web analytics

Category: Real men

Categories
Feminism Real men

Stoic ethics for bachelor nationalists

“…because you would have acted to assure your worthiness even if none of them are actually your children.”

A comment by Greg Johnson in the latest C-C thread of Roger Devlin’s splendid series of articles against feminism encapsulates my hard-ethos recipe of what frustrated young males ought to do in face of the degenerated marketplace for women:




Here is my suggestion: Stop worrying about happiness and start thinking in terms of duty. Work to make the world a better place. That makes you worthy of happiness, even though you might not have the external conditions to actually be happy.

But — and here we verge on something that tempts us to “metaphysical” explanations — when I stopped worrying about happiness and started focusing on duty, I found that I ended up being happier anyway, while I was unhappier when I was more worried about being happy.

One explanation for this is the fact that happiness requires external conditions that are not under our control, including the cooperation of others, whereas doing the right thing is more under our control. Thus people who focus on happiness tend to be stressed out trying to control people and contingencies that are outside their control, and they usually do it at the expense of their own worthiness to be happy, because results oriented people tend to be unscrupulous, which corrupts their characters.

People who focus more on their character make themselves worthy of happiness and also more capable of seizing it when events align in their favor, because good character, virtue, is a form of strength, of capacity to act.

Here is another consideration: What Evola calls Uranian masculinity, true spiritual virility, is a matter of commitment to higher ideals, including the perfection of one’s character. Being concerned with happiness all the time — one’s feelings — is self-defeating and unmanly.

Now, there are women who respond to true Uranian masculinity. Men who do not seem to need women, who think there is something higher and more important in life, are actually more attractive to women than men who are womanizers. Most women despise other women (sexual competition). And they despise any man who puts too great a store in other women.

Savitri Devi said she could not love a man who loved her more than he loved his ideals. And I know other women like this in the WN world today — women who are also young, attractive, and unmarried — and committed to the same goals they would like their men to pursue.

In my piece about the Woman Question, my recommendation is that the movement as a whole (which is now predominantly male) should focus on our ideals and goals, and when the movement begins to make progress, women will join it.

The same goes for individual men: focus on your higher goals and ideals first, and the right kind of woman might very well take an interest. And if she does not come along, well, in the sex department you would be no worse off than if you swore off dating simply out of the frustrated pursuit of happiness.

And morally speaking, you would be far better off, because you would have acted to assure your worthiness of being happy and to fulfill the highest masculine duty, which is to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, even if none of them are actually your children.

Categories
Feminism Marriage Real men Roger Devlin

A final solution to the feminist problem

Roger Devlin has been publishing another series of insightful anti-feminist articles at Counter-Currents, of which I would like to pick up just a few sentences of his latest article, “The Feminine Sexual Counter-Revolution & its Limitations, Part 2”:


Sharon Stone during the interrogation scene in Basic Instincts, just before showing her pubic hair to the male interrogators.


A man should never base his self-image on what women think of him in any case, because women’s concerns are too materialistic and self-centered. (“He that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,” as St. Paul put it.) The men who have accomplished the greatest things for our civilization have not, by and large, resembled the heroes of women’s romance fiction; indeed, they have been disproportionately celibate. Once a man realizes what triggers female attraction, and understands that women’s judgments of men are largely rationalizations of this attraction (or its absence), he will not be inclined to overvalue their opinion of him.

As far as I can see, if we are unwilling to hold women strictly accountable for their actions, we have only one logical recourse available: a return to the ancient Roman legal doctrine that a woman is a perpetual minor. This would involve an end not merely to contemporary “women’s liberation” but to an entire legal tradition that has developed within Christendom over centuries. For starters, it means women could no longer be permitted to hold property or enter into contracts.

In the America of the 1950s—the baby boom—the average age for women at first marriage sank as low as 20. I emphasize the word “average”: plenty of girls were younger, marrying right out of high school or even before. To this day, marriage at 16 is legal for girls in all 50 states (with parental consent). During the Christian Middle Ages, a bride was often a bit younger still. Most Americans today have no idea how bizarre their horror at “teenage pregnancy” would have seemed in other times and places.

On a final note, and as a service to The Last Ditch’s female readers, I would like to reveal what makes a man commit. It is in fact an extremely simple matter, although carefully unmentioned in women’s magazines: children. A normal man feels morally committed to a woman who is bearing him children he can feel certain are his. The survival of our civilization may depend upon women’s speedily reacquainting themselves with this ancient and timeless reality.

Categories
Feminism Patriarchy Real men Women

Scolding Dymphna

Rollory is the penname of a Franco-American man who comments in both counter-jihad and white nationalist sites.

Dymphna is the penname of one of the two administrators of the counter-jihad site Gates of Vienna (GoV).

Her husband, Baron Bodissey [Ned May], is the other admin.

Like Rollory, Queen is a regular visitor.

In my last post I also stole comments from another GoV thread in order to expose Takuan Seiyo’s haughtiness when a woman confronted him with the Jewish Question (JQ). The intelligence of that woman is the exception that confirms the rule. In general, women don’t carry under their shoulders mankind’s destiny.

The counter-jihad movement not only suffers from blindness at the midst of its vision. Some of its members are almost blind on collateral subjects too.

It is true that I like both Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders, and their blindness on the JQ and other subjects do not bother me so much. But intellectuals should be different. They are supposed to delve deeper into the causes of Western malaise than the politicians and the popularizers of the dangers of Islamization. That’s why white Gentiles like Fjordman [Note of 2012: actually he’s half-Jew], and also Baron Bodissey, the main administrator of Gates of Vienna, need to be exposed. (Blindness on the JQ among Jews like Takuan Seiyo and Larry Auster is just ethnocentric self-deception, not treason of one’s own ethnic group.)

Why am I criticizing the GoV-ers if we still were good friends at the beginning of the last year? Because I cannot stand dishonesty out of cowardice. If we, white nationalists, are so dead wrong about the JQ, the intellectuals of the counter-jihad sites could refute our views without much effort (cf. again my previous post on Takuan Seiyo). Instead, they conveniently avoid all substantial discussion with us out of intellectual cowardice. But why am I criticizing them if I myself wrote that we who defend the West should never attack each other? Because counter-jihadists are not defending the West as they claim they do. And the earlier those who visit their sites wake up, the better.

The following includes parts of three comments by Rollory, some sentences censored by Bodissey, in the longest thread at GoV to date, “Sex, Gender, and Civilization.” Although I don’t agree with Rollory’s sympathies for the likes of Roissy (Roissy’s “Game” debilitates the West), I believe that Rollory hit the nail about feminism and so-called “women’s rights”.

No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:


Addressing Dymphna, Rollory said…

Wow, the things you find when you stay away from a thread for a week!

“…that women have done for the cause for years before people like ‘Rollory’ even knew what Islam was all about.”

Hey you contemptible little coward: if you have something to say to me, say it to me directly. Don’t run around being catty behind people’s backs—particularly if you want to counter the disdain that young men are increasingly experiencing for your type.

“I’ll continue to fight Islam on my own, but I part company with anyone who wants to take away my right to work, vote, or be an equal citizen in my country. [Chechar’s note: Those are not “rights.” It is feminism: a weapon of mass destruction used against the West.] I’ve read this blog for many years, but if this is the way it’s going to go, I’ll continue to go my own way.

Please do not go down this route. You will only alienate intelligent women like me who have given our hearts and souls to the counterjihad for years.”

Ok. Here’s the deal. You want things to work your way, make it happen.

What you are not allowed to do is to benefit and champion feminism and then complain that men aren’t responding to the resulting incentives the way you think they should—that is, they aren’t being sufficiently slavish to you. It doesn’t matter how this makes you feel. It does not work.

My claim is that fighting Islam, just like any other great project, will depend entirely and solely on the Western/European/white men deciding to actually do it, and that they will not decide to do so as long as the current female-empowered society remains in place. You can complain about this. You can throw tantrums. You can mount whisper campaigns behind people’s backs. You can take your ball and go home. None of that makes a goddamned bit of difference. The only thing that counts is success. If you can stop Islam your way, do it. If you are sure you are correct, you should not be afraid of me.

What I am advocating is: one family, one vote, with the patriarch as the executive. This is the traditional, historically sound system. It is the system that has been overthrown over the course of the last century. It is the system that was overthrown in the fading days of the Roman Empire, and in the weak years of the Caliphate before the Mongols, and in every society that is trending toward dissolution and collapse. These things are not random coincidences, nor are they evil conspiracies. They are facts of life and human nature. That they make you feel bad does not make them go away.

[Addressing Queen]: This is perfect example of female thinking at work. It is not about taking away your specific right to vote. It is about women in general. Women, in general, cannot generalize. You just proved that. Women in general like sexy over reliable, like security over liberty, like cute over competent. Women in general also think that one counterexample disproves statistics.

There are exceptions. The problem is that they are exceptions. Your arguments—all based on “me, me, me”—[are] complete validations of Vox Day’s rule about women’s most passionate arguments always based on how it makes them feel—are perfect examples of why women should not vote.

“The age of consent in Mexico and El Salvador is 12. Any mom with a daughter that age who’s walked her child in front of a phalanx of men of that ethnic group knows the score. Ditto the mothers of the 11 and 12 year olds being targeted by Muslim rape gangs in Britain. This is a women’s rights issue like no other. There is no way the multi-culti feminists can blunt this argument.”

Don’t you get it yet? Feminism is a subset of leftism. When it comes to a conflict between feminism and Islam, feminism gives way, every time.

If you were less inclined to screaming fits at the name “Roissy” this phenomenon might actually make sense to you. In any case, this battle is a losing one, it has been lost every time it has been attempted. But hey, don’t take my word for it, go prove me wrong: turn Islamization around based on feminist arguments.

♣

Ok, having read the rest of this [thread], I see no reason to change what I have said.

Equal rights and equal suffrage is something that got invented a hundred years ago. The corresponding trends regarding growth in government and increasing dysfunction are clear. That they are directly causally related is not proven, but it would be foolish to claim there is no connection when we have thousands of years of history of doing it the other way, without the specific societal dysfunction.

I realize how hard this is for modern women to accept. In fact I don’t expect them to. I expect that they will try to preserve the system, will fail—due to the young men being absolutely unmotivated to contribute—and that building the one I advocate will be my children’s and grandchildren’s task. They will have the benefit of seeing the utter failure of the feminist system before them.

And if I am wrong, it costs nobody anything, because the feminists will have won already and we will all be living in a shiny futuro-technomage society of peace and rainbows.

Baron Bodissey said…

Rollory,

I’ve redacted the insults and profanity in your comment. If you do something like this again, I will delete the comment outright. I don’t have time to play censor.

Rollory said…

They were not insults. They were an accurate description of her behavior. It is contemptible. It is cowardly. And that is a big part of why everything she claims to be striving for will fail.

Besides, I wasn’t the one to start with the personal insults here; your wife was the one who chose to start publishing them. Rather hypocritical of you to complain about someone responding to them.


_________________

My 2012 comment:

With rare exceptions, I don’t believe that women can help us in restoring our civilization, at least intellectually.