Lateral and Complimentary - Tonight on SurrealPolitiks

SurrealPolitiks S01E021 – Lateral and Complementary

Of some interest to our political situation is the relationship between the sexes. These having been distorted to the point where men and women drug and mutilate themselves in effort to become the other. The outcome of this is frequently suicide, and universally misery and destruction.

In my own ideological journey, my rapid slide from libertarianism to the Right wing was prompted by an entirely appropriate revolt against the precursor to this abomination, namely feminism.

Feminism begins with the assertion that men and women are in all ways equal. Met with the impracticality of this assertion, it attempts to distort reality in myriad other ways.

Among them is a bifurcation between “gender” which is said to be “between the ears” and “sex” which is said to be “between the legs”. Met with the impracticality of this, that which is between the legs is likewise altered, as well as matters above the waist but below the neck, such as when women remove their breasts, and men take drugs to cause lactation.

But these most extreme of examples are hardly the most destructive of the phenomena. It may be described as far more damaging that women have opted for education and career over marriage and family, having at once been given the choice and perhaps more to the point been propagandized to make that choice. This negatively impacts birth rates and gives rise to immigration concerns, which negatively impacts their happiness and safety, and being miserable as one might expect, they are propagandized still more to demand these burdens increase with the false hope that it will increase their happiness, and so the vicious cycle of societal decline rapidly cascades toward total destruction of our people.

Observing this, and taking note of its need for correction, Right wing movements have made a variety of attempts to conceptualize the issue and propose solutions. To date, none of have had the desired effect.

Of particular note is a tendency toward believing some of the lies of feminism even by those in steadfast opposition thereto. In particular, the idea that feminism promotes equality of the sexes. Believing this falsehood, anti-feminists have sought to reduce theΒ  station of women in our society as a means by which to correct for their perceived elevation.

This was easily among the top five greatest mistakes of what was once known as the “Alt Right”. Among them there emerged a pathology aiming to “take women down a peg” and this resulted in senseless hostility and insults which drove away the political support of roughly half the world’s population. In what was arguably its most extreme form, a meme described as “White Sharia” emerged, and whatever its value as a joke, this took on a serious character in some circles and spiraled out into savagery.

But equality is not an accurate description of what feminism aims to do, much less what it accomplishes. Like everything Left wing, it is not only a lie, but an inversion of the truth. Feminism reduces women to sex objects, rather than freeing them from such perceptions, and asserts that anyone who can talk them into consenting to an act has committed no sin thereby, no matter how depraved the act in question, and no matter how harmful its consequences.

A woman is not elevated by seeking a masculine station in life as pertains to the workplace, nor on the battlefield. A disparity in her fitness for purpose quickly becomes evident, and efforts to contort our perceptions quickly fail as myths like the “gender pay gap” emerge and are debunked, and realities like reduced fitness standards in military matters become codified.

Sadly lost in near all of this discussion is the fact, that a wife and a mother are not inferior to a husband or a father. Neither is the inverse conceivable. These are lateral and complementary stations, neither of which can exist absent the other.

There exists in some schools of thought, notably Christian apologetics and others aiming to make logical proofs of of God’s existence, the notion that “the created cannot be greater than the creator” and since men and women cannot exist without the other, this poses a difficult issue for those who aim to assert the primacy of one over the other. Fortunately for them, they tend to reject entirely the concept of God, or, just as often, choose to wage war against a God they hate.

But co dependents with distinct roles are no more inferiors or supremacists above or beneath the other than they are equals. They are different, and they have distinct purposes to fill. Without those purposes filled, neither can exist, and without their existence we are not having this discussion. Whatever one’s views on God or the hierarchy of creations and creators, one who cannot exist absent another can hardly claim to the dominant of the two.

Take among our most obvious examples the issue of war, and exclude for the moment modern efforts to include women in the practice. Until fairly recently, it was universally understood that war was the practice, of men, and while historical examples of women participating exist, they are notable for how unusual they are, and thus the exception proves the rule. Men have historically, and with all propriety, considered it their obligation to be the protectors of women. They have taken this obligation so seriously as to die in its performance, and to consider this a worthwhile thing to do.

A man who lays down his life in defense of a woman, or in defense of the women of his society, asserts by his act a statement of values in which the expenditure of his life is a lesser value than the prevention of harm to the women in question. On its face this may be seen as a higher status of women than men. It might be described as akin to the use of dogs in war or in police work, wherein canines are sent to sniff for explosives or attack armed suspects, when such a task would prove to perilous to the lives of the officers.

Are men to be described as holding a station comparative to women, the status of dog to man? Hardly. Absent this generosity, there would be no women. The women are, if acting appropriately, grateful for the protection. They express this gratitude in ways to numerous to count, in a healthy society.

Equality would demand that men and women serve comparable roles in the practice of war, and indeed, much effort has been made to impose this on society. But, in America at least, we have not been so in thrall to this delusion that women are conscripted into war. That is still an exclusively male phenomenon. There are both those who would aim to change this, and men who would sooner wage war against their own government than to submit their daughters to something so unnatural.

And, given this martial prowess unique to the male, it might be said that he is the ruler. He has, at the end of the day, the means by which to impose his will upon the woman. Whatever the woman’s status in society, it may be said that the male chooses it, and that one who can be made a slave, is arguably already by this fact of such a status.

But does a man permit of his daughter or his wife to be made the slave of another? One may presume that examples of this exist, but they are rare enough that they again prove as exceptions proving the rule. Near universally, a man does not permit this. He is, in effect, prevented from doing so, if not by the consent of the women in question, by the will of other men.

There exists a humorous advertisement for a brand of firearm, in which God made man and woman, and the firearms manufacturer made them equal. While conveying a message of some interest, this hardly describes reality. To begin, the man made the firearm. There exists a substantial likelihood he gave it to the woman as a gift. It is near certain he taught her to use it.

And while too many woman have used firearms to impose upon men the only equality men and women may know, which is to say, death, it is hardly the case that women have been known to show equal propensity for the use of such tools. Their most common use is of course for men to kill other men, and thus emerges the inequality of prison populations.

If crime is to be seen as a negative thing, and men near universally the perpetrators of crime, are we to discern from this that women hold the superior station? Hardly.

Men also comprise the bulk, and at one time, the entirety, of the law enforcement profession, of police, of lawyers, of judges, of corrections officers, of hero citizens who rush toward the danger while commanding the women to flee or take shelter.

As in the case of war, does the woman infer from this a status of superior value by the protection, or the status of inferior subject by obeying the command? Neither.

The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world, a world governed by men, whose cradles were rocked by women. To pursue this chicken or the egg riddle results in circular reasoning and comes to no definitive conclusion but one. That men and women are lateral and complementary to one another. No chicken, no egg, no egg no chicken.

Karl Marx was by no means shy about stating his desire to abolish the family, and latter Left wing theorists have only become more radicalized in their drive toward this genocidal end. Met with the reality that their designs would end in the extinction of man, they have asserted that this is desirable, and incorporated into their musings all manner of delusions about our “unnatural” impacts on the “environment”.

It is no coincidence that “women’s liberation” and “anti-racism” and “environmentalism” are all roughly grouped into the same fanatical Left wing ideological movements. They are an indisputably anti-human phenomenon, and they bring unceasing misery most of all to their adherents, and secondly to those so unfortunate as to be ruled by those adherents.

Men who rule justly, treat women with very special privileges. It is the transgender fanatics who seek to deprive them of these dispensations.

Happy women are typically consumed by the affairs pertaining to their rightful station, which is to say, their positions as wives and mothers. It is preposterous to expect them to manage all that comes along with this vital purpose, and then atop this to master the speciality of a profession, and to concern themselves with all that occurs within the State, and to maintain a fitness regiment to make them suitable for war, all of which would result in failure and misery and neglect of the husband and the children were they to try.

The above describes a relationship which is a requirement of their respective survival. To subvert it is to wish upon them both the most excruciating death conceivable.

These are lateral and complementary stations, though unequal in the extreme, and should we seek to secure the existence of our people and a future for our children, much more if we seek any measure of fulfillment in life, we might do well to abandon both the extremist fringe conceptions of the gender delusionists, and also the over corrections of those who found themselves in revolt.

Some striking examples of a failure to do so emerged to inspire today’s theme. I had been trad-posting, or, wholesome posting, which is to say, I was sharing images of families and women and sayings about them which were praising of women in what could be described as “traditional” roles.

In the course of this, I was told “don’t simp”.

I do not recall hearing the word simp prior to 2020. My first recollection of observing this term was in researching a different subject some months ago, in which a polyamorous woman complained that her lovers would be called simps by other men. I took this to be similar to the word cuck, and thought no need to research the implication further.

Being told “don’t simp” when praising women who aspire to motherhood and the respect owed a good wife, I was confused, and searched the term online.

It is, according to one definition, an acronym, for Suckers Idolizing Mediocre P, wherein P the listener is invited to make appropriate inferences.

Being not a sucker, knowing only the quality of a specific number of Ps which hardly lends itself to general statements, and remaining steadfastly in opposition to idolatry of all sorts, I figured this hardly could be applied to your humble correspondent.

But the term has, as terms tend to do, become more broadly applied to what might be described as “White Knighting” or worse still, toward anyone who has a positive thing to say about women.

And, so I offered a gentle suggestion;

I would gently suggest removing the word “simp” from your vocabulary.

I do not recall hearing this word prior to my January of 2020 arrest. I just googled it after hearing it in a variety of contexts over the past few months, including some comments in the last 24 hours, and finding myself uncertain of the inference.

Now, I understand the entirely appropriate drive to deride men who are so ignorant of the world as to think that appearing slavish is a way to earn a woman’s affections.

It seems to me this has taken on an altogether different character, in which to say something positive about women as a general matter may meet with this derogatory slang.

This is much like the phenomenon of people calling someone a “grifter” or talking about “shekels” derisively if one is trying to make money. Whatever the sincere intent of the messenger may be, the effect is to isolate the target from a source of value, whether it be money, or affection, or, most importantly in our context, the political support of half the world’s population.

Alienating women was in the top 5 big mistakes of the Alt Right. The entirely appropriate revolt against feminism, got out over its skis, and descended into “taking women down a peg”. Banished from the mainstream social media platforms and having our radicalism distilled in echo chambers, it was purified into a crack like smoking form and became “White Sharia”.

Today we see our supposed betters of the optics war advocating aspirational inceldom, and I have yet to have it coherently explained to me how this is anything other than a plan to create more mass shooters.

Women do not need to be taken down a peg. To the extent they need to “know their place” it is to remind them of their lateral and complementary station to men. Praising them categorically is not an inappropriate way of accomplishing that goal.

I invite you to join me in breaking this very bad habit we picked up, and developing better habits that will help us to both earn more vital support from women, and to help those women lead the most fulfilling lives they can aspire to.

It might go without saying that this resulted in many, many comments. The end result was a number of bans and blocks.

In one post, a man posted all the ways in which men were superior to women, ranging from statistics on intelligence and strength, to supposed disparities in promiscuity, which may be at once questionable and of limited utility, since the male sexual appetite is typically restrained by the reciprocity of females.

The same posted a collage of unflattering images painting women as sexual deviants and gold digging tramps.

Another told us that we were “gigsasimping”. Another said “enjoy being divorce raped”.

One asked if I had made the jump to becoming a “gender egalitatian” to which I responded;

I hardly think “lateral and complementary” describes a position of equality.

We are describing a meaningful distinction of purpose. Men have distinct roles from women, but while the male role carries with it a distinct authority, and a capacity for the use of force, which is inherent in our nature and not practically deniable, a woman’s capacity to produce life, and the male’s requirement for those things only a woman can provide, do not in my mind render her “inferior” to him.

Additionally, I’d say that if men rush off into battle and lay down their lives to protect women, they are asserting by this act a hierarchy of values which if anything places women above themselves on the scale of importance.

But since the woman can hardly be expected to live without this generosity, she can hardly be described as superior to him.

Another man suggested that American women in particular were “unrepentant whores” and for this reason needed to be brought down.

To him I asked;

An are you of the opinion that unrepentant whores are in need of lowering?

I am of the view that whores are quite low without any assistance from us.

I am further of the opinion that their behavior can hardly be described as womanly.

Now, if one were to praise a woman, for say, having a talent for twerking, I think calling that man an unpleasant name might have some merit.

On the other hand, to say “Women have this very special quality which is pertinent to their lateral and complementary station to men” I think is a different category of action.

He responds to say;

Have you seen American women? They look like America itself. Their bodies look like your hwy underpasses, covered in ugly discordant tattoes like they have been tagged by random bums, cut marks like theyve been sideswiped by a drunk illegal and an ugly green hairdo that looks like a dilapidated trailor that sits on exit 325.


I respond again;

When you see a woman who looks like a highway underpass, I would suggest not giving her your affections.

I would also suggest you stop telling women that this is what they are, because you actually have some say in this and you are creating the reality you describe.

And that reality is perhaps the most important one to learn of all. What is the purpose of anything we are doing with our words?

Perhaps it is appropriate that the media producer is more attuned to this than the listener who makes the occasional comment, and so perhaps it is still more appropriate that I remind you of this.

You are the makers of this world. What you say is what you think, and what you think is what you do, and what you do is what creates the world you hold in contempt.

If you believe that men hold authority over women, you might begin to assert it first by taking greater care with your own speech. If you tell women that they are tattooed whores, and those are the women you happen to notice in proximity to you, then take credit for your work, and stop blaming others for your dissatisfaction.

Do not speak to me of mere observations. Life is not a spectator sport. You are a participant, and you are responsible entirely for the outcome.

Praise the praiseworthy. Condemnation plays its part, but it is in no way short of supply.

I’ll tell you something I learned early in my leadership career far from politics.

In my first management position, my mother bought me some books on the subject of leadership. One of the things that stands out in my mind is something that closely enough approximates a worthwhile lesson even if it is not universally applicable.

“Never bring up a problem you cannot solve”

There are obvious problems with this. You bring up a problem you cannot solve, in order to seek a solution, but dwelling on intractable conflicts is the behavior of losers who do not want to solve problems and so they dwell there to avoid responsibility for solving the solvable.

Here is another, told to me by an older, wiser man, later in my career.

When a subordinate does a good job, tell him. People like to be praised, and the better they are at their jobs, the less they get of it since the praiseworthy acts become less noticeable. So all involved are unused to being praised, since the low performer has little to praise, and the high performer has the praiseworthy work become unremarkable. When you praise people, you stand out in their mind. You are the person who makes them feel good about themselves, and all of our relationships, especially our relationships with the opposite sex, are above all about how people make us feel about ourselves.

If you make a woman feel good about herself, she will respond to this positively. If you condemn a woman, she will respond to this negatively. But how often do you see a woman praised for being a good wife?

If you are a very good, and I mean abnormally good, husband, you might do this once in awhile. If you are a single man, you almost surely have never done this at all.

If you run around calling women whores, and speaking of this term with venom, while others tell them it is good to be whores, then do not be surprised when they accept this as truth and run to those who praise the behavior.

And when they confront you in the street with blue hair and a Molotov cocktail, ask not why the Jew has made them this way.

It is of your making.



If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] and [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!


Leave a Reply

Skip to toolbar