Brandon Smith Asks "Will Manliness Make A Comeback In 2018?"

Authored by Brandon Smith via,

Men embracing their masculinity and biological heritage has not been the easiest path the past few years, at least, for those who care about being labeled a "toxic" curse hanging over the history of the world.



For me, frankly, I am indifferent to the gnashing and wailing of feminists and the social justice cult. They are a paper tiger and always have been. Beyond that, it's almost impossible to live in rural Montana without being a capable man (or living in a family with capable men), so even if I wanted to become some kind of liberal my-little-pony metrosexual, the environment simply would not allow for it. I would get eaten alive, or I would have to leave.

It is this lesson above all else that I would like to impart here — masculinity can only be abandoned when the environment is sterilized and controlled and entirely "safe." Put any feminist out in an uncontrolled and dangerous environment (like the wilderness) for a few weeks, and it won't be long before they will beg for someone with all those "toxic" masculine traits to come and help them.

In fact, though scientists rarely undertake any social experiments to explore this reality (due to science in our era being heavily tainted by identity politics and liberal bias), there are many examples of the vast differences between genders on display in survival shows such as the Bear Grylls show 'The Island'.  The British reality series originally featured a group of thirteen men left on an island with nothing but a few tools and the clothes on their backs. Their goal?  Work together to survive for one full month.

After accusations of "sexism", the show started its next season with a group of men and a group of women given the same task.  The show had various versions and copycats in other nations, some featuring competitions between the men and the women, but the end result was invariably the same regardless of the country.

While having their own setbacks, the men's groups do decidedly better in every case, not just because of superior strength, but also superior organizational ability (an evil masculine trait).  In the American 'Survivor' version of this experiment, which had the groups in proximity to each other, the women inevitably depended on the men for aid.

The reality is, when push comes to shove society cannot function without psychological traits that are decidedly masculine.  This is why matriarchal (or feminized) societies generally collapse or are highly dysfunctional and regressive.  For an example outside of the jungle, read this article by a female entrepreneur who had a utopian idea to build a company made up only of women - a company which suffered complete gridlock and bankruptcy only two years later from employee discord and laziness.

Because of the inadequacies of a culture without strong male presence, feminism and "social justice" as ideologies instantly lend themselves to socialism and collectivism. In fact, it's hard to separate one from the other.

Socialism provides the governmental and legal bubble that helps to protect people who cannot or will not protect themselves, and collectivism forces capable people (mostly men) to do all the hard labor necessary to keep a system functioning and safe "for the sake of the group," whether they want to participate in that group or not. In the beginning this is done through taxation, entitlement programs and the centralizing of wages into metropolitan areas. In the end, it is done through unabashed slavery. If you want to see an example of this simply look up the end result of the Stalinist and Maoist models - a productive minority is always tasked (or forced) to feed, house and clothe the non-producing majority.

And this is how these people hope to live out their entire lives — blissfully sheltered from unpredictable environments that require technical know-how, independent ingenuity or decisive and sometimes violent action.

Feminism in particular seeks the destruction of all masculinity as a prerequisite to a supposedly safer world. To illustrate, take a look at this article published by the ever-establishment, ever-collectivist Bloomberg titled "How To Make Better Men."

The article is typical propaganda, falsely associating masculinity first with institutions that do not define masculinity as well as attitudes that are not necessarily only attributed to men. The goal here, of course, is the demonization of men in general through association with already-established negative events and symbols. Bloomberg ties men and male behavior to the scandal surrounding the recent string of accusations of sexual aggression in politics and Hollywood.

To be sure, these institutions and industries in particular seem to attract a certain type of deviance, not that all the accusations made so far should be treated as fact. Prosecuting someone in the media and in the court of public opinion is not the same as prosecuting them in a court of law. The #MeToo movement is mostly a farce on par with the witch hunting displayed in The Crucible; relying solely on stirring the frothing fervor of the mob rather than generating facts and evidence.

That said, the cases that do seem to be provable illustrate a pattern of narcissism and sociopathy common in the entertainment industry and in politics, and this is a problem among men AND women within these cultural structures. Just look at Hillary Clinton and her treatment of the women that threatened her husband's career.

And despite what feminists claim, narcissism and sociopathy are not inherently masculine traits. Many women display these character flaws constantly, but in slightly different ways from men.

Is it wrong for a man to pressure a woman into sexual activity through leverage or force? Of course. But is this a "masculine" behavior, or a sociopathic behavior? Bloomberg and the feminists want to condition you to assume the two are interchangeable.

Now, many other behaviors that have been wrongly attached to rape in order to demonize men are in fact masculine and are not negative. Is it an assault for a man to tell a woman on the street she looks good? No. Is it an assault to be direct with a woman or to pursue her for a relationship? No, as long as she doesn't tell you to back the hell off then all is fair game. Is it an assault to look at a woman and think thoughts you would not share with your own mother (unless you are a freak)? No, not at all. In fact, you will find that many women PREFER a man that is direct over a man that walks on eggshells and is constantly apologizing for acting on what is biological and natural. It is feminists who are complaining about these behaviors, and feminists do not represent women in the slightest.

How do feminists plan to weed out masculine behavior that has sustained civilization since the beginning of recorded time? They hope to accomplish this through public schools. First by propagandizing children (like Bloomberg propagandizes their readers) into believing that traditionally masculine behaviors are "bad." Boys should be more calm in class, sit still, be quiet, less high strung, they should cry more and share their feelings, they should be admonished for playing violent games such as war with sticks and their imaginations, they should be taught to be vulnerable and less ambitious, they should be, for all intents and purposes, feminized.

Make no mistake, there is a highly concerted effort in the public school system to enforce the feminist ideology by sinking their fangs into the next generation of men and "training" the manliness out of them. Of course, it seems to me that if these behaviors weren't entirely natural, then the feminists would not have to put so much effort into an agenda to condition children to their side. Why not keep ideologies out of schools completely and let the children decide what comes naturally when they are older?

Beyond the circus of sexual issues dominating the media for the past few weeks or the feminist final solution, I will say that the violence of action is indeed a predominantly masculine characteristic, and honestly, we need far more of it.

It seems to me that feminism and social justice, whether knowingly or unknowingly, feed into the establishment power structure and allow it to thrive. Encouraging men to be weak, indecisive, indirect, fearful of group condemnation and fearful of their own aggression makes a society less secure and more malleable. Masculinity is often raw and unpredictable. It makes sense that potential tyrants would seek to diminish it so that they do not have to worry about sudden rebellion. In ancient times, invading armies would target the military age males of a culture and kill them off. They would then assimilate the women and children, and young boys would be raised to defend the banner of the conqueror.

Today, this is being done in a different manner. Men are being castrated symbolically in media and film, or castigated through our educational system as a nuisance. We are being encouraged to abandon all the qualities that make us a threat to the establishment, in the name of social tranquility. But of course, in the end only the establishment benefits, and "tranquility" is certainly not guaranteed once we fall on our own swords.

Believe it or not, though, I am hopeful.

The tides have been turning against the feminists and the social justice cult lately. And contrary to popular belief, this is NOT because of Donald Trump. If anything, Trump's popularity is merely a reflection of the vast and growing backlash against the extreme left and the cultural Marxism they promote.

When there is a social backlash, it usually results in people immediately educating themselves on everything the offending movement originally condemned. Meaning, if the feminists hate it then it is probably good. Will this encourage men, and the millennial generation in particular, into finally pursuing technical prowess, physical and mental toughness, independence and self sufficiency, personal security and self defense and the ambition to build something better? Will our dwindling Western populations see a resurgence of child births? Will the newest Generation Z, growing up in the midst of an increasingly difficult economic environment, adhere to more masculine traits by necessity?

If there is any indication of such a return to masculine roots, it will probably become visible in 2018 as the influence of the feminist agenda continues to wane. We shall see. If not, then the Western world is in dire trouble. For if we do not make manliness "fashionable" again and soon, it might be bred out of our culture entirely. And with this loss, a cultural death is guaranteed.


JimmyJones Zero Point Thu, 01/04/2018 - 00:01 Permalink

Masculinity is alive, it's been kept alive by groups that meet privately and go through rituals in private, that teach the honor code, self discipline, self empowerment, teach the reality of the world and what feminization is. The pendulum always swings back. Also nothing is more distasteful then listening to a Faminazi for more that 10 seconds. Al Bundy was truly ahead of his time with the creation of "No ma'am".

In reply to by Zero Point

ACP JimmyJones Thu, 01/04/2018 - 01:01 Permalink

The problem with this article is that "manliness" is attributed to all races. No, the left has ONLY been against "manliness" of whites. Blacks, hispanics, arabs and everyone have been free to express "manliness" as much as they want.

That's why the left never complains when blacks rap about beating up their black bitches and shooting each other. That's why the left never complains about the number of MS13 murderers in the US. That's why the left never complains about multitude of rapes muslims commit against white women every minute of every day.

The left only wants to castrate white men, everyone else can do whatever they want. Just another facet of white genocide.

In reply to by JimmyJones

Zero Point Semi-employed … Thu, 01/04/2018 - 02:38 Permalink

I'm actually breaking one of my usual rules and watching that "The Island" show on Youtube at the moment. The only reason the women survive is because they're given things by the producers (they "find" cans of beans, and have "wild" piglets that walk up to them). It's actually cool watching the men. They're a bunch of typically useless men from our new age... but they kindof do OK some of the time. Their ability to set goals and stay on task was usually pretty good. While they have the typical jostle for position, they settle down into a team, and work out their differences to a point that even the useless shitbirds among them find ways to assist.

In reply to by Semi-employed …

Dindu Nuffins PT Thu, 01/04/2018 - 06:01 Permalink

Beta males are cool.

They fall in line, know the hierarchy around them, and work hard at the same job for 30 years, becoming really good at it. They select sensible wives and raise K-selected children. They're the basis for civilisation.

It's the Gammas and Omegas that you have to watch out for. Also, more than one Alpha in a particular pack is also bad news.

In reply to by PT

PT Dindu Nuffins Thu, 01/04/2018 - 07:28 Permalink

Ha ha ha ha ha.  Jobs that last 30 years.  I remember them.  My dad had one.  Oh, actually, one of my friends mig- no, not yet. 

I understand your point though.  I actually know one or two of them betas you mentioned.  The rest must be, ummm, gammas?  Nice guys, but they still don't comprehend what they are up against.

In reply to by Dindu Nuffins

vollderlerby PT Thu, 01/04/2018 - 08:17 Permalink

Anglo-bitches ride the cock carousel with "bad-boy" alphas until they hit 30.  Then they look for and settle down with a beta, since they're the better providers and fathers.  Then beta becomes boring after 6 months, they lose all respect for beta because he's a pussy. She then kicks him out of the house, you know the rest of that story.  Don't be a beta.

In reply to by PT

mr1963 curbjob Thu, 01/04/2018 - 07:57 Permalink

Inner city blacks are the only self actualized population in America, they do what they want. The males have children with multiple women, they abandon the kids they produce, they hang out all day and night without a worry. When they need a little cash, they car jack a car, rob a white person, whatever. If they go to jail, what's the difference, they get fed, hang out with their bro's all day, they find some worthless punk for sex, they don't give a shit.


The women, hell if it wasn't for government jobs, they wouldn't have one, too stupid. They have the kids, the government supplies them with food, shelter, money, they sit around all day watching TV. If they need some extra cash, they whore themselves out, it's sex anyway, and they raise the next generation of the same. 

In reply to by curbjob

SWRichmond Totin Thu, 01/04/2018 - 07:22 Permalink

Masculinity is, among many other things, the physically creative force that gives rise to the things you see around you: power stations, bridges, roads, ports, ships, aircraft, mines, houses and apartments.

Or maybe you city folks don't see most of those things and don't have any f****** idea where they come from.  They exist for one reason: men built them.

The feminists are capable of building nothing in the physical world.  Do you want to live in a house or an apartment building?  It was designed and built by men.  The materials used to build it were created by men.  Ever work in a steel mill, in at a power plant or on a pipeline project?  Not many women around except in the office.  Know what a slipform paver is, how it works?  Know how to place concrete, how to get the air bubbles out of it, how to finish it, how to create a joint between placements?  What's the difference between 4500psi concrete, 10000 psi concrete, and the damnable oatmeal they use for residential foundations?

Who do you see working on roofs?  Do you like having roofs?  Ever done any roofing?  It's hot as fuck up there in the summer.  Worked in a tank farm?

Feminists can work at a Starbucks or in a nice comfy make work office "compliance" job.

I won't insult conservative women by including farms, cuz they bust their asses and I know it.  And farming is of course the most important physically creative activity of all.

Men and women can and should work together synergistically, each bringing to the table those things that they are best at.  This is why the organic building block of any civilization is the family.  You respect my contributions and I'll respect yours.  But if you bitch at me constantly there's going to be trouble, and when a movement gathers steam which wants to eliminate men there's going to be War.

In reply to by Totin

ZeroHegemony JimmyJones Thu, 01/04/2018 - 01:14 Permalink

"it's been kept alive by groups that meet privately"

Sounds crazy, but I've come across this in business. Like-minded, motivated men who feel discriminated against by the 'new social direction' are indeed creating private 'clubs' to share their professional skills and create/keep their wealth safe. Presumably so it can be used for their children's benefit once society has had enough of, or collapsed from, destructive liberalism.

It's a mindset of intelligent, motivated thinkers with something to offer a group. Much like some people who find themselves on ZH, sharing knowledge and useful opinion because they know something's wrong. Every sensible person adds a valid piece to the consensus.

Let's hope it doesn't go so far that ZH is forced to 'go private', too.

In reply to by JimmyJones

Escrava Isaura historian40 Thu, 01/04/2018 - 00:34 Permalink

Will manliness make a comeback?

Let me ask my wife! 

LOL. That summarizes well this whole idiocy.


Anyway, you can achieve any conclusion by ludicrous explanation.

Writer: The reality is, when push comes to shove society cannot function without psychological traits that are decidedly masculine.  This is why matriarchal (or feminized) societies generally collapse or are highly dysfunctional and regressive.  For an example outside of the jungle……………

Regressive? Outside of the Jungle?

Wait, it gets better:

a highly concerted effort in the public school system to enforce the feminist ideology by sinking their fangs into the next generation of men and "training" the manliness out of them.


Will conservative men ever learn to mature?

Masculinity? Really? So then tell me, how will these men ‘hold together’ when they get old and weaker?

Masculinity only works when you’re young. After that you become invisible.


In reply to by historian40

ZIRPdiggler Escrava Isaura Thu, 01/04/2018 - 01:09 Permalink

So your dick (if you even have one) takes up residence in your wife's purse, permanently huh?  I am making a big assumption that you're not gay.  With a mouth like that, you're certainly qualified for the Soros destabilization Marxist/Leninist shock troops, driving cars over innocent crowds of the "less-enlightened-than-yourself" masses.  You're a sorry excuse for a man.  My guess is, you probably couldn't even find the oil pan on vehicle much less change it out.  Instead, you queer big mouths come to guys like me.  You shold really go fuck yourself.

In reply to by Escrava Isaura

Rex Andrus Blue Steel 309 Thu, 01/04/2018 - 12:35 Permalink

Reminds me of a belligerent nun from my school days.

I would not touch that here or there

I would not touch that anywhere

I would not touch that in a house

I would not touch that with a mouse

I would not touch that on a boat

I would not touch that with a goat

I would not touch that in a hole

I would not touch that with a pole

I would not touch that on a train

I would not touch that because I'm sane

I would not touch that anywhere

I would not touch that and I'm not queer


In reply to by Blue Steel 309

MaskOfZero MsCreant Thu, 01/04/2018 - 03:09 Permalink

The Brazilosaur is a woman--either that or a gay--very gay.

It's elementary, my dear Watson, please observe the Brazilosaur's statement:

" Will conservative men ever learn to mature? "

Watson, have you ever met a woman who did not attempt to assert her superiority by  belittling a man's level of maturity?  Women learn this in grade school!

===>Only women concern themselves with the maturity of men.  Belief in their greater maturity is the way women of every culture fool themselves into believing in female superiority.

" Masculinity only works when you’re young. After that you become invisible."

==>Projection.  Actually, femininity only works when you are young, nubile, and attractive, after that you become invisible.  But masculinity keeps on ticking--and it always proves useful in the practical challenges of life at any age.

Brazilosaur again speaks only as woman would, who naturally has not even the slightest clue about masculinity. 

" Masculinity? Really? So then tell me, how will these men ‘hold together’ when they get old and weaker? "

In this statement, she becomes irrational, like a woman, not understanding that these men even at 70 or older would 'hold together' to survive.  She seems to think that weakness occurs with men in old age, as it invariably does with women.  Even if they were weak and old, men would suck it up, and get the job done because of the courage that comes with masculinity.  Women are culturally allowed to be complete, utter physical cowards without feeling any shame.

I rest my case.

(also, how could anyone be such a pussy without having one?)


In reply to by MsCreant

Planet ZOG MaskOfZero Thu, 01/04/2018 - 07:01 Permalink

Very well written.  I never bother reading her posts because she is clearly a product of miscegenation.

"to assert her superiority by  belittling a man's level of maturity?"

A pubescent girl turns a lot more heads (of the opposite sex) than the same aged boy.  This is essentially the root of what they call "maturity".

This "maturity" in reality manifests itself in a disregard for being solely responsible  for the creation and maintenance of a child.  To encourage this disregards, planned parenthood and other (((organizations))) push immediate and simple access to cheep or free abortions.

A "mature" single woman who gets herself knocked up often decides to bear the child assuming that someone else will always have her back.  The state encourages this by offering all kinds of subsidies and welfare for these "mature" mothers who become wards of the state.  Some female friends see how easy life can be when you are "mature" and get yourself knocked up.  Other female friends see how easy it is to use the state to chain themselves financially to their sperm donors.

It is the male offspring of these "mature" feminists who end up suffering from the lack of a masculine role model.  It also affects the female offspring who never have a masculine role model and end up being man hating feminist bitches.

In reply to by MaskOfZero

chiquita ZIRPdiggler Thu, 01/04/2018 - 09:46 Permalink

takes up residence in your wife's purse


Just an aside--what the hell is that anyway?  During the recent holiday shopping season, I actually saw a guy holding his wife's purse while following her around as she flitted around the ladies' clothing department.  I was so embarrassed for him, I had to go to another part of the store.  As a woman who prefers manly men, 1) I don't even ask them to go shopping because I know real men hate to shop and 2) men don't hold handbags--ever--it's demeaning.  I believe that's why shoulder bags were invented so I don't need anyone else to hold my purse for me while I shop, right?  

In reply to by ZIRPdiggler