I was inspired to write this article as a result of Calendargate. In terms of the internet, a month seems like a long time ago, and therefore irrelevant. However, the episode made something very clear to me; there are unbridgeable moral differences between myself and the majority of individuals on the American Dissident Right (ADR), and I should not be afraid to make those differences known.
For those unaware, the Ultra-Right Beer Company, an American alternative beer brand launched during the Bud Light Boycott, released a promotional calendar for 2024, with each month showing a different attractive female conservative influencer, in provocative and flirty poses, and a few of them scantily clad.
This was clearly a challenge to the censorious leftist attitude around the ‘male gaze’; but it was not the left that acted so strongly against it; instead, it was primarily the Christian Traditionalist wing of the ADR. The calendar was demonised as promoting degeneracy, sluttiness, and whorish behaviour from women, and essentially no different to the degeneracy and perversion that the Woke left promotes.
Many of the women included in the calendar were subjected to ferocious online abuse. This is a great shame, as certain women on the calendar like Riley Gaines, have been extremely brave and heroic by sticking their neck out against the transgender cult.
The Right should oppose the values of the cultural left. The Woke left hates female beauty, promoting gullible and mentally-ill young women having testosterone and mastectomies of healthy breasts, and replacing objectively attractive models with women that are fat and ugly in marketing. This is because Wokeism is detached from any notion of aesthetic objectivity or Plato’s ‘Theory of Forms’, and instead views everything through the lens of power and privilege.
But the Right, particularly the Dissident Right in the United States, seems intent to drive such high-status individuals like Riley Gaines away, even if they put that high-status on the line in devotion to our cause.
In this article I will first discuss how and why the online Right has moved in a more Christian and traditionalist direction since the 2010s. I will then address some of the traditionalist arguments in regards to women and sexuality, and emphasise the important distinction between healthy and perverted sexuality. Then, with a section for each topic, I will talk about why I think men in the DR are too harsh on women, analyse how the work of Mary Harrington creates a possible future co-operation between the sexes, and conclude with why women are so important to our movement.
The Changing Character of the Online Right
The Christian element of the ADR seems to be growing. Throughout the 2010s the word ‘Christian’ was mostly a dog whistle for traditional, White, European civilization amongst online right-wing spaces, who used it in a similar way to Viktor Orban when he invoked ‘Christian Europe’ in the context of Muslim immigrants coming to Hungary.
But whilst commentators of US politics point to the conservative movement as a whole becoming more secular, the specifically ‘online right’ is much more religious than even a few years ago. One can see this through Nick Fuentes’ hardline Christianity, the ‘Tradwave’ (traditional Catholicism Vaporwave) aesthetics, as well as the increasing juxtaposition of Apu the Frog walking with Jesus.
It’s hard not to see why such tendencies have grown. The previous animating ideology, Secular White Nationalism, was repressed by the censors after 2016. But Christianity is a harder target, less able to be presented as taboo. Apu walking with Jesus is a communicating message to a specific audience, that more effectively evades censorship than White Nationalist symbolism, which is why it filled the intellectual vacuum.
It is in the context of this online Christian Right Revival where the expression of heterosexuality, not just LGBT degeneracy (which we are rightfully harsher on than we were 10 years ago), is primarily demonised. Of course the Incels will always project their resentment, but the serious objections tend to be by Christians.
I am not a religious man, so such appeals do not resonate with me. However, even from a pragmatic point of view, I do not believe appeals to religion will appeal to the groups we need on our side.
The Right really does have a stupidity problem. Focusing on religious arguments makes our side look stupid and unintellectual, and actually undermines the secular arguments for a certain position. This is because one can easily be accused of arguing in intellectual bad faith, with their positions always coming back to religion instead of serious intellectual argumentation.
It is in light with the changing ideological composition and focus of the online right that a more prudish atmosphere has coloured recent discourse around relations between men and women.
The Calendar Debate
During the controversy, the Christian Traditionalists argued that, even if not to the same degree as the LGBT propaganda the left shoves down kid’s throats, posting scantily clad women in a 1950s-style pin up calendar was a slippery slope towards our modern pathologies.
I reject this argument because a certain level of heterosexual expression is healthy in a healthy society. Finding young, sexually suggestive women attractive, as a man, is a normal behaviour; extremely far removed from transgender porn and mutilating children. Instead of promoting societal degradation, the attraction of men towards attractive women is, from an evolutionary perspective, the most important aspect of his biological existence.
Of course there is a point about the value of marriage and traditional sexual ethics, chiefly societal stability and above-replacement birth rates. But anger at Calendargate was not motivated by reason, but by dogmatic adherence to Christian scripture (which like all religions is almost certainly not true), or by resentment towards attractive women based on one’s own personal insecurities.
The puritan, dreary, Christian fundamentalist right is motivated by the same hate of beauty and healthy sexuality as the Woke left is. The Christian fundamentalists seek to repress all sex outside marriage, whilst the Woke repress healthy sexuality and promote perverse, degenerate sexuality. They hate the beauty and vitality of the human form, and wish to repress it in the pursuit of equity. There is no difference between ugly and beautiful to them, the beautiful and successful specimens must be humbled in pursuit of grey, dreary social levelling.
The Christian Right is also still tied to having to hold equal standards to heterosexual fornication and homosexuality, a legacy of the 2000s where they tried to appease the LGBT lobby to no avail. This can be seen by the likes of David French always deflecting to general pornography whenever LGBT extremism comes up.
But my view is explicitly heterosexual supremacist. I believe that when opponents of Florida’s ‘Parental Rights of Education’ law say ‘why is discussion of heterosexual relationships allowed?’, instead of pretending to apply equal standards like modern conservatives do, which plays into the Woke narrative, we should be absolutely unapologetic: that heterosexuality is normal and biologically useful, and homosexuality and especially transgenderism are not, and so children should be taught what is normal, with no false ‘equality’ between normality and perversion.
Normal, healthy, genetically-beneficial sexual functioning should be seen as superior to perversion, and should have different standards applied to it. Feminine beauty must be valued and cherished by society.
Of course, if attractive female influencers, who occasionally use their sexuality to spread their message, are soft on issues like LGBT, as they unfortunately often are due to the association of ‘Barstool Conservatism’ with pro-LGBT tendencies, that is a different story. We must not allow the ‘Neocon Cycle’ to take place and we must gatekeep our spaces. The binary nature of the sexes and the supremacy of heterosexuality as the foundation of human life should be absolutely non-negotiable. It is not just T, but LGB, that is the problem.
But the Dissident Right should boldly promote a healthy sexuality. Having women in our movement increases the perception of ‘sexiness’ and therefore the status of our spaces. To deliberately push them away when they share our perspectives is an enormous own-goal, and if it continues to do so, it will deserve to lose.
The Harsh Judgement of Women by DR Men
As a man, if you dare ever say anything in defence of women you are labelled as a ‘simp’, and accused of selling out your principles in the pursuit of sex. So I will say off the bat, I am not expecting any sexual rewards.
I also do not think women are the more morally virtuous sex; in fact I largely agree with the ‘Longhouse’ hypothesis, in that our society has become ‘toxically feminine’ as demonstrated by our ultra-emotional fragility, mediocracy, and conformist groupthink. And sure, there are some selfish bitches our there who exploit men and divorce-rape them. That bitch behaviour should be condemned.
But amongst the corners of the online Dissident Right (DR) it is as if all women, especially if they’re attractive, are intrinsically guilty. They seem intent to scare any female supporters away, alongside many normie-adjacent men. Their hatred and resentment of women leads them to demand impossible and hypocritical standards of moral puritanism.
Right-wing women lose no matter what they do. They are demonised if they’re ugly, demonised as thots and whores if they’re pretty. They constantly have an army of simps sliding into private DMs, but yet are called sluts for posting attractive pictures of themselves even when they weren’t intended to be sexual.
This is a mistake. Women are half of humanity, and their buy-in is crucial to any political movement. The reason why Wokeism was able to get the institutional support that it did was due to naïve, herd-oriented young women being so overwhelmingly behind it. This was the same process as the one which led to the triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire, as Uberboyo and Ed West point out.
Isn’t it a good thing if a high-value woman has, after seeing the societal damage that has been brought by some of the behaviours she has previously participated in, changes her political beliefs? Mary Harrington began on the left, even the Woke left, but yet her analysis around gender relations and the character of the Woke regime from a female perspective in ‘Feminism Against Progress’ is some of the best work in our canon, and I encourage all on the Dissident Right, male and female, to read it.
But yet this conversion is denied as being genuine by Incels who relish the prospect of their personal revenge fantasy being fulfilled, whereby an attractive woman who might have wronged them, or a guy like them, in the past, is made to suffer when her body clock starts ticking and looks start to fade.
Why would you be so threatened by a woman who is genetically successful and desirable, that other men are attracted to her? Are you using her as a means to impose your own inadequacies? Do you envy her? Why seek to tear her down only because she is more successful than you are, the mentality that is emblematic of the Woke?
I understand that Hypergamy is a very serious societal problem in our modern age, but why is it always the individual woman’s fault? Why should she settle for less than she’s worth, when she can get better? The individual woman does not need to be blamed for a general societal problem which teaches women to strive for things ultimately antithetical to their nature. Women are simply acting in accordance with their nature and trying to make the best of a society that incentivises all the wrong things.
Adolescent women have far greater mental-ill health compared to previous decades. A far larger portion of today’s women will die alone and childless than their mothers and grandmothers. As half of humanity, and the half responsible for bringing life into the world, they are just as much the victims of Wokeness as men are.
Any woman, no matter her age or past, who wants to help us work towards a more sustainable, better future for both sexes, should be welcomed, not thrown out.
Is Vitalism Anti-Women?
One can come away from reading ‘Bronze Age Mindset’ as if women are the source of all ill in our modern age. The book valorises the masculine and demonises the feminine for our current predicament, as well as accusing the repressive feminine social control, termed the ‘Longhouse’, as being a force of stagnation throughout history.
Costin Alamiru (Bronze Age Pervert), as an obvious homosexual (though of the least-worst kind), is clearly misogynistic, for he has no desire or need for women in his life. However, it is possible to take the main ideas from the book, whilst applying a more complementarian outlook, believing that the sexes are innately interdependent and must embrace their unique roles.
Feminism Against Progress
Indeed, this is the approach of Mary Harrington, who takes many ideas from BAP in her book ‘Feminism Against Progress’. Her thesis is that in traditional Europe, men and women were innately interdependent on one another, however, the industrial revolution disrupted this balance by making women much more dependent on men, sparking a backlash that resulted in feminism. In order for the relations between the sexes to be mended, it is necessary to promote this idea of interdependence once again, by emphasising marriage, the family, and local family-owned businesses.
Harrington discusses the importance of single-sex spaces, not only for women but also for men. She recognises that the erosion of men’s spaces, far before the infiltration of biological men into women’s spaces, resulted in a decreased sense of dignity for men, increasing their resentment at women and depriving them of purpose and their own identity. She supports restoring gender segregation in the military, so that men can once again take on their unique role, and have brotherly pride and common purpose between themselves.
I would not call Mary Harrington a ‘Vitalist’, but it's clear that some of her thinking has been taken from people like BAP. She is anti-transhumanism, that she calls ‘cyborg theocracy’, which even as an Anglofuturist I agree with, thinking the technology will cause more problems than it would provide any benefits, and believing in the biological integrity of humanity. She echoes BAP’s affection for the wild and untamed, and disdains the ultra-regulated nature of modern society that represses a vital human essence.
Harrington brings a comprehensive plan of mutual cooperation to the table, and ‘Feminism Against Progress’ is a book I recommend to both men and women. We must work together to bring the future that we want.
Equal but Different
The fact that men and women are of equal worth does not mean that they are the same. The traditional conception of sex roles was that men occupied the public sphere and women the private sphere, with powerful men having wives that often were the power behind them. Whilst feminism claims to emancipate women, our current age is one where young women have far worse mental health than in previous decades. The demonization of motherhood by generations of feminists has contributed to a catastrophic decline in birth-rates which, if not reversed, will lead to the erasure of our civilization.
The concept of the Longhouse is not really explored by Harrington, but I dispute the notion that it has to necessarily be anti-women. It is indisputable that women provide a vital social role, their more cautious, collectivist, and group-oriented outlook is crucial for human flourishing. In the pre-feminist age women were the lifeblood of communities and the voluntary sector; their role outside the workforce providing a large degree of social utility.
However, ‘there is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper’, to use a term of phrase about the average nature of men and women. Whilst there have been a few exceptional women in their field (even without the unfair advantage of gender quotas), there have been a greater number of exceptional men. However, there have been more male anti-socials than female anti-socials. The IQs of women tend towards the middle of the distribution, whereas the male IQ is more variable and concentrated towards the extremes.
As amazing and wonderful as women are in many ways, there must be a male drive for adventure, for excellence, protection, and to enforce social and moral standards, which some women have but not as commonly as men.
Feminism is another example of the poisonous doctrine of ‘equality’, ignoring differences between groups and thinking all groups should have, and be, the same. But a healthy society has different social roles, and trying to blur and erase distinctions between groups only ends up creating what we see today.
So Vitalism is not anti-women. It does not believe the woman is inherently wicked or destructive, but simply that by Woke society demonising motherhood and traditional femininity, she has been shamed out of the roles she is most naturally suited for. In order to fix the West, women must be on board with our project of renewal, which will produce a more stable, sustainable, and settled social order.
This is why women should not be alienated, and in fact, without compromising our values, their support must be actively sought out.
The Dissident Right Needs Women
Do you want our movement to be the preserve of basement dwelling weirdos? It appears some do.
The high-status woman should be an aspirational figure for the low-status man to improve his life in hope of impressing her, even if he ultimately does not achieve that. But instead, it is low-status men that try to put the woman off her pedestal. Destroy her confidence, destroy her sense of self-worth, and in doing so, destroy her role as an uplifter of the general societal welfare.
The presence of attractive women in right-wing spaces can be an enormous white-pill.
For all of last year, I had no hope for the future of this country; I believed that young women my age were lost to the Woke, meaning I would have to either sacrifice my political convictions or my dating prospects.
But at some political events I attended at the end of the year, the turnout of young women was amazing, almost 50/50 to young men. This restored hope in me, so much so I probably would not have had the drive to write this magazine if the real-life events had been the same overwhelmingly male environment of online right-wing spaces. Simply their presence, the fact that they were here too, with many of the same concerns, was enough. I was not after sex, not after validation, not even after friendship… but simply the feeling of hope, that only the presence of attractive, high-status young women can bring.
In Britain, it’s clear that TERFism is a major draw for women. Even though it may not be sufficiently radical, and we must be careful not to dilute our values to try to appease the disaffected liberals, we should align ourselves with the Gender Critical feminists, as they are fighting on the side of reality and of common sense. However, we must also try to push them away from culturally-left wing feminism, and towards the Reactionary Feminism of Mary Harrington. The personal ideological journey of Harrington herself should give us hope that other women may be similarly up to persuasion.
The likes of Brett Cooper, Lauren Chen, and Poppy Coburn are an enormous asset. The female lens can take the edge off controversial ideas, often serving as a gateway to both normie women, who see an attractive, high-status woman peddling our ideas, and the low-value male, who is attracted to her, subconsciously wishes to impress her by adopting the talking points she is stating.
This is something even the left has noted, talking about how uniquely dangerous people like Lauren Southern were in the heydays of the Alt-Right for presenting a gentler, softer image, simply by her presence as a high-value woman. However, the left is also arguably correct that the Right has a nasty habit of turning on its female commentators for relatively stupid reasons.
Some low-value males can’t handle being outshone by women. So they put their own pathetic egos above service to the cause of defeating the evils of child mutilation and ethnic replacement.
If we are to win, we need to have sex appeal. We must completely shed our perception as the ideology of basement dwelling losers and of ‘Incels’, a status which gives our enemies the power to taunt and humiliate us. We must be the movement of the popular kids, the people who inspire others, the intelligent, the beautiful, and the genetically high value.
The grey, dreariness of the increasingly Christian-dominated American Dissident Right does not have to be replicated in Britain. As a younger movement, we have the power to choose a different path, one that will maximise our social status and attract the elite individuals we need to eventually win a majority of support.
Yes, the anti-woman attitude by many on the DR is an embarrassment, wrong morally and factually and completely counterproductive. On the one hand it's "women are fundamentally different/deficient" but if a woman actually displays this difference she's demonised. Karlin put it well: "These people have very low empathy and theory of mind, and find it hard to fathom why women who they do not consider to be even fully human are repulsed by them."
The 'very low empathy and theory of mind' description describes many of the bottom-feeders of the movement. These people are fundamentally quite thick and psychologically unwell, and add nothing. Strong gatekeeping is needed to keep them from ruining things: the Harrington vision is indeed the correct one.
"As a man, if you dare ever say anything in defence of women you are labelled as a ‘simp’, and accused of selling out your principles in the pursuit of sex. So I will say off the bat, I am not expecting any sexual rewards."
—This just happened to me the other day, in response to this article: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/salute-warrior-women-substack
I was told I must be a "wimp" for finding strong women attractive…and that strong women cannot also be feminine, soft, nurturing, etc. It's like it is a reflexive reaction now among many on the right.
Similarly, I get called an "incel" from time to time, even though I have been married for more than two decades and…and very happily so, wink wink.
Your article makes me think that the actual incels among us may actually be coloring the whole movement, leading people to just reflexively call us that. That is decidedly not helpful!