarily be hurt by her husband’s infidelity; she just seems annoyed that this braying infant she’s chained to is derailing her career.

The movie also fuels the hypothesis that Anthony Weiner is a masochistic exhibitionist. Weiner reveals so many embarrassing details of his life—only twice does he ask the cameramen to leave the room—that I’m convinced he gets his jollies from being publicly humiliated. The film’s climax, in which Weiner devises an elaborate plot to avoid talking to Sydney Leathers (who, at Howard Stern’s suggestion, tried to ambush him outside his campaign office on Election Day), is a particularly painful example. The movie is supplemented with candid after-the-fact interviews with Weiner, a permanent texture of grease adhered to his face. Even the quote that opens the movie—a smarmy reference to his name—is designed to mock him.

The irony is that many of the people who watch Weiner will miss its core message of how sexual degeneracy corrupts a man’s soul. If you laugh at Weiner’s follies yet you spend your free time cranking it to Internet porn or you have a “polyamorous” relationship, you and him are no different. In the absence of spirituality, Whites have elevated their genitals to divine status, and they believe they have an infinite right to stick their private parts where they don’t belong. As Weiner’s sad, pitiful tale shows, those who defy the wisdom of our forefathers end up proving it.

Weiner is aided in its delivery by first-rate cinematography and editing, depicting the man’s implosion in clear, aching detail. One particularly effective technique the film uses is cutting between recorded news footage of Weiner and the filmmakers’ own footage of the same events, underlining what’s going on. The film’s laser-focus on Weiner is a detriment at points, and some extra context on the political situation in NYC would have been nice. In particular, Weiner misses a big opportunity by not mentioning ex-governor and human trafficker Eliot Spitzer’s run for city comptroller. Then again, given that Spitzer insists on wearing black dress socks when he has sex, one creeper per movie is probably enough.

Viewed against the backdrop of the presidential election, Weiner also provides an ominous warning for the Left. While I don’t know the political affiliation of the film’s creators, considering the Democratic nominee is the wife of a possible rapist, the movie’s underlying theme of crooked politicians getting their comeuppances is particularly relevant. Weiner even includes an appearance by Donald Trump; in a montage about Weiner’s announcement of his mayoral run, the Donald declares that “we don’t want perverts elected in New York City.” The contrast between Trump’s patriarchal, masculine personality and the sneaky fucker ways of Weiner and Bill Clinton could not be greater.

Despite its flaws, Weiner is an affecting look into both the American political scene and the American mind. As a character study, it’s fascinating; as a condemnation of moral autism, it’s a must-watch.

Read Next: The Matt Forney Show, Episode 135: In Weiner We Trust

Revolution and the Myth of White Socialism

NOTE: This article was originally published at Right On on September 2, 2016. I’m re-posting it here as the site is now defunct.

Many alt-Righters have the delusion that socialism could work in an all-White society. The experience of New Zealand from the 1930’s to the 1980’s says otherwise. Revolution is an interesting examination of what happens when European societies adopt broken economics.

The biggest problem when political movements become popular is that they attract people who aren’t committed to the core ideology and just want to be one of the cool kids. So it is with the alternative Right, increasingly infested by normies who cling to their Leftist delusions like Linus to his security blanket. One of the most popular wrong-headed ideas in the alt-Right is that Whites can magically make socialism work if we just kick out everyone with melanin in their skin.

Saying that Whites can defy the laws of economics is like saying that some men can pass for women. Sure, a virgin with rage can flambé his private parts, get breast implants and blow his monthly tugboat on Dollar Store makeup, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a biological male with an overpriced sexual fetish. Similarly, while an all-White nation won’t collapse under socialist policies as quickly as an African cesspool, that doesn’t make socialism desirable or viable as an economic system.

Christopher Cantwell hammers this point on his radio show frequently, and it’s the truth: good economics is an integral part of building a healthy society. You can’t have a patriarchal, family-focused nation if bugchasers are running around pozzing each others’ negholes, and you can’t breed a nation of strong men and women with an economic system that encourages sloth and degeneracy.

Fortunately, I don’t need to rely on conjecture, because the White socialist experiment has already been tried. I recently watched Revolution, a 1996 four-part documentary series on New Zealand’s transition from welfare state socialism to capitalism in the 1980’s. Revolution is a must-watch for anyone who thinks that socialism can be decoupled from the Leftist hydra. New Zealanders thought they could ignore basic economics, and they nearly paid for it with total social and economic collapse.

It’s not surprising that few know Revolution’s story, since New Zealand is one of those countries that you don’t think about unless you have to: it’s the Canada to Australia’s U.S. Remote and isolated, New Zealand subsisted for decades on its links to the U.K. and the Commonwealth of Nations (Aussies derisively refer to Kiwis as “South Sea poms” for their comparatively cozy relationship with the motherland), sustaining its economy with agricultural exports. New Zealanders were also primarily of British stock, with the only non-Whites being the indigenous Maori. In other words, socialism should have worked out perfectly for the Kiwis… right?

Starting in the 1930’s, New Zealand built a sprawling welfare state designed to insulate its citizens from the devastation wrought by the Great Depression. Said state kept growing to the point where by the 80’s, New Zealand arguably had more in common with communist states than with other Western democracies. State-owned corporations controlled large chunks of the economy, from forestry to manufacturing. Government regulations dictated everything, from what prices shops were allowed to charge, to how many products factories were allowed to manufacture, to how far truckers were allowed to transport goods. The top marginal tax rate was 66 percent.

While New Zealand prospered in the 1950’s and 60’s, the seed corn always runs out. By the time the 70’s rolled around, New Zealand was one of the poorest countries in the West, deeply in debt and borrowing like mad to keep the lights on. Exports to the U.K. collapsed following that country’s entry into the European Economic Community, worsened by the New Zealand dollar being artificially pegged to the U.S. dollar. Innovation died out, as businesses focused on appeasing the country’s all-powerful bureaucracy rather than improving the quality of their products or services. Emigration to Australia and other countries skyrocketed, along with the unemployment rate.

At the center of New Zealand’s economic dysfunction was Prime Minister Rob Muldoon. Much like other Right-wing parties in the West after World War II, Muldoon’s National Party had long given up on being conservative and instead tried to out-Left the Left at every election. Muldoon came to power in 1975 after promising to replace the incumbent Labour government’s superannuation (pension) scheme with one that paid out sooner and to more people. Combined with his status as Minister of Finance, he held a dictatorial level of control over the New Zealand economy, and he intended to use it to prop up the welfare state as reality closed in.

Muldoon’s tenure was defined by his failed attempts to bail water out of New Zealand’s sinking ship, from a series of grotesquely expensive public works projects (known as “Think Big”) to a total freeze on wages and prices in 1982. After a National backbencher refused to support the government’s policy on nuclear weapons in 1984, Muldoon got drunk on live television and called a snap election, losing decisively to David Lange’s Labour Party. Despite being a Left-wing party on paper, Labour had fallen under the influence of Roger Douglas, a reformer who sought to restructure the New Zealand economy along free market lines.

The next six years saw New Zealand radically reshaped. Under Douglas’ tenure as Minister of Finance, the government streamlined inefficient state-owned corporations, eliminated unnecessary regulation, and removed subsidies for many industries. Lange’s government also slashed tax rates, removed controls on foreign exchange, and allowed the value of the New Zealand dollar to float (Muldoon’s refusal to devalue the dollar nearly led to an economic collapse in 1984).

The rapidity with which the government rewrote New Zealand’s economic landscape was somewhat masked by Lange’s progressive social policies, which included making the country a nuclear-free zone (splintering the ANZUS alliance with Australia and the U.S.) and ameliorating relations with the Maori. In the short-term, Rogernomics (the term for Douglas’ reforms, akin to Reaganomics in the U.S.) caused massive social upheaval. For example, removing agricultural subsidies caused severe hardship for many Kiwi farmers, while whole rural towns that were dependent on state-owned enterprises were wrecked by mass layoffs.

Revolution emphasizes in its interviews that New Zealanders—even those who were adversely impacted by Rogernomics—agreed that change had to happen. Muldoon’s New Zealand was well on its way to becoming what Greece is today: bankrupted by bureaucratic mismanagement and having its finances controlled by the IMF or other unaccountable international organizations. As Geoffrey Palmer (Lange’s successor as Prime Minister) puts it in the film, “You can’t have social justice if you’ve got no economy.”

The scope of New Zealand’s economic breakdown was so severe that Jim Bolger’s National Party, elected in 1990 on the promise of halting Douglas’ reforms, was forced to continue them through Finance Minister Ruth Richardson and her cuts to welfare benefits. Rogernomics and Ruthanasia bore fruit in New Zealand’s comparatively free, prosperous economy today; New Zealand ranks #3 on the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom while the U.S. isn’t even in the top ten.

While dry at times due to its mid-90’s visuals and aesthetic, Revolution is propelled forward by candid interviews with many of the major players in New Zealand’s economic renaissance. David Lange steals the show as a jolly, witty fat man playing good cop to Roger Douglas, whose blunted affect and chomo mustache make him the movie’s obvious heel. The film ends with the 1996 election, in which New Zealanders, disgusted with both National and Labour, vote in a series of minor parties with the aid of proportional representation.

My takeaway from Revolution is that socialism corrupts White people as assuredly as it corrupts everyone else. Five decades of a cradle-to-grave welfare state made New Zealanders lazy and complacent. As r/K selection theory shows us, free resources inevitably breed a nation of sexually deviant layabouts. A society where success is determined not by your intelligence or ingenuity but by how well you can game the bureaucracy is one that will inevitably fall apart, regardless of its racial composition.

While far from the most riveting series, Revolution is worth a look as an examination of a White society degraded by generations of gimmedats. Alt-Right proponents of a controlled economy would do well to study how well it worked in New Zealand.

Read Next: The Managerial Revolution by James Burnham

Ghostbusters and the Suicide of Cultural Marxism

NOTE: This article was originally published at Right On on July 16, 2016. I’m re-posting it here as the site is now defunct.

It’s not enough for Hollywood to constantly recycle the past: they need to spit on it as well. The all-female Ghostbusters reboot is a fine example of this, and it’s a massive bomb that drips with contempt for White men and normality.

Whenever communist or socialist regimes rise to power, one of the first things they do is destroy the cherished symbols of the nation. The Soviet Union replaced Christmas with Stalin’s birthday and declared Ded Moroz (the Russian equivalent of Santa Claus) to be an affectation of the hated kulaks; Maoist China eradicated Confucian principles of filial piety by training children to spy on their parents and rat them out to commissars. The end goal was to sever any ties the population had to their families or cultures, replacing them with absolute loyalty to the state.

The recently released grrl power Ghostbusters reboot was birthed according to the same logic: it’s a Marxist defilement of a classic American film. Granted, a lot of the nerd whining about modern adaptations of cartoons/toys from the 80’s or earlier is itself a sign of cultural decline; if you’re crying about how Hollywood “ruined your childhood,” you’re a manchild who needs to grow up. The problem is that Americans didn’t simply kill God: we dumped His corpse on the side of the road for the buzzards to feast on. Pop culture effluvia is the only thing left that unites us as a people.

Feminist Ghostbusters is a terrible film for many, many reasons. It’s a confluence of Hollywood’s worst trends, from creative necrophilia and rapid-fire ADHD editing to an excess of CGI and characters who can’t have a conversation without screaming at each other. But more importantly, Ghostbusters is repulsive because it’s a deliberate subversion of a cherished piece of American culture. From beginning to end, everything about the movie is designed to slap White men in the face.

The film’s plot is largely the same as the 1984 original, revolving around a team of parapsychologists who specialize in catching ghosts. Kristen Wiig plays Dr. Erin Gilbert, a Columbia professor who is drawn back into studying the paranormal when she joins her ex-partner Dr. Abby Gates (Melissa McCarthy) and Dr. Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) to investigate a ghost sighting at a mansion. Eventually, the three of them (plus MTA worker Patty Tolan, played by Leslie Jones) are shanghaied into stopping Rowan North (Neil Casey) from bringing about the apocalypse.

While it certainly wasn’t impossible for the Ghostbusters reboot to be a good film, it’s clear the creators went out of their way to be as unfunny as possible. I attended a matinee screening of the movie, and not only was the theater barely a third full, almost no one laughed the entire time. Much like the similarly hyper-PC, female-focused Star Wars: The Force AwakensGhostbusters is oblivious to the fact that its plot is driven by grimy, shopworn clichés. For example, token Black character Patty Tolan is a coward who is always running from danger, while the porcine Abby Gates is constantly eating (one particularly bad running joke involves her favorite Chinese take-out joint constantly messing up her orders).

Feminist Ghostbusters also ratchets up the anti-White, anti-male hatred to headache-inducing levels. For example, Chris Hemsworth portrays the Ghostbusters’ mentally damaged secretary Kevin, a clear stand-in for Annie Potts’ character in the original film. Thing is, while Janine Melnitz was ditzy and a bit slow, she was also lovable, charming and the protagonists respected her. The lady Ghostbusters treat Kevin with such eye-rolling contempt—and he’s so incompetent at his job—that it’s inexplicable why they don’t fire him or he doesn’t quit. Bill Murray also makes a cameo as a Penn Jillette-style skeptic who questions the Ghostbusters’ honesty and gets defenestrated in the process.

But it’s the film’s antagonist Rowan who truly gets the short end of the stick; he’s a socially retarded weirdo despised by everyone he meets. You can practically visualize the writers muttering “Fuck you, MRAs!” every time he pops up on screen. In fact, during the climax, McCarthy’s character taunts him by saying he “left [his] virginity in the Lost and Found,” and the final battle scene ends with the feminist Ghostbusters shooting Rowan (after he morphs into a cartoon version of the ghost logo from the original movie, another insult to the fans) in the crotch. Subtlety and nuance are not on the menu.

Make no mistake: everything about Feminist Ghostbusters is intended to trash the film it was based on and spit in the faces of everyone who ever liked it. It’s full of Leftist dogwhistles and blatant assaults on Whiteness and masculinity, all the better to rope in the pop culture-addled SJWs who serve as corporate America’s most faithful drones. Given that young Leftists need Hollywood to constantly affirm their beliefs—see all the bombastic headlines about how Amy Poehler “crushed” men’s rights activists or how John Oliver “destroyed” Donald Trump—I expect we’ll soon see a wave of listicles about how Ghostbusters “demolishes” anti-feminists.

Unfortunately, it won’t be enough to save the movie from box office ignominy. Ghostbusters fans have been revolting against the reboot in epic fashion: the film’s trailer is the most downvoted movie preview in YouTube history, and its toys are so unpopular that stores are already putting them on the clearance rack. Subverting a nation with cultural Marxism is like boiling a frog, and Feminist Ghostbusters has cranked the heat up so high that the polliwogs are jumping out of the pot.

In response, the Left has been pulling out all the stops, from director Paul Feig accusing his film’s detractors of misogyny to others claiming that the original Ghostbusters is “mediocre.” This is a classic gaslighting tactic by profaners from Pussy Riot to Chuck Klosterman: attack a beloved symbol, get people riled up, then ridicule them for getting upset. “God, it’s just a movie. Stop taking it so seriously.”

Well, you can’t punch someone in the face and claim it’s a kiss, and you can’t spend millions of dollars creating a Marxist funhouse movie reboot and claim it’s no big deal. The original Ghostbusters is to cinema what Talking Heads is to music: something that everyone—young and old, Black and White, hipster and normie—can enjoy. It may just be a comedy, but it’s a well-rounded and funny one that sprang from an original idea (the film’s premise was based in part off of Dan Aykroyd’s paranormal research).

Feminist Ghostbusters has none of this. There’s zero freshness in the plot, zero warmth in the characters, and zero mirth in the dialogue. At best, it’s a rancid cash-in on an iconic film franchise; at worst, it’s an open assault on White men. Don’t waste your time with it.

Read Next: Harriet Tubman, Cultural Marxism, and Cuckservatives