alpha males antifeminism big daddy government boner rage irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny post contains sarcasm reactionary bullshit red pill return of kings

Return of Kings: Improve the lot of men by killing lots of men!

Dastardly woman planning to destroy men by saving the lives of men at war
Dastardly woman planning to destroy men by saving their lives

Today is the LAST DAY of the quarterly WHTM Pledge Drive! WHTM depends on donations to survive! If you appreciate the blog and haven’t donated yet, please click the button below. Thanks!

Is Return of Kings seriously suggesting that the best way to improve the lives of men today is to send a big chunk of them to die violent deaths in unnecessary wars?

It sure looks like it. In a post with the typically Return-of-Kingsy clickbait title “8 Factors That Are Destroying Healthy Relationships Between Men And Women,” regular RoK contributor Corey Savage seems to argue that the only way to restore the proper, er, balance between men and their naturally subordinate female companions is to kill off a lot of men.

Because we have “too few wars [and] too many men,” Savage declares, men have to work harder to impress women than they would if women dramatically outnumbered men. This “[e]xcess of men,” he complains. “means that the collective value of average men has dropped to a historical low.”

So, crank up that war machine, I guess!

How, you may wonder, did Savage manage to arrive at this, let call it provocative, conclusion?

As Savage sees it,  the “continuing transformation of our society” has led “something [to go] awry with the relationship between men and women.”

In the good old days, Savage argues, men and women had a wonderfully symbiotic relationship — much like we humans have with horses.

No, really. Horses.

All relationships work best when two parties have something different to share for their mutual benefit. For example, humans and horses have enjoyed a close relationship together throughout history (unlike, say, humans and bears). The relationship works because in exchange for food, protection, and care that humans provide, the horses offer themselves as transportation.

Men and women used to have a similarly healthy partnership. Men provided women with food and shelter and the women, er, let the men ride them, as it were.

The relationship between men and women was also mutually beneficial for the entirety of human existence with men offering their services in exchange for having the women bear their children.

But no longer! Gone are the days when men hunted the mammoth and did all those other nice things for their once-grateful womenfolk.

Men have always provided for women. Men hunted for food, labored to build everything, and fought battles to defend their tribe. To say that men oppressed women throughout history is an insult to all those who sacrificed themselves in the factories, the coal mines, and the trenches. If women didn’t have certain rights that feminists like to cherry-pick, it’s because women weren’t drafted to fight wars. In exchange for their toil, the only thing men asked of women was to be supportive in their roles as wives and mothers.

Then “equality” came around and ruined things by allowing women a choice in the matter.

[F]ast-forward to today, now that women have “achieved” social and political “equality” and even various advantages just for being born a female, many women today no longer feel that it’s necessary to exchange values with men for mutuality. It’s like when humans developed automobiles and didn’t need horses anymore.

Well, no, If we go back to Savage’s original horse metaphor, it’s as though the horses got jobs and could pay their own bills without having to give people any rides.

And this is deeply unfair to all the men who would really like to keep riding the women. “[M]en’s sexual desire—which is greater than that of females—is still alive and kicking,” Savage complains.

So what we have today is a situation where women have gotten their social equality while sexual inequality persists for men … .

Yep. Men and their long-suffering boners are oppressed by the fact that women can say no to sex without starving to death.

Western women, in particular, have been so thoroughly sold on the idea of status and consumerist orgy that they are no longer interested in relationships. More and more women today are delaying marriage (if not outright rejecting it). And when they do get married, they are using it as a means to trap men into donating their sperm and cash, only to bail out when they want to.

Meanwhile, Savage complains, these evil ladies have all become sluts, despite not being interested in sex with men, thus “diminishing the availability of quality women that men want to start a family with.”

And did we mention Big Daddy government? In the happier days of yore, Savage reminds us,

men form[ed] relationships with women by exchanging values, with his strength to provide and protect being his greatest asset.

But now women can just suckle from the teat of, er, Big Daddy government.

[T]he government (along with corporations and education system) fulfills those roles that men previously occupied.

And even when the men of today manage to cajole one of these modern females into marriage, these ungrateful ladies will falsely accuse them of domestic violence to get them out of the way, leading Big Daddy government to send along teams of “professional white-knights” — otherwise known as police officers — “to extort and arrest men who’ve been used up and thrown away by women.”

It’s just terrible, Savage complains, that “the government is increasingly monopolizing violence, one of the most important value that a man possesses.”

Is he actually complaining that men don’t get to beat up their wives and girlfriends any more? Savage is such a bad writer that it’s impossible to tell.

But let’s set aside this question for a moment, because it’s at this point that Savage gets to the whole kill-dudes-to-make-life-better-for-dudes argument.

Back in the days when men were men and women were horses, Savage tells us, the world was a much more violent place. And that was apparently a very good thing: “[T]he more violent the environment is, the more masculine men become,” Savage writes.

And the more conflicts and wars there are, the more the women depend on men—thus keeping the collective value of [the] male population high.

Alas, those happily violent days are gone now.

It’s no coincidence that Western societies have started to feminize as they endured decades of relative peace since the end of WWII.

Dude, you do realize that the US has been in five wars (and involved in countless other conflicts) since the end of WWII, right? Is the problem that not enough men died in these wars?

The lack of warfare also means that there are now more young men per woman (practically 1 to 1) than there normally would have been under a warring society.

Huh. I guess Savage really does wish more men had died. Of course, one of the reasons the more recent wars that the US has been involved in have been less deadly, at least for Americans, is that we’ve gotten better at treating war injuries. Damn those military doctors for saving so many lives!

Excess of men—who are also emasculated and feminized—means that the collective value of average men has dropped to a historical low, upsetting the balance of sexual marketplace in the process. 

Maybe this is why all these manosphere guys are so gung-ho for Trump. He would definitely get us into more wars.

Savage wraps up his portrait of today’s insufficiently violent gyno-dystopia by complaining that women are getting fat.

Many Western women have been corrupted by our toxic materialist society. They are fatter, uglier, more narcissistic, more entitled, hedonistic, superficial, less faithful, and seem to think that having bitch attitude makes them hip.

Not only that but some of these fat ugly ladies aren’t interested in having constant sex with us guys!

Women can afford to stoop low because their sex drive isn’t the same as men’s, while they couldn’t care less for love and companionship when they’re too busy with their travels and careers.


And because of all the thirsty men, women’s collective sexual market value hardly suffers while the value of those who are merely average becomes inflated beyond their real value.

Clearly, we’re long overdue for a truly devastating man-killing war. Apparently. only the death of hundreds of thousands of men will make Corey Savage’s boner happy again.

161 replies on “Return of Kings: Improve the lot of men by killing lots of men!”

Pavlov’s House, yes, my nom de net is from the WW2 RAF fighter of the same name. I am a history ‘buff’ and technophile.

Of course he completely contradicts himself at the end, when he says that most men are feminised and emasculated – surely in his violent ‘alpha’ male mind those men are NO competition?! Not if you want a ‘real’ woman.

Women toiled in factories and mines, too, oh misogynistic filth of cesspool… eeer manosphere.


Congratulations me, I have been officially diagnosed with depression and possibly ADHD.

That’s what the shrink told me when I was a teenager too, almost exactly. In my case it turns out not to have been totally accurate, though. As it turns out, some of my stimming was what he mistook for ADHD, and a great deal of the depression seems to have stemmed from dysphoria, the remainder being principally situational (AFAICT so far; when I’m in a less depressing situation I’ll be better able to judge).

It’s just terrible, Savage complains, that “the government is increasingly monopolizing violence, one of the most important value that a man possesses.”

Oh dear. Looks like someone hasn’t heard of Max Weber.


Thanks for that link. I heard part of one years and years ago at college when a troop of ROTC trainees were jogging by with their leader. The only line of that one that I caught – and still remember – was “Me and Superman got into a fight / I hit him in the head with some Kryptonite”. I would have searched out the rest of that cadance earlier, but never knew what that style of story/song was called. And now I do, thanks to your link.

So, thanks. 😀

I thought all these MRAs were libertarian – hasn’t Karen Straughan called them “John Galts”. He even complains about Big Daddy government. And yet what else is this article but one long whine about the lack of a boner bailout to protect the “SMV” of his obsolescent brand of machismo. When it comes to their ludicrous sexual market thet are totally anti free market: every post is an assertion that only one product should be available – the crappy one no one wants, but they are peddling.

“Western women are entitled” says Corey who thinks there should be more wars so that it’ll be easier for him to get laid.

Greater love have no man than this: that he lay down his life for Corey’s boner.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you and your country can do for Corey’s boner.

The greatness of a nation is measured by how it treats Corey’s boner.

With going up and the going down of Corey’s boner, we will remember them.

re:women in jobs

My workplace used to have a display on women in law. It included the text of a court decision when a woman was denied a license to practice law. The conclusion was that married women could not be lawyers because couverture meant that they would be unable to maintain attorney-client privilege as their husbands would automatically know everything.

The woman ended up writing a ton of books and becoming a highly respected legal authority, despite not being allowed to practice law.

re:Conan the Barbarian
The big thing about Conan that these “I want a Conan” types constantly overlook is that in the original Robert E. Howard stories Conan’s second biggest defining feature (after his hatred of “civilization”) was his emotional sensitivity and severe depression.

Kind of like (for Ohlmann and whomever else is familiar) how Thorgal is largely treated as “better” than, say, Gandalf (not that Gandalf) in that despite Thorgal’s prodigious ability to inflict violence he doesn’t enjoy it and actively avoids violent confrontation whenever possible (I’ve only read the first couple tomes of Thorgal though so it’s possible this changes later on?)

I don’t for the life of me understand why these guys go to so much trouble driving themselves crazy, making themselves miserable with these elaborate mental constructs and conspiracy theories about relations with women. Holy crap, guys, It’s really not that tough. I’m neither rich nor handsome, and I’ve never had any serious trouble being comfortable in my own skin, nor finding females I care about. It’s pretty much just basic life. Were you all raised by Freud or something?


Some practitioners have even offered a better phrase: “In the forest”,

I like that…I just might use that. I do practice but I keep it pretty low-key. No wall pentacles or large statues. Thanks for informing me.

As for Mr. Savage’s quote about drunk sluts…who else went to grab a drink because fuck him?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.