Month: November 2016

War of the sexes, 22

Post author By C .T.
Post date November 10, 2016

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

The coalition of egalitarianism

Understanding the bonobo and chimpanzee different societies is absolutely central to understand our species. The knowledge of our closest cousins and the broader study of animal sexuality responds perfectly the question “Why the system of gynocentrism or egalitarianism inevitably fails in humans, but works in other species?”

Once we grasp the basics of animal sexuality and of Homo sapiens it is easy to see why patriarchy is the only viable model for human society. In his video “The coalition of egalitarianism” the blogger defines alpha males as those with greatest sexual dimorphism. Sometimes alpha humans are physically robust, but there are beta males with muscle, and there are alpha males without muscle. Being alpha or beta has nothing to do with muscles but with sexual dimorphism, adds the blogger. I could illustrate this point with my own family.

These days Donald Trump’s election shocked all people in Mexico, even the Mexican whites. I stopped any discussion of the subject with my mother and sister, who hate Trump. My educated guess is that there is about a three standard deviation of IQ (a psychometricians’ term) between me and my family. It is an absolutely monstrous deviation that makes any reasonable discussion with them impossible, and it reminds me what the blogger claims in another entry: “women are children.”

Back to his video, he says that alphas make effective leaders but terrible followers. This explains a lot, especially why in white nationalism we have no leaders: most of us are alphas. The blogger adds: “In MGTOW, discussions usually focus on female nature, hypergamy and gynocentrism. However, women are relatively harmless on their own. Their strength comes from their ability to cooperate and manipulate. The beta males play a key role in this cooperation because they don’t want to live in a patriarchal society either.”

These beta males are like women (think about the “males” in Hillary Clinton’s team). A society cannot be founded on feminized males and on women: it is a society that will end up in ruins, as in the painting by Thomas Cole in a previous entry. Keep in mind the first stage of civilization in that entry: brutal patriarchy. In sexualized animals, including humans, there are only two strategies of mating: the patriarchal tournament mating or the gynocentric pair-bonding. The betas don’t want brutal patriarchy under any circumstance. They will chose the second option. They will be exploited by the women, yes: but they prefer it and not being dominated by the alphas.

It is true that the blogger seems to be describing the apes more than the humans in his video. But the comparison has some validity. He uses the typical Venn diagram of three circles to show that the Men’s Rights Movement shares a considerable space with feminism through the egalitarian stance of both. In other words, many in the MRM movement are phony anti-feminists, as shown in entry 19 of this series.

But the blogger himself commits serious cognitive mistakes. A staunch monocausalist, he believes that the basic etiology of the West’s darkest hour is feminism. I on the other hand believe that feminism is only one ingredient of the poisonous cocktail that is killing westerners, not the sole active substance.

This said, feminism should be analyzed and I will continue to add more entries quoting the blogger.

Tags Mexico

Kevin MacDonald

Trump!

Post author By C .T.
Post date November 9, 2016
12 Comments on Trump!

“November 9, 2016” – by Greg Johnson

Tags History, United States

Egalitarianism Feminism Feminized western males Islamization of Europe Manosphere Patriarchy Psychology Will Durant

War of the sexes, 21

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

The biological origins of patriarchy and feminism

In many sexually reproducing species, says the blogger, for males their reproductive success is limited by the access to females, while females are limited by the access to resources. Resources usually include nest sites, food and protection. In some cases, the males provide all of them. The females dwell in their chosen males’ territories through male competition. (If you want to argue that these animal behaviors are human social constructs you are an idiot.)

In his video “The biological origins of patriarchy and feminism” the blogger introduces the paradigm of our closest simian cousins to illustrate his point: the bonobos and the chimpanzees.

The chimpanzees make wars and are violent with the females. The blogger inserts clips of Sean Connery playing a James Bond slapping women in several films. The bonobos on the other hand are pacifists. Like the hippies they make love, not war. Studying the species closest to us humans will prove to be illuminating.

The liberal Briton Richard Wraugham, who studies the chimps in situ, says: “Chimpanzee society is horridly patriarchal, horridly brutal in many ways from the females’ point of view.” In order that an adolescent chimp is promoted to the adult category he has to subdue all the females. “They get beaten up in horrid ways.”

In another geographical place that we can watch in the blogger’s video, a blonde zoologist observes the bonobo behavior. She says that it is almost a paradise of sex. They do it in every conceivable way, even among the males and even pedophilia. The blonde asks what happened to produce such a pacific relationship between the sexes. She argues that the solidarity among female bonobos makes them capable to dominate the males. Then the liberal Wraugham says in the blogger’s video: “It was impossible for early humans to travel in groups around together as bonobos do, and therefore for females to form alliances and dominate the males in the way that happened in bonobos. A little bit of difference in climate history, a little bit of difference in food history and we might have evolved to be a totally different, less violent, more sexual species.”

In “Guide to human society and egalitarianism” the blogger reproduces the pic of a huge male gorilla and says that they fight among themselves to see who among them will conquer access to all the females (tournament mating). In this social system the females are practically the property of the males. “In patriarchal society women are expected to be obedient and submissive at all times.” The blogger makes a point with the hyenas: the polar opposite of the chimpanzee. Even the lowest ranked female hyena dominates the highest ranked male!

Between those extremes of matriarchy and patriarchy there is a third group of animals with almost no sexual dimorphism: the extremely elegant swans for example. “Humans,” says the blogger, are somewhere in-between a tournament and a pair-bonding species.”

The chimps have a more pronounced physical dimorphism than the bonobos, even though both have a common ancestor. The key to understand the bonobos is abundant resources and the lack of environmental threats. The blogger says that there is little sexual dimorphism in birds because they can easily escape the predators. Being able to fly means, additionally, that it is relatively easier to obtain fruits or insects while the other animals have to work harder to obtain them. The chimpanzees, unlike the bonobos, share the forest with the gorillas. The latter control all food on the ground, forcing the chimps to gather on the trees. The chimps avoid the gorillas as far as they can. This competence for limited resources in a hostile environment has moved chimp society towards patriarchy.

In bonobo society such competence does not exist. Bonobos are egalitarian and gynocentric. It is untrue what the blonde zoologist said above because among the bonobo violence comes from the females. They join forces and attack a male by biting his fingers and penis. The chimps may beat and rape the females, but don’t dismember them. In the supposedly egalitarian bonobo society bonobo males are dismembered if they get out of line.

In the bonobo society the females even mate with the weakest males because it is easier to control them, and bite the penises of those who resist their Diktat. Due to this sexual selection, with time the male bonobos shrank anatomically in generations. The blogger says that if chimps faced male bonobos the former would kill them all, and the females’ trick of trying to bite off the penises wouldn’t work. (The blogger adds a drawing clearly showing how the male chimp is anatomically more robust than the male bonobo.) Having the bonobo paradigm in mind, the blogger tells us: “That my friends is the central flaw in egalitarianism and gynocentrism. It literally and consciously breeds weakness.” In other words, if the chimps failed to behave the way they do they would die.

Egalitarianism is essentially gynocentric. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. If a man wants to reproduce, he has to acquire women one way or another. He can beat and rape a woman into submission… or engage in courtship like bonobos do. The inequality of sexual reproduction makes true gender equality impossible.

Speaking of feminist laws in the US, William Pierce said that pursuing the equality dream is destructive for the white peoples. The blogger again:

Whether you call it feminism, egalitarianism or gynocentrism, it is unsustainable and will eventually destroy society.

To understand the West’s darkest hour we must keep in mind that to reach a gynocentric society two things are required: abundance of resources and absence of external threats. Both will be inverted in the aftermaths of the crashed dollar, and the subsequent black chimp-out in America’s big cities.

The flaw of the anti-white system is that the welfare state has produced a milieu of false abundance. After the end of the World Wars and the Cold War, “with all the threats neutralized the West could safely purge itself from masculinity” said the blogger, just as in the bonobo society. The flaw with the social engineering of bonobo-izing humans is that this “solution” drives the West toward weakness: gynocentrism undermines a society’s defenses which will guarantee its collapse sooner or later. To boot, unlike the bonobo Congo paradise Western economy is founded on a bubble that soon will pop, according to Austrian economics.

When you purge and attack masculinity from a culture you may eliminate the rappers and the violent murderers but you also eliminate the leaders, the inventors, the geniuses.

Chimps can create new tools, but not the bonobos. The blogger also says that gynocentric societies are more primitive than the patriarchal: there is no invention. There are only a hundred thousand bonobos in the world and, in a natural state, only in a specific area of the Congo. There are 300 percent more chimps than bonobos, and they live in five African countries. They evolved to the able to do it because they can triumph in hostile environments. In their garden of Eden the bonobos have survived by sheer luck.

Back to the white race. There are two ways that a gynocentric society can collapse. The good one is by entering again a patriarchal state. The bad one is being conquered by a more masculine culture. I have already quoted Will Durant in other article but it merits re-quoting:

The third biological lesson of history is that life must breed. Nature has no use of organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce abundantly. She has a passion for quantity as prerequisite to selection of quality. She does not care that a high rate has usually accompanied a culturally low civilization, and a low birth rate a civilization culturally high [emphasis added] and she sees that a nation with low birth rate shall be periodically chastened by some more virile and fertile group.

Writing about Muslims vs. Europeans Durant then said that there is no humorist like history. Presently the Muslims are gradually outbreeding whites in a Europe that will soon become Eurabia. In order that the human bonobos of today go back to their chimp ways of yore we must be expelled from the false Eden that presently we inhabit. The good news is that Winter is coming…

Feminism Intelligence quotient (IQ) Judeo-reductionism Kali Yuga Manosphere Men Patriarchy Sexual degeneracy Women

War of the sexes, 20

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

The case for patriarchy

We have seen that the patriarchal society is the only kind of society that, in the long run, can be functional. Society degenerates in proportion of abandoning the patriarchal model. To no avail, I have told white nationalists many times that they must widen their optics from a perspective to a meta-perspective of white decline. For example, the fact that the Iberians polluted their blood in the peninsula and in the Americas when their Inquisition targeted crypto-Jews proves that there is an Aryan problem in addition to the Jewish problem. No monocausal nationalist has answered this challenge honestly.

We could say something analogous disregarding the old story Spain and Portugal: present-day Japan. With no Jewish press they are committing demographic suicide. While they are not importing masses of coloreds into their island, the blogger says that Japan will also face collapse. Like the deranged West, the Japanese government is pandering the women through welfare programs. In his video “Women will not save Japan” the blogger says that the Japanese women won’t ever consent any reform, even facing a demographic winter.

The West is in far worse shape. Ant-racism, anti-whitism and feminism have reached maddening proportions. Women have become so toxic that white men are pretending to be eunuchs. In “She will never love you too” the blogger responds to a common objection: “Men are just as bad as women. They just want a woman for her body, which means they don’t love women either.” He responds: “No: You are your body” in the sense that we love women directly, not indirectly (economic resources and protection). I have observed how in the lives of cousins of my age the wives are the ones who have applied for divorces taking away their houses and children, while my cousins continue to love them.

In another video, “The case for patriarchy,” the blogger addresses two common objections:

Objection 1. The moral or fairness argument: Patriarchy oppresses women; it is unfair.

Before answering this argument we have to ask a question: Are the sexes equal? The blogger recapitulates what we have seen before. In his video he inserts diagrams of human skulls showing the dimorphism between men and women. The male skull is taller and stronger and its brain larger and denser. This is reflected in his higher IQ.

This is so because in barbarous times the alpha male had his harem. Civilization tamed him through the institution of marriage. In tournament species the strong has the power on reproduction and controls the society of that species. If the dimorphic species is controlled by the female, and here the blogger reproduces a photo of a queen bee, we have a matriarchal society: the queen controls reproduction. If the dimorphic species is controlled by the male, the king of the tribe controls it. In our species sexual dimorphism shows that Aryans were biologically predestined to form a patriarchal society (see also William Pierce’s Who We Are).

Brainwashed normies usually reply to our rhetorical question Are the sexes equal? with platitudes like “Everyone should be treated equally” or “Everyone should have equal rights.” The blogger replies that treating people equally doesn’t mean that they are equal and that “rights” is a legal concept, not one observed in Nature. If men are wired biologically to be the protectors and the providers of the family that means that we do the primordial thing. The blogger comments that the sexes are drastically unequal in their contributions to society. Giving birth? He mentions the extreme example that a woman in a comma state gave birth to a baby. Like the Spartans, we do the really hard work.

Since the 1970s the patriarchal authority of the man has been destroyed and handed over women, even the custody of children. The result is the collapse of fertility of the white peoples (and the Japanese). “Whichever sex controls reproduction controls the family and thus controls society.” In sharp contrast to thousands of years of history and prehistory, presently a matriarchy is imposed throughout the West.

Objection 2. The economic or practical argument.

France was the cradle of modern egalitarianism. But the spear-head of feminist movements initiated in the 19th century in the United States, according to the blogger. Then the US 1963 “Equal pay” Act was copied by the English in 1970. But women will never be equal to males. Sexual dimorphism favors the male in humans. This is why, when men are allowed to compete physically or intellectually with women, like in sports or chess, they usually win. “Since equal opportunity favors men, the only way to achieve gender equality is to tear them down.” Eventually men are going to be tired of this perverse game. “This is the inevitable result of the feminist matriarchy. By attacking men and tear them down to the level of women, the society is attacking its own foundation.”

Like me, the blogger hopes that a new society will be born after the ashes of the present one.

Abortion Conservatism Feminism Feminized western males Manosphere Seneca Sexual degeneracy Women

War of the sexes, 19

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

Phony anti-feminists

In his video “League of the shadows” the blogger says that traditional conservatives are like Batman: they want to save a corrupted Gotham City and its people. They believe that the government can be reformed, or that it is possible to reason with women. I would say that even the priests of the 14 words who want to save Aryan female beauty only receive hatred from these very women whose physique they want to save. It is impossible to reason with them. And in the same way that I scold white nationalists for not wanting to study the work of those economists who say that the dollar will crash and civilization crumble, the blogger quotes Batman’s enemy while he scolds the non-radicals of his Men’s Rights movement: “When a forest grows too wild, a purging fire is inevitable and natural.”

So-called families without the male figure are a liberal aberration. In his video “The government can’t replace fathers” the blogger says that it is not the nuclear family what provides the structure and authority for children, especially the boys. It is the man itself. I love that video because the blogger confesses he was raised by a single mother. He adds that 95 percent of single mothers are on welfare. You can imagine what will happen with single mother “families” after the dollar collapses (poetic justice…).

The blogger also cites tax statistics showing that the government is sucking men’s salaries to deliver them to women (even nigger women I would add), and that the women’s role is to rear the child until his fifth birthday (seventh birthday for the Spartans I would add). Once they reach the seventh year all pedagogues must be males. “Mothers can raise babies into children, but only fathers can raise children into adults.” This is something that feminists won’t ever understand, not even the feminized males of the white nationalist community.

In the video “Where have all women against feminism been?” the blogger explains that MGTOW has been around since 2004. That’s barely more than a decade. It explains my initiative of placing this series “War of the sexes” in this site. Unlike the racial literature that started with Gobineau’s seminal book in the nineteenth century, with the exception of that chapter of Schopenhauer on women the comprehension of human sexuality is fairly recent. There is no book that I know that maps MGTOW under a single cover, so I felt obliged to pass the microphone to one of its most radical voices. This for example is MGTOW manifesto. The ultimate goal is to instill:

Masculinity in men
Femininity in women and
Promote traditional gender roles.

The blogger explains that MGTOW shifted between 2009 and 2012 and it expanded its focus from merely an anti-feminist conservative movement into one that examines female nature as the underlying basis of feminism. The result was a change from a movement that sought to reform society by fighting feminism to one that rejected today’s spoiled women as a whole and walked away from relationships and marriage. The blogger then claims that MGTOW has grown in popularity and relevance since the shift. (Incidentally, my opinion of what men should do today with our sexual urges appears in Jake’s interview to me).

The blogger then talks about phony anti-feminist movements. I would say again that, with the exception of Andrew Anglin, white nationalists are in his group. The blogger notes that the “anti-feminists” don’t complain about the original feminism. Remember: in the modern era feminism has already 168 years. It started in the 19th century, specifically in 1848 in the United States. “Anti-feminists” never complain of the laws from the first and the second feminist waves. A true anti-feminist, the blogger says, would repel feminism in toto from its very origins:

Women’s suffrage
Affirmative action
Abortion on demand
No-fault divorce and
Men arrested for domestic violence (including marital rape).

So according to the blogger the chronology of anti-feminist “conservatives” is extremely myopic and ultimately traitorous for men. They believe that the mess started in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. “The Men’s Rights Movement wants to return to the 1950s,” says the blogger. But the so-called anti-feminist women are even worse. They “want a return to the 1980s” that is, they merely reject the third feminist wave.

Personally, in addition to the bulleted points above, I would go as far as Cato the Elder. Let us revaluate the values back to the Spartan/Roman mores! Lex Oppia must be restored—and implemented in the ethnostate(s). This was—and will be again—a law that forbids any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold and also her display of wealth. I must quote a passage from the chapter on women of the mini-book that I translated:

Spartan women did not even know the extravagant hairstyles from the East and they wore, as a sign of their discipline, their hair up with simplicity: probably the most practical for a life of intense sports and activity. Also, all kinds of makeup, decorations, jewelry and perfumes were unknown and unnecessary for Spartan women, which proudly banished all that southern paraphernalia.

And let’s remember what Seneca said: “Virtue does not need ornaments; it has in itself its highest ornaments.”

Tags Transvaluation of all values

Feminism Feminized western males Manosphere Real men

War of the sexes, 18

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

Why civilized society hates men

Back in 2009, before my full racial awakening, the following comment by a Swede in a Counter-Jihad site attracted my attention:

Well, what sort of men does it take to put things right in a lawless Wild West town? There is a very good movie that I recommend, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Lawrence Auster (just to mention his positive sides) pointed out the important analysis of that movie: “It’s about the idea that civilization depends on men who use violence, but that civilization, once it is founded and secure and no longer needs violent men, ignores and derides the very men without whom it wouldn’t exist.” The bumbling city slicker (James Stewart) wasn’t up to the job, the town had to be saved by the violent, marginal brute (John Wayne).

Auster again: “The image is not of restrained, upright men who just use force when absolutely required and within the rules, but of tough men, violent men, men who have something primal about them, men who can subdue Indians, men who can blow away the Liberty Valance types and rescue the softer, civilized Jimmy Stewart types, men who are ready, able and willing to kill barbarians and save society, men like Nelson, who used apocalyptic levels of violence to kill thousands of men and destroy Napoleon’s navy and prevent the invasion of England.”

Whenever you find such men, hold on to them. You cannot afford to be picky when it comes to choosing here. Only princesses in fairy tales can afford that… So in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance James Stewart is the civilized city-dweller that can build civilization. But John Wayne is the brute who makes civilization possible in the first place!

Without the men like John Wayne, the James Stewarts are therefore useless. It’s pretty pointless then to lament the John Waynes’s lack of Jimmy Stewart properties, isn’t it?

In his video “Why civilized society hates men” the blogger says: “Society is not gynocentric because of the Jews or a conspiracy. Society is gynocentric. Period.” Remember what I said about gynocentric Sparta in my previous post, or even better read the whole mini-book about Sparta that I translated to English.

The blogger adds that gynocentrism only perishes during war. Perhaps the most extreme example of this was the burning of the Gaul villages by the Gaul Vercingetorix to prevent the Romans from gathering food supplies. Vercingetorix also expelled Gaul women and children from his fortress during the Roman siege. The lives of soldiers, and soldiers alone, had value in the war!

Back to our times. Presently only the Jimmy Stewart types are allowed to thrive. The blogger does not mention The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance but he says that because the West only wants feminized white males “this is why marriage laws punish men but don’t punish women.” Those are laws designed to castrate the alpha male. The blogger maintains it is no coincidence that right after the Cold War ended in the 1990s together with the threat of nuclear annihilation came the third feminist wave. America did not need the Waynes anymore, or speaking plainly: “Respect of masculinity is directly proportional to the threats that a society faces.” And also: “As soon as the threat passes, masculinity is demonized.”

Giving women or feminized males positions of authority shoots us on the foot. In another video the blogger said: “Ethical leadership is a male characteristic. Women make terrible leaders because they are inherently selfish and so incapable of ethical leadership.”

If Clinton wins in a couple of days Americans will learn it the hard way. Of course: a woman is running for president because virtually all westerners believe in equality. Even most white nationalists don’t rebel against feminism. Who among them forbids women in their conferences? The grim truth is that nationalists are only partially awakened. In another video the blogger said: “Equality is a lie: a myth to appease the masses” and still in another one he claimed that he has seen more men destroyed by women than by bullets, even after he served in the Iraq war.

Evil Feminism Manosphere Men Patriarchy Rape of the Sabine Women Real men Sexual degeneracy Women

War of the sexes, 17

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

Solutions

Apropos the traditionalism cycle, in his fourth video about “solutions” the blogger says that the current feminist stage simply cannot get back to the stage of humane patriarchy, that he calls soft patriarchy. The pendulum has swung so far to the left that it will come swinging violently to the far right, towards brutal patriarchy. This is exactly what we have said in one of the most popular posts of this blog, “Lycanthropy,” and you can see it visually if you pay attention to the arrow at the bottom of the blogger’s triangle. He also predicts what I’ve been saying in my books about the rape of the Sabine women.

But brutal patriarchy is not the solution. It is a harsh stage not only for women but for most men. In polygamous societies women are monopolized by a few alpha males (matriarchy is bad for every single male). It is the Aristotelian golden mean what whites must strive for, the humane patriarchy of the Jane Austen world. It may still be a gynocentric society but males are in charge. It is the world that I knew as a small child: and is the same world that my parents, grandparents and great-grandfathers lived in.

In his video the blogger says that in this society there must be marriage because this institution avoids tournament mating by the alphas. The Austen world is a pair-bonding society. Soft patriarchy is the lesser of the three evils of the cycle as illustrated in the triangle. Women obey. The blogger disagrees with those vindictive fantasies in the manosphere to remain in the brutal stage so that women may be “sold like cattle.” This is a passage from the poem Goetterdaemmerung:

For England or Iceland,
Byzantium, Vinland,
Far land or ancient
And ripe for the plunder,
The burning of roof-trees,
The seizing of women,
The tooting of treasure,
The flowing of red blood,
And wine for the victors.

Presently, in our Empire of the yin, the mores are exactly the polar opposite from those times when white women were sold like cattle. In our times, the blogger says, the problem is not the unchanging female nature but the government, the laws and the liberal zeitgeist. I would add the influence of the Jews in the media, Hollywood and the universities.

In the Aryan ethnostate women won’t be treated as slaves but like a father treats his child. Never empower children to the point of enacting laws against toothbrushes or having free candy! “Feminism at its very core” says the blogger “is exactly the same as having a spoiled child.” Every time the child makes a tantrum we buy him or her a toy. “And the kid turns into a spoiled brat. That is what feminism is. Society has given women everything they wanted, and now they’re spoiled old brats.”

The blogger comments that he has seen videos in the manosphere claiming that women are evil. He counters that that is only true if we consider that spoiled children are evil. When women are under our control they behave reasonably well. By empowering them they become bad but neither they nor the children are intrinsically evil: they should simply be controlled. It’s only when women are left to their own devices that they do become bad. Our goal should be to treat our spouses as we treat children. However, it must be pointed out that even these patriarchal societies are gynocentric—even the super-Yang Sparta was gynocentric!

Gynocentrism has reigned but presently women are not only out of control. Many are indeed evil. Just see those pictures of spoiled European women with pickets welcoming migrants with skin of the color of shit saying, “Better rapists than racists!”

The blogger is concerned that a soft form of patriarchy could last only a hundred years. He fears that even with protections and education feminism will come back (again, see the arrows of the triangle). The new generations can fall again to the original sin, superbia. They will think they know better and will throw all accumulated wisdom out of the window, as it has happened before. (Remember the imposition of Christianity on all white peoples that destroyed the pagan temples, the statues of Aryan beauty and burnt the Greco-Roman libraries.) The blogger says that when this is about to happen again—when our wives start whining and complaining (e.g., in the ethnostate) that the storm is over and they want the right to vote, we must tell them angrily: “Fuck you! Go on your knees and suck my dick!”

We must convey a most emphatic “No!” as if they were brats making a tantrum. “Children and women are just incapable to understand these abstract concepts”. They don’t know what is good for them in the long run. The key for a functional ethnostate is to keep authority outside the reach not only of Jews, but of women alike.

Alexis de Tocqueville Egalitarianism Feminism Manosphere Men Psychology Sexual degeneracy Women

War of the sexes, 16

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

“The desire for equality becomes more and
more insatiable as equality increases.”

—Alexis de Tocqueville

In his “Guide to feminism” the blogger explains that the first wave of feminism was women’s suffrage; the second wave equal pay, and the third wave hatred of patriarchy. He reminds us that, once women were “liberated” in those three waves, they never accepted responsibilities like going to war to risk their skin: they merely demanded “rights” —a Newspeak term that in Oldspeak means exactly the opposite: privileges. The blogger defines feminism as “a hypocritical ideology for mentally-retarded children with penis envy that resent their biological inferiority and would never be satisfied no matter how much legal, political, social and economic superiority is granted to them over men.”

The feminist epitomes the Orwellian sentence that everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. Affirmative action was not enough for her: like the coloreds she now wants equality of income and equality of opportunities. To boot, through the divorce courts the feminist is oppressing men, in addition to pushing for an exception of the law regarding her claims of rape: men must be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Presently, as we are continuing to pander or going along with her desires, the West is heading toward the cliff. Imagine for a minute forcing gender quotas on a basketball team or in one of those international chess tournaments formed by four boards each nation. These hypothetical teams of males with females, whether they compete for physical or intellectual ability, would lose big time in the real world.

Let’s think about de Tocqueville’s epigraph above. My working hypothesis is that Christian ethics is the devil of the white race. Given the Christian insistence of regarding all souls as “equal in the eyes of God,” cognitive dissonance has been the axis of the escalation of both anti-racism and Western feminism. Races and genders are unequal. But because of the laws of cognitive dissonance, the liberal mindset is condemned to escalate egalitarianism as reality never stops fact-checking the liberal.

The blogger says: “Women are biologically inferior to men and they know it even when they deny it.” I would add that only by falling into an ever-amplifying downward spiral of male bashing the feminist is able, through the mental gymnastics of cognitive dissonance, to self-bamboozle herself into believing that they are just equal to us.

Eschatology Manosphere Men Patriarchy Philosophy of history Women

War of the sexes, 15

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

“Winter is Coming”

—1st episode of the 1st season
of Game of Thrones

My view about western history has, at its axis, the raciology and histories of the white race from Gobineau to Kemp. Race may be the primary factor, but there are other forces as explained in my approach to psychohistory and now with the blogger’s traditionalism cycle. If, at least partially, the blogger’s philosophy of history is right, the implications are enormous for us racists. In this and the next couple of entries I’ll try to explain some details of the previous post.

The magic of male scarcity

In his video “The magic of male scarcity” the blogger says that after those wars in which most males die, the scarcity of men produces patriarchy, as women can do no hard work nor train for the next war. In this post-war scenario a man may have three or four women at his disposal; he could even get rid of three of them. A mere ten percent of men could control ninety percent of women. A woman’s blows are scratch, while a single punch from one of us knockouts her, the blogger says.

One or two generations after a devastating war the numerical balance between the males and the females is restored. But gynocentrism is not necessarily restored. The blogger repeats what he has said in other videos: gynocentrism is not an instinct but a cultural choice. He speculates that women in the 1950s were under control due to the deaths of the Second World War, though the soft patriarchy of the 50s lasted only a decade. Then came the baby-boomer generation and the second feminist wave. If a Third World War comes “all those feminists will be sucking our dicks just to know the taste of it.”

That’s the magic of male scarcity. Conversely, the blogger adds that a society that is fifty percent of each sex is incredibly gynocentric, as men compete for the women and the latter become choosy to the highest bidder (our species is a mixture of tournament species and pair-bonding species). On the other hand, in a society with few males women have to compete with other women about who among them will be taken under the protecting wings of the brute: their market value has been cheapened by the scarcity of males.

“Feminism itself is a luxury,” says the blogger. “It doesn’t exist in poor countries, for a reason. In each so-called feminist wave it lasts until the next war causes the male population to become scarce. Male scarcity is the key, and it is inevitable” —inevitable in the sense that Winter is coming throughout the West.