Wymin Resktors


The popular and largely semi-comedic argot thot, meaning That Ho Over There is a acronym which has a decidedly pejorative connotation (stemming mainly from the “ho” part) and is often paired with a “e” (online) such that one can differentiate those “hoes” who “act-out” online from those that do their business largely off of it. It’s a acronym which had found particular popularity within many online circles of the broader dissident right, especially for those with a religious bent who wish to act out fantasy’s of their particular brand of theocracy. These individuals fancy themselves supreme respecters of women and label those females whom they see talking about their pet topics as e-thots should they stray too far from doctrine as they look upon such action as a perversion of the “natural” placing of women within society.

Young woman expresses her disdain for female rejectionism by both leftist and rightist ideologues.

Whilst this may all seem rather trite and unremarkable, memes, just like jokes, often underlie a number of very serious philosophical proclivities. Jon Stewart might indeed be a comedian who makes rather silly jokes but behind the humor is a great deal of conviction and sincerity. Stewart spent the majority of his televised career energetically taking apart the GOP and making them the brunt of the majority of his jokes not just because he thought it would be a good laugh but because he hatred them and blamed them (in many instances rightly) for various conditions of US decay and destruction. His humor was a weapon and one which lionized a whole generation against the Grand Ole Party and everything it stood for. It would be wise to keep this in mind lest one think to themselves “but it’s just a joke.” Jokes are rarely just. This, of course, should not be viewed as some kind of injunction against humor, but simply to remain cognizant of the fact that when humor and politics intermingle, the latter is always using the former in some capacity.


With that said the essential premise of those who utilize this acronym is to “bully” females off of what every platform they are currently utilizing because it is “not their place” whilst simultaneously convincing these very same women that they should drop the “thottery” and just be properly “trad.” It’s rather like walking up to a black man and saying, “Why you gotta be such a nigger? Also, would you mind raking my yard for me whilst I’m away?” It is rare to such a group of people who are so obsessed with persuading and yet so wholly inept at it. These bizarre creature’s ire is heightened when they come into contact with any women who attains a measure of popularity greater than their own. Now, given how scare it is to find a woman willing to, not just talk about politics, but talk about dissident politics, it is only natural that such women’s profiles would rise much faster than any given man’s due to their commonality. In this way women are inherently advantaged and one can easily envision the cries which echo forth from oft ignored content producers: “But this tradthot doesn’t know half the history I do!” It may well be true but should not one simply be happy that more women are talking about ideas which largely cohere with your own? Shouldn’t you be pleased for such success? Shouldn’t you wait to find some evidence for grift before accusing people you don’t in any personal capacity know to be nothing more than whores? I’d certainly say you should if you’ve any semblance of intelligence or ethical integrity. Further more there is the defacto assumption made by such creatures that all of these women are trying to be traditionalists, they just assume it, often without any evidence basis, but if these politically savvy (or attemptedly politically savvy) dissident female commentators are not then the phrase itself is, when there applied, wholly meaningless.

Religious weirdo brags about being so unpleasant towards women that they block him.

If one is serious about one’s political movement, if one wants real change, it should be realized that kicking women out of, not just a movement but politics entirely, for no other reason then the upset of a fragile ego is nothing more than shooting oneself in the foot.

The Aesthetics of Leadership: A Manifesto

No successful leader of a people in human history has ever been a man possessed by a fear of power. To talk of a politics of power-renunciation is to talk of suicide or slavery, yet this is the current model (i.e. Merkel, Trudeau). Americans hold it as a sacral moral principal that our leaders be those who are pushed up onto a precarious platform of peers who can at any moment change their mind and throw him over. They throw him over not by violent revolution or ideological out-maneuvering (in the hypothetical utopia), but by simple, unthinking revilement for desired placations, unfulfilled – followed swiftly by the ballot boot.

It is this latter point which bears some consideration; the idea that a leader should serve a system or an ideology rather than a people. In America, the president does not (generally) serve the American People nor even its supreme code of laws, The Constitution, but rather the bureaucracy that interpenetrates it and the manifold moneyed interests which ensure their goodly placing (for sufficient favors of compensation, of course).

The picture of national American leadership, generally speaking, is one where the populace delights in their lords renouncing their power even as said lords continue to amass it. It is one where politicians do not jump forth to uplift, defend and lead their kith and kin, but one wherein they lust after the coinage of superPAC darkmoney groups (, i.e. AIPAC) and the societal adoration of coastal elites and international sov-corps and shell organizations (i.e. Amnesty International, Open Society Foundation, The Fahr Group LLC, ect). Whilst such groups can not always outright buy the loyalties of any given politician, they are usually more than well funded enough to rent them out from time to time.

It is for these very reasons that the prevailing model of the leading man is insufficient (hence the perpetual lib-prog outcry Trump, Pence, Bannon – authoritarians all! as they, in part, buck this model) for efficacious governance. When coupled with crippling bureaucracy and corruption the stultification becomes only more starkly apparent. This simply will not do, not in a age where nuclear arms, globalization, demographic shift, foreign meddling, internal rot and threats from desert death cults threaten the denizens of the United States at every turn. To combat these ills a new man of action, perhaps prefigured by Donald Trump himself, will need to arise. However, unlike our current leader, he should be a man of manners, a man of further reserve, not given over to fits of emotional turbulence.

He should be a “man of the people,” connected to them by a indelible bond of blood, virtues, hopes and shared spaces, but yet well above their class, showing it in his bearing (yet never beating them over the head with his status!)

He should be a man of steel and industry of energy and verve; ever ready to cast himself into the construction of a grand program of national works!

He, this future leader of men and builder of great works, must drive wholly against the grain of the prevailing system whilst working within it – like the ichneumon – to cleave aside the infernal tangle and decimate all those who had dared erect it. As war is politics by other means, our future commander, our prospective leading man, must be sanguine in engaging it. He must subvert, he must destroy. He must conquer.

His means.

Total subversion.

Total war.

His ends.

Restoration and its improvement.

To actualize such a process one needs some directionality – one needs a program for a building towards of such a man. For even those that fail to meet the whole of the measure will be invaluable for those other weighty positions beneath, without which a government cannot sustain itself, no matter how grand its leadership.

When Napoleon Bonaparte returned from his exile, he desired a bloodless coup and so marched with his thousand and so soldiers upon Grenoble which was then under the control of Louis XVIII’s new and extremely unpopular government. Government officials were given word that the dethroned emperor was to be shot on sight. A Royalist general under Louis’ command intercepted Bonaparte and his men at a pass near Laffray before he could reach Grenoble. To the great confusion of the general’s soldiers, Napoleon’s men advanced with muskets reversed. The royalist general gave the order to fire but they were so shaken by this curious display that they refused as Napoleon himself walked stoically within range of their guns, his voice ranging off the narrow pass.

‘Soldiers, I am your emperor.  Know me!  If there is one of you who would kill his Emperor, here I am’.

He threw open his travel coat as if inviting a bullet. Laying himself completely bare to the deadly soldiers before him. Not one among Louis’ men dared take up the challenge. Momentarily they tore the white royalist cockades from their garb, dashed them to the ground, abandoned their weapons and ran to embrace their kinsman, shouting, ‘Vive l’Empereur!’

If that is not the height, the very summit, of rightful leadership, such a thing does not exist in all this world.