As civilized men, we were all emasculated from birth, to a lesser or greater extent, depending on our circumstances. Society is built around your emasculation, your domestication. To resist the massive social organism that seeks to denature us all is a lifelong battle. In this battle, we are not only outnumbered, but undermined, for society has a secret weapon that sneaks in under our defenses, scouts our every weakness, and, ultimately, brings us down.

From the woman who spits you out into the world to, well, the woman that spits you out into a wash cloth, female kind are the ultimate domesticated beings, charged, first and foremost with the domestication of the boys they raise, and ultimately with the emasculation of those who managed to forge themselves into men despite the weight of the womanly world.

The process by which the civilized human male is thoroughly denatured follows a three step trajectory that cycles back upon itself:

1. Attachment

2. Submission

3. Imitation

In postmodern sissy America Civilization’s war on Man has entered a final phase, and is closer than any previous society to achieving universal emasculation. From biker gangs to men's clubs, to the freedom to voice or write one's opinion or even a mere impression, the postmodern man is hunted to extinction in all corners of society and even in the very recesses of his own mind, where his subversive instincts are targeted for a sterile doom. This is not accomplished so much by overt might, but through appealing to the feminine notions inculcated within us since birth, by which acceptance by the group is held in highest esteem.

Acceptance in the group, in the pecking order, is a purely feminine concept, expressed in primal societies by the woman being placed in a taboo place [a hut often] during her menstruation, and then ritually accepted back into the group as a life bringer. This ritual was at the root of sexually segregated apartments within the ancient Hellenic house, and in other societies, with a residual expression lingering in a kind of masculine exile in the form of the postmodern American man cave.

While the female coming of age has blood forced from her by nature, placing her in a taboo state, before her acceptance into the bottom of the pecking order, the pubescent male traditionally strikes out on a vision quest, a loan hunt, a test of stamina or pain tolerance, so severe that it causes a psychological separation from the group, in which the new man may find a vision of how he differs from his peers. Once returned to the group, instead of easing into the bottom of the female pecking order, he is expected to compete with other males to advance by merit and outdo his peers, until, in the ultimate expression of masculinity, he achieves a peerless state. This may take the form of leadership, or of specialized taboo separation. Not all men may achieve these goals, but they remain the measure of a man, where frictionless, submissive and collective activity remains the measure of the woman.

In the ancient Indo-European world there was no such thing as a team sport, only individual contests. Ball games were engaged in for recreation, often on a mixed gender basis, as a diversion, not a test of masculine quality. If an ancient Roman or Greek were brought forward today and be given access to a sports channel, he would be immediately convinced that out emasculation was either due to, or reflected in, our male obsession with teams sports over individual sports. The fact that the sacral Olympics have team events would be regarded as a heinous sin by Plutarch and others. If a Spartan warrior, or Alexander's trainer were to come forward in time and be employed as a national masculinity advisor, they would advise that boxing and wrestling be mandatory for all boys, and that all team sports be abolished, with the exception of rugby and American and Australian rules football, which would only be taught in military academies as a meditation on unit cohesion and shared goals. Hockey and lacrosse would be modified to encourage striking with the weapon for effect.

When the Western World was young and masculinity was the rule rather than the exception, there was not even a concept of team sports!

In this way, Man, as a gender, has established a preeminent position for his species in the natural world, by separating from the basic female behaviors and striking out into the world as his opposite cultivates the nurturing base. The process of civilization is a series of gradual attacks upon the masculinity of the men of conquered tribes, and of the masculinity of men lower in the caste latter in state settings, in order to conserve those ultimate masculine expressions of peerless status for a tiny few—which is a natural evolution of the vision quest. What grows up in the wake of these efforts is a system—a faceless, soulless, social mechanism for emasculation—which will eventually turn on the top men as well, leaving only the taboo types in a position to continue cultivating masculine characteristics.

An excellent example is the hamstrung nature of the individualistic military commander operating on behalf of a republic or democracy from ancient to modern time. So many Athenian generals were marked for execution by the squabbling womanly citizens of Athens that I have lost count. Every general of note in Republican Rome had to walk in fear of the Senate—including the man who was famously stabbed to death on the senate floor—convincing his successors that they had to establish an autarchy to survive the womanly machinations of the stay at home leadership.

We have not progressed that far from the tribal model in our political makeup in terms of form. To this day, the legislative branches of government fulfill the female role, the executive fulfills the male role, and the judiciary fulfills the role of elders. What has happened is the curtailment of the functions of the elders and the men in favor of the function of the feminine, which is carried on by the legislature, whose laws and amendments frame the terms of executive action and judicial discourse. This demonstrates the collective weight of feminized living within the bonds of civilized sensibilities.

Review the history of the 20th Century in search of its villains as taught in public schools today.

Are those villains congressional or senate bodies, legislators, leagues, corporations, councils or alliances?

No, they are strong man, either national or corporate executives.

Even when a vast for-profit multi-corporate military organism has its desultory interests pursued in a pointless Middle Eastern war, who is cast as the scapegoat, the fool who lied about weapons of mass destruction?

Not the corporations who backed and profited from this war so handsomely, but King Shrub the Second.

Once the majority of males in a society have been convinced that the mere voicing of opinion in the form of votes is in actual fact an expression of their masculine will, then you will see tyranny railed at as exclusively the sin of strong men and not of cabals of squabbling politicians. Consider how our modern media priesthood is so feminine in its approach to all of the many questions that assail us in this complex age. You will see that we live in a female matrix. Even in fiction—in the popular movie—when do you see the villain depicted as being a group of sedentary conspirators?

I recall the 1970s movie Rollerball.

How many movies feature a singular villain—one evil bastard that must be taken down to right the wrongs expressed in the plot?

How many of these singular villains are male?

As for the hero, he either represents the interests of oppressed women, such as in the Book of Ely, Man on Fire, the Equalizer, The Road Warrior: Fury Road, the second Purge movie, or the hero is increasingly female, as in most of the new dystopian fiction.

We, as humans, from the time we climbed down out of the trees, have been susceptible to viewing evil in a singular guise, due to our ingrained fear of our natural predator, the leopard, which is the prototype for the vampire and werewolf fiends of folk legend. For this reason, I have often used the Epic of Gilgamesh as a masculinity modeling platform. For in that story, our eldest surviving tale, the villains are the squabbling conniving gods, spearheaded by Love, the female goddess consumed by her lethal jealousy of the hero.

In a similar vein I see Joshua's slaughter of the Canaanites, and the displacement of the traditional pantheon of agricultural gods in favor of the one goat-herding war god Yahweh, to represent a similar masculine message, as does Achilles versus manipulating Agamemnon, Odysseus versus seductive Circe and Beowulf versus skulking Grendel and his mother. Ultimately, this dance of gender poles brings us to the feminine trade union where pay grades are arranged strictly by seniority with no possibility of bonuses or merit pay for the worker, with the concept of individual expression utterly disallowed. Contrast the trade union with its perennial foe, management, where seniority and every other consideration ultimately pale before pure predatory merit, and hopefuls compete with one another even as they battle the occupants of the union hen house. My brother was a teamster and experienced the same exact pecking politics—albeit nearly lethal to him—as I did being a union grocery clerk, both of us becoming pariahs for over achieving in a fashion only acceptable in sports and management. Wile the man must achieve in a singular sense to develop his masculine character, he does so ultimately with an eye on taking up a dynamic group function.

Men must function in groups in order to be effective, and have traditionally ordered themselves on the canine or leonine pack or pride model. Conversely, females have naturally ordered themselves on the herd or flock model, there collective behavior best expressed in flightless avian terms as a pecking order or hen house. It is obvious to any subversive mind that postmodern society only sanctions pack behavior by the police and the military, working in concert to uphold feminine ideals and promote herd and flock instincts among most men—or, as I would argue, mere neutered males.

The three checklists below are aimed at identifying the process so that each man may combat it in his own way.

Attachment to the mother is the primal emasculating agent. This has been the case since long before civilization, and all primal people [pre-agricultural tribes] that have been studied, had a ritual whereby the boy was separated from the mother’s influence at or before puberty. Hence, to be a man, one must separate from his mother. The timeless problem is, that such an act can fly in the face of the basic human contract, which is that the grown child looks out for the aged adult that took care of him when he was helpless. It is well documented that some particularly monstrous killers, such as Alexander and Shaka, came of age subject to unusual levels of maternal influence. A young man’s first challenge, in preparation for dealing with putting women in their place and keeping them there, is how he manages a truce with his mother. Finding some morally tenable ground between submission to her will and cruelty to and neglect of the woman that brought him into the world, makes the man's relationship with his mother something of a multiple-use portal into the stages of his life.

Attachment to his lover, or wife, and the children brought into being by their union, represents the multi-hooked snare that society uses to enslave a man, by holding those who he holds dear hostage. This extended into prehistory as mutual compact of trust between members of a small bonded group. However, with the advent of civilization it became outright slavery and remains so to this day. The first serfs and the most recent wage slaves are all products of this hostage-taking. The citizen soldiers that fought the War of European Suicide from 1914 to 1945 were locked into that hellish conflict largely on this basis.

For this reason men who remain unattached and without children have traditionally been shunned as leaders, with positions of power normally blocked to their ascent. A bachelor will rarely rise to a position of national power, and if he ever does, it is a sign that that nation is in crises. Single men are rewarded economically less handsomely as are married men, and are usually denied political power. The people of feudal societies well understood the purpose of a man’s family as hostages to secure political agreements, with The Song of Roland, the life of Vlad Tepish, the story of William Wallace depicted in the movie Brave Heart, and the Japanese manga Wolf and Cub being shining examples of the notion of family as hostage.

A man is a slave, and can never truly be free, so long as he has family dependent on him, and accessible to his would-be masters. This entire drama of the hero stricken through his vulnerable family is at the root of epic stories from every culture and shines a bloody light on the dark heart of civilization, the holding for a ransom, paid in endless servitude and toil, of a man’s loved ones. When certain kinds of broken men or beaten tribes decide to strike out at the world, it is common for them to kill their family in the bargain, with the resulting sorrow usually bringing about their suicide. The Jews at Masada dealt with the Romans be denying them their families, as did some clans of native Taiwanese when facing conquest at the hands of the Japanese.

Attachment to material things is a lesser—though more common in postmodern times—means of control, that is encouraged by union with the naturally materialistic woman.

Attachment to social status is the means by which tribal hierarchies have traditionally controlled men, increasing their relative influence in the form of honor debt the more accomplished a man is. This process has been hijacked by the materialistic modern corporate and celebrity ethos. In a natural tribal setting, where a man’s capacity to do violence and later his insight, are highly valued, social set-asides such as shamanistic, suicide, and secret societies are means by which useful figures that are troublesome to integrate into everyday life are kept in the tribal network to be called upon in times of need. Norse berserkers and Hellenic heroes would fall into this category of taboo men.

Submission to the female, to an individual, to society, or to an ideology, are all potential means of emasculation. Commonly, men in tribal societies resisted these processes, and continued to resist in civilized settings, through the establishment of masculine cults or secret societies, ranging from warrior societies, gangs, and men’s clubs, to highly evolved fraternities such as the Knights Templar, Royal Geographic Society the Masons and other networks, which tend to both supersede and aid the man’s social position.

Imitating the behavior of women by gossiping, talking in reassuring circles, and by arguing and threatening rather than taking action, is the most basic means by which mothers undermine the ability of their sons to impose their will on the world.

Do ideas, words, concepts ever anger you?

Do you raise your voice or quicken your speech under stress?

Does your relationship with aggression focus on taking a position of security like moving to a safer area, or knowing the best martial art, having the best weapon, or outnumbering your foe?

If you answered yes to any of the above than you are imitating female responses to aggression and the threat of enemy proximity.

No mindset other than the calculation of the foe’s frustration or demise is worthy.

Imitation of the female nesting/hoarding impulse, primarily in terms of fear of loss, obsession with nesting, and desire for material goods, brings the man’s perilous cycle of emasculation back full circle to attachment. Dominant men of tribal societies, including the greatest conquerors in human history, Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, traditionally maintained their masculine status and political status at one in the same time through the very simple process of giving away their acquired property—everything except for their women that is, including mothers and adopted mothers, like the mother of Darius who became Alexander’s mother, a man with at least three queens for mothers—as they represented political unions.

In this way, even the postmodern wage slave, can lighten his burden of boot licking servitude by gifting off his acquisitions to those fragile creatures who need cling to such things.

Needless to say, the desire to submit to anyone or anything is an inherently feminine act and should be as ardently avoided as buying your wife a strap-on dildo.

Overall a man should observe and learn well the ways and wisdom of women, and then leave those things to them, and concentrate on being a man, which is to say doing the opposite of what women do.