Category: Women

War of the sexes, 14

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 traditionalism cycle

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.”

—Oscar Wilde

The reason that I initiated this series with excerpts from John Spark’s book on the science of animal sexuality is that it is the basis to understand human sexuality. The blogger seems to agree: “In order to understand society one must understand reproduction and sexual dimorphism.” In both animals and humans patriarchy is a system in which the males have the power, not the females. Power here means which gender controls reproduction and the resources of the species.

We have seen in Sparks’ excerpts something that we may call Tournament mating. In tournament species the male skull is larger; males are bigger and stronger but have shorter life spans than females; males compete for or select the females (hence the word “tournament”) and after mating often abandon the family. On the other hand, in Pair-bonding species the skulls are of the same size and shape as well as the bodies of the two genders; they have about the same life spans and the females selects the male; sometimes the female abandons the family. In both forms of mating, the blogger says, “we are addicted to pussy because that’s how reproduction works. Without that pussy addiction humanity would have died a long time ago.” In his videos this blogger mentions other bloggers of the manosphere, and he often quotes them by their pennames. He devoted five videos to one of his favorite subjects, the first under the title “The traditionalism cycle.”

In this blog I have referred several times to The Course of Empire, the paintings that Thomas Cole painted in 1833-1836. The Course of Empire reflected popular sentiments of the times when many saw pastoralism as the ideal phase of human civilization, fearing that an American empire would lead to gluttony and inevitable decay. Cole’s paintings remind me the stages that the blogger tries to explain in his civilizational cycle. Let me rephrase his exposition and add a little input of my own.

The Savage State

Brutal patriarchy. Very harsh for women. In the most primitive or barbarous stage of human prehistory, little reds riding hoods are just the property of the wolves. They can be raped or even killed at the discretion of the lycanthrope in question. There is low child survival and early sexual maturity. Both males and resources are scarce and reproduction is prioritized. Endless tribal wars to obtain young females and resources. The male-female relationship is a master-slave one. Polygamy reigns and the way that males get access to the rather cute bodies of their little reds is through tournament mating (see my excerpts of Sparks’ first chapter).

The Arcadian or Pastoral State

Humane patriarchy. This is the point when civilization began thousands of years ago. Men stop killing each other in tribal wars and women have already some rights. Survival is prioritized and there is more male stability. Polygamy starts to be abandoned (cf. my excerpts of Starks’ last chapter). Soft patriarchy also marks the beginning of monogamy and a pair-bonding society. The master-slave relationship is replaced for an adult-child one, where men are the adults and treat women as grown-up children. In this society civilization starts to thrive. The economy of the tribe grows and the population develops patterns to work around the environment. There is still high fertility rate but late sexual maturity. Resource stability increases. Although the laws explicitly favor men over women, an embryonic form of feminism begins. Today’s feminists claim that they were oppressed during the humane or soft patriarchy. “They really weren’t,” says the blogger. “It was a very balanced society if you think about it.”

The Consummation of Empire

Feminism. High child survival. Low fertility rate and late sexual maturity. Resource stability increases but the welfare state starts to replace the male provider. Women are exempted from their former responsibilities—marriage, motherhood, submissiveness—but men are still obliged to provide resources even after their wives have applied for divorces. Women obtain authority that traditionally was a privilege for men but liberated women cannot be drafted—again, they enjoy authority without responsibilities while men are expected to have exactly the same responsibilities they had in the patriarchal society. The laws favor women and more laws are being issued at the expense of men. The welfare state cannot be reformed because of universal suffrage, and women consist of 51-52 percent of the population. “Once women can vote the slow death begins and cannot be stopped democratically.”

Destruction

Feminism run amok. Harsh for men. The women have now completely betrayed us by claiming that they don’t need us anymore. Since egalitarianism cannot be enforced by laws in a dimorphic species like humans, it devolves into open misandry: an anti-male society, or more specifically an anti-white males society. Right now we are in this terminal stage. All those horror stories of the divorce courts we hear in the men’s rights movement describe this late stage. We can see it in Japan too, even though the Japanese don’t suffer a Jewish problem. If Third Reich Germany was destined to become an Empire of the Yang, what we might be calling the Empire of the yin reigns today throughout the West. According to the blogger this is our paradox: “The more peaceful or successful a society becomes the closer it becomes to collapse.” There are no matriarchal civilizations in recorded human history because it is men who carry civilization over our own shoulders.

Desolation

Economic collapse. Marriage is abandoned. The welfare state becomes overburdened and finally crashes. The demographic winter of whites ends in societal collapse. Once civilization collapses “the whole system resets back to traditionalism.” According to the blogger the best way to keep women at bay is through poverty. More specifically, in order to reestablish patriarchy three factors must come together: a hostile environment, male scarcity and resource scarcity. The blogger believes that there cannot be a return to patriarchy without the three factors because, to use his crude words, women would still use their pussies to obtain what they want. In a non-collapsed milieu they won’t submit yet but trade sex for food and protection. But we represent survival for the weak sex. Once these factors come together women will beg us to protect them as in times of yore. If there are no men around women, the latter start dying like flies.

* * *

As I said, the blogger devoted five videos to explain the cycle that I am paraphrasing here, injecting bits of pro-white concerns absent in his YouTube channel.

In one of his videos he used the paradigm of Ancient Rome, when the father was the judge, jury and executioner of the family (pater familias). Roman history does not even register how many apprentices of feminists were executed by their husbands or fathers, as women are still executed today by husbands and fathers in the Muslim world. In our culture, decadence started after the Second Punic War, when a vital law was abolished. Lex Oppia restricted not only a woman’s wealth (it forbade any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold) but also her display of wealth. Unsuccessfully, Cato the Elder opposed the abrogation of that law and Roman feminists harvested other triumphs, even in the Senate, and the trend smoothly continued up to the Christian era. By the time of the Byzantine Empire even mudblood women could inherit property.

The Roman Empire disintegrated but the Middle Ages rectified Rome’s mistake throughout Europe by getting back to patriarchy. After the Enlightenment the cycle that Cato opposed started again, with women “reclaiming their rights” and writing pamphlets. The eighteenth century influenced the nineteenth century, especially in England. In the United States the turning point occurred when women obtained the right to vote in 1920, although the women’s movement had started in 1848. The welfare state initiated in 1935 with Social Security and was expanded in 1965 to include Medicare. “No fault divorce” was another escalation of feminism, in addition to the 1967 initiative for affirmative action for women. From the 1990s feminism transformed itself into runaway feminism. In 2010 the welfare state was expanded again to include Obamacare. The beneficiaries of this state are women, especially single mothers, not men. Marginalizing the engine of society will end in economic collapse, something that I believe will happen under the watch of the next US president, whether Clinton or Trump.

For the blogger, the most important question is exactly when we handed power over these creatures of long hair and short ideas. “We dropped the ball when we ceded authority to women.” He illustrates the cycle in an elaborate diagram:

Tags Degeneracy, United States

Feminism Manosphere Patriarchy Women

War of the sexes, 13

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 ______

Guide to the manosphere

According to the blogger, the manosphere can be divided in (1) Anti-feminists, (2) Men’s Rights Activists and (3) Men’s Going Their Own Way or MGTOW.

The blogger implied that Anti-feminists and Men’s Rights Activists are on half-way stepping stones at the middle of a turbulent river to reach the more radical MGTOW territories. What he said of 1 and 2 strongly reminded me my own awakening path: Counter-Jihadism, White Nationalism and finally National Socialism.

After the eleventh minute of another video, “MGTOW for dummies,” he says that “female nature is detrimental to men.” The only way a society could work is “if men control women—I mean physically control women with a strict patriarchy.” But as this is impossible in what I’d call an anti-white System, “there is no reason to associate with women” because “her nature is going to destroy him.” He adds that it is not the women’s fault: they are hypergamous by nature and we just cannot impose a patriarchal system in a gynocentric society. In other videos he explains these terms:

Hypergamy – The instinct that moves the females (of many species I would add) chose the males for their capacity to obtain resources; thus she can change mates at any time. Hypergamy is materialism plus opportunism plus selfishness. In the case of our species, women want to get married into a higher caste system or social group.

Gynocentrism – A society centered on or concerned exclusively with women; taking the female, or specifically a feminist, point of view. More broadly from a meta-historical perspective, gynocentrism is male disposability. The female is to be protected while the male is disposable.

Feminism – Women using the government to obtain men’s resources by proxy. The welfare state replaces the male provider of the traditional family, and the laws favor women over men.

When I listened the blogger’s words, that we cannot impose a patriarchal system on a gynocentric society, my mind flew over a cute ginger-hair girl I used to fancy while living in England. I indeed had an opportunity—she was the one who approached me on the street—but ultimately I could do nothing. I needed money to move somewhere the System could not interfere with a traditional family. Otherwise the precocious nymphet would escape my patriarchal Diktat.

The blogger also speaks with incredible crudity: something unconceivable for older generations. But that’s the way we must speak out while the fair race, so emblematic in this English girl, is facing extinction. In “Let’s talk about solutions” he proposed that, to fix the problem, our women—:

Should not be allowed to vote
Cannot have property
Cannot work without the permission of their husbands
Cannot apply for divorce and
In divorces the children go with the father.

In one of my autobiographical books I tell an early 1960s anecdote. It was the first time that I heard about an unheard of happening: a boy said in our Peugeot he knew of a couple that was divorcing. My father was driving and simply could not believe it!

The bulleted draconian measures are not enough. The final chapter of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation must always be in the radar of the architects of the ethnostate, as well as LOTR’s penultimate chapter. Later in his video the blogger says, “in order for traditionalism to work we’ll need to give up technology and go back to farming instead of offices.” Unfortunately, he knows nothing about Mammon, energy devolution and the main thesis of the history of the white race in the books of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp. Moreover, I am afraid to say that the blogger’s idiosyncrasy is often as nihilistic and degenerate as that of the typical liberal.

But there are salvable aspects in his philosophy. In the next entry we will see what is perhaps the blogger’s most original contribution to the manosphere, the Traditionalism Cycle.

Tags Degeneracy

Arthur Schopenhauer Egalitarianism Intelligence quotient (IQ) Manosphere Men Science Sexual "liberation" Women

War of the sexes, 12

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 ______

Are men superior to women?

Those who design computer games depict warrior women as faster than robust men. The same with Hollywood. Remember one of the films of the Matrix trilogy? The black actress who plays Niobe is the best pilot of a Zion hovercraft. In reality women are slower. Men are not only stronger but faster, including reflexes.

The same with intelligence. I used to be a chess player. Generally, the sexes are separated in chess tournaments. Even those female child prodigies in China trained to become chess masters are no match for male grandmasters. (By the way, the 2016 world chess championship is scheduled to start this November 11 in New York City between Magnus Carlsen and challenger Sergey Karjakin: two male whites.)

The same can be said about the careers of physics, mathematics and computing. Men perform far better. The System’s solution? The blogger does not mention race but what is being done with the fair sex is exactly what is done with the niggers: “lower the math standard for women.” That is the official policy in the universities. Once again, Hollywood brainwashes us with poisonous films like Starship Troopers where the main characters, Johnny Rico and his girlfriend Carmen Ibañez, travel in a spaceship to conquer a bug planet. Johnny had obtained low math grades and has to work as a mere infantryman while the smarter Carmen got high math grades, obtaining a job to pilot a starship.

Independently of this shameful inversion of reality in Hollywood and computer games, the blogger says that emotional intelligence is bullshit, that it does not exist. But I agree with Schopenhauer on this point, that “women never see anything but what is closest to them. To consult women when you are in difficulties, as the ancient Teutons did, is by no means a bad idea: for their way of looking at things is quite different from ours, especially in their propensity for keeping in view the shortest road to a desired goal and in general what lies closest to hand, which we usually overlook precisely because it is right in front of our noses”.

The blogger continues to say that the only way that women can win against men is if the system is rigged, exactly what is happening now with the 2016 US election. Sean Hannity is virtually alone in the entire media to openly support Donald Trump!

In his video the blogger has concluded that men are superior to women not only physically but mentally. In a follow-up video, “Men are smarter than women,” he adds that he received critics for his prior video even from the manosphere. He refutes the argument of deceiving IQ studies conducted by dishonest egalitarians showing that pubescent girls score better than boys of the same age. The dirty trick consists that girls reach physical maturity before boys, something that is reflected in IQ studies of the span of puberty where girls score better. But they reach their maximum brain volume at 10.5 years, and boys at 14. (“The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and more slowly does it mature. The man attains the maturity of his reasoning powers and spiritual faculties hardly before his twenty-eight year; the woman with her eighteenth” —Schopenhauer.) Adult men have a brain ten percent larger than women, and five more points of IQ (again, the antiracist blogger simply ignores IQ studies among the races). In the case of those humans who reach the Himalayas of IQ, say from 140 to 160, they are all males. “In conclusion, men are smarter than women, period.”

I would add that we men are not only physically and intellectually superior, but morally (honor, nobility) as well—and thus objectively superior.

But like white nationalists MGTOWers are still plugged in the Matrix of political correctness. Remember the hysterical fuss at The Daily Stormer that Andrew Anglin suffered for stating the obvious about women? Exactly the same happened to this blogger in the manosphere community. In a follow-up video, “False stereotypes,” the blogger says that in the comments sections of his YouTube channel he was accused of incredible claims: that he was probably gay; an ugly fellow incapable of getting laid; an unredeemable misogynist who lived in his mom’s basement, etcetera. All false, ad hoc stereotypes coming from those who cannot stand hard facts.

Still in another follow-up, “Men are smarter than women 2,” the blogger responds to another tactic from utterly dismayed viewers: the denial of the validity of the science of sexual dimorphism.

Natural science impossible to refute:
male and female mallards. The male mallard
has an unmistakable green head.

In this follow-up video the blogger responds to a feminist that made a career in so-called gender studies. The woman claimed that men have larger brains because the brains are proportionate to their larger bodies in general. The blogger counters with the fact that even children have more cranial capacity than girls, and the same can be said about adults: the difference between the male and the female brains is of the size of a soup bar. Liberals want us to believe that this has zero relevance for their egalitarian dogma.

The blogger then mentions a crude test for cranial size that we could use at home: measuring tape around the heads of family males and females. But as the staunch antiracist he is, the blogger fails to present the perfect argument. Even tall and robust, muscular niggers have a smaller brain size than skinny Caucasians!

So far for the proportional argument that the feminist used. Finally, remember once more Schopenhauer’s wise words about the fair sex:

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, “Man”.

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of his life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy.

In another video, “Women are children,” the blogger implies that today’s westerners are slaves of the egalitarian dogma: a dogma they pursue independently of the data we can gather from nature. Gender equality simply cannot be enforced in the real world, and he concludes his video with the words “Women will always be children.”

Manosphere Men Women

War of the sexes, 11

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 ______

Crude facts

In his video “Unified theory of human interaction” the blogger says that animals are stupid and that, since humans are animals, we are stupid too; the females of our species more stupid than the male.

He reproduced a brain diagram that I knew since reading Carl Sagan in the early eighties (Reptilian brain, Limbic system and the Cortex) and said that the most primitive parts of our brains can easily control the most developed parts. When a man allows being controlled by the impulses of his dick, he’s being controlled by the most primitive part of the nervous system.

Like many animals we humans are a dimorphic species. Guys are several times stronger than the gals. When I was a child I played rough games with my sisters. I could easily put any of them on the floor face up, with my hand holding her two extended arms above her face forming a lock; she could not break free even when one of my hands was on the air. Once I tried the same trick with a skinny boy and was surprised that I could not put my usual padlock even using my two hands and the force of gravity.

Although those were non-sexual games it looks like women have been constructed to be rapable creatures (remember Sparks on “Machiavellian males”), with only other males being capable to impede massive rapes in our society.

So dimorphic is our species that in Nature a woman left totally alone will die. There cannot be such a thing as a Robinsona Crusoe. Women must become attached to the male society if they want to survive. Even in our feminist society, says the blogger, women depend a hundred percent on the protection that men alone can provide.

But males are not the only the puppets of our primitive, R-Complex brain. When an alpha male mistreats a woman or grabs her by the pussy, her primitive brain may be triggered too as they feel protected by sheer brute force. Of course: it is only a psychological hook. They would become tired with someone who always treats them like shit.

In the next entry I’ll quote the blogger regarding the most controversial aspect of sexual dimorphism in humans.

Jane Austen Manosphere Marriage Men Pride & Prejudice Women

War of the sexes, 10

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 ______

Marketplace value for men & women

Successful career women overvalue their sexual marketplace because they don’t perceive they’re not anymore cute little reds riding hoods from our point of view. But we males commit a symmetrical mistake: even when young and handsome we are (or were) clueless about what women are actually chasing in men.

Regarding the first psychological fallacy, the desirability for a woman collapses after her late thirties. Little riding hoods’ beauty is the primary quality that attracts us wolves. That’s why women spend so much time and money in cosmetics. According to the blogger, second to beauty is youth. I slightly disagree because in the marketplace we cannot separate youth from beauty. (Why nature has permitted the genes of fat women, those who even on permanent diet have an endomorph constitution, is a mystery for me.)

The blogger also says that women are attracted by resources, physicality, alpha traits and personality. If men valuate a woman for her youthful beauty from one to ten, women valuate men by their resources.

The 2005 movie adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is an absolutely must-see film for the architects of the coming ethnostate, even when the 1995 television series depict more faithfully the early nineteenth-century England. Women must be educated that way. In both the film and the novel, Elizabeth and Jane (dressed in black and blue in this pic) were impressed by Mr. Darcy’s and Mr. Bingley’s fortunes. In the specific case of Elizabeth, she changed her mind about smug Mr. Darcy only after she saw his awesome mansion. This is fiction of course: both the women and the men were valuated as 10 in resources and youthful beauty respectively.

The market value for a woman always falls in a descendant spiral, says the blogger. He doesn’t talk about Pride and Prejudice but we can remember the scene when 27-year old Charlotte becomes engaged with the ridiculous Mr. Collins for elemental survival. As in the Jane Austen world, in the ethnostate women should not be allowed to make careers or inherit property, not even their late fathers’ estates, to force them getting married and fulfill the 14 words.

Back to the blogger. He says that even if a woman is married properly, her marketplace value diminishes because she has lost her virtue as is now sexually active. On the other hand, we males don’t fall into a descendant spiral with age. Even I, in my late fifties, could find a much younger spouse if I won the lottery.

Tags Priesthood of the 14 words

Aryan beauty Egalitarianism Feminism Manosphere Men Women

War of the sexes, 9

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 ______

If the overwhelming majority of white guys died tomorrow, that would not threaten the white race. But if the overwhelming majority of white gals died tomorrow, said the blogger, it would be a catastrophe for the race. That’s why women are allowed to abandon sinking ships or burning buildings first. This is not only chivalry: it’s an unconscious drive to protect them, especially the young and fair. Attractive women detonate something in our reptilian brain: we unconsciously want to make love with them even when we experience no overt sexual desire at a specific moment.

Women are also programmed: but programmed to find a man who protects them and provides for her needs. In the animal kingdom female mammals are vulnerable and require food and protection. They will look after an alpha male.

Men and women have different biological impulses: they experience love in different ways. We are attracted by youth and beauty: a sign of good genes and health. When a man loves a woman he loves her directly. This is not the case with women. They are attracted by the resources the male can provide. In one of his early videos the blogger reproduced the pic of a silverback gorilla and commented that if the alpha male disappears, the females don’t care much and would simply go after the next alpha.

In female humans the saying, “I need a man who can take care of me” is an euphemism that they are long-term whores. If the provider gets sick, loses his job or becomes handicapped, love disappears. For the blogger, “women understand marriage as a business relationship.” In his video Women’s suffrage caused the Welfare State he cites academic articles supporting such claim, and in another video about the same subject he reproduces pie charts showing where does the welfare money really goes. The YouTube blogger concludes that the government is taking our money to give it to women, especially single mothers.

But this blogger is an antiracist. He claims to be anti-egalitarian but he is sleeping like any normie regarding race, collectivist fascism, and the Jewish question. He is not alone. MGTOWers in general fancy themselves awakened and ubiquitously use the first Matrix film to advance the red pill metaphor.

They are wrong.

Naked and weak, they have woken up in the liquid-filled pod finding themselves beside countless people connected by cables to an elaborate electrical system. But the giant spider-like robot of the film still has to unplug them from the System. The blogger that I’ll be quoting is one of them: already awoken in a pod he’s incapable to wrap his head about what exactly is the electrical plant he’s now seeing.

Fatherly advice to MGTOWers

You are not red pilled as you believe but merely purple pilled. The feminism you so rightly condemn is a subset of a broader principle of non-discrimination. Today’s religion of whites is that discriminating on race, gender or sexual orientation is the most serious sin of the West and the white man in particular. You have picked a secondary issue—gender—and ignore the other two.

If you claim to be anti-egalitarians start right from the beginning: race realism. Read for example this article by Jared Taylor. If you can digest that piece without throwing up (as Neo popped in the film) read the book that I edited, also available in PDF.

If you start following the white rabbit through the articles and books linked on the sidebar, you’ll find how deep the rabbit hole really goes.

Conservatism Islamization of Europe Mainstream media Patriarchy Women

Coming with the wind

“Patriarchy is coming back. It’s just a question of whether it will be a White Patriarchy or an Islamic one.”

—Brothermattiex

Watching the hypocritical Fox News these months I’ve seen many times Sean Hannity criticizing what he calls “radical Islam.” He has been saying that the clash of our civilizations consists that Muslims under Sharia don’t allow women to go outside their homes without a male companion. He has also been saying that, unlike us, Sharia Muslims don’t castigate marital rape or the “denigration” of women as second-class citizens; and that in Saudi Arabia women must cover themselves as their husbands want, etcetera.

I am about the age of Hannity and use the word “hypocrite” because the guy is concealing the fact that, in the last decades, sexual mores have shifted almost a hundred and eighty degrees in this continent.

In a couple of those opera-like theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a child and then in my teens. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression in my juvenile mind:

• Throughout the film, since the opening scenes in Georgia, the costumes of women of society always hid the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the southern belle dresses; and I am talking not only about Scarlett and the female elements in her family but of Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women (Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave in the West)

• At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is disrupted by the declaration of war all women are taking their mandatory nap (except Scarlett who escapes the upstairs bedroom) while men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman had a voice in such matters

• Even after Scarlett is widowed she is called “Mrs. Charles Hamilton” in the sense that her reputation still belonged to the shadow of a man who died in uniform

• Similarly, after the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices make a night raid on a shanty town after Scarlett is attacked while driving through it alone, resulting in Frank’s death. It goes without saying that in that night the women of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature: what women were expected to do

• Once married with Rhett Butler, “Captain Butler” was always greeted first by street pedestrians while walking with Scarlett. She, faithfully beside her husband in those street walks, was only mentioned after the pedestrians greeted Rhett

• Never forget the marital rape of Scarlett when Rhett carried her up in his arms telling her, “This is one night you’re not turning me out.”

In those fancy theatres of yore when I was young, the film depicted very healthy Occidental mores—before values got corrupted and completely inverted in this darkest hour of ours.

Have Hannity et al lost memory of history by implying that our culture has always subscribed feminism? What is going on in their “conservative” minds? I tell you: they are liberals, phony traditionalists. Racists should treasure Gone with the Wind instead of a thousand movies of this century as every film today, and TV program without exception, contains ethnosuicidal messages. Mention any movie filmed after the 1960s and, if I’ve seen it, in the comments section I’ll tell you the ethnosuicidal message. But of course: this is something that phony traditionalists, like every Fox News host, will never acknowledge.

Pace conservatives and even quite a few white nationalists, patriarchy is coming back throughout the West with or without a great awakening in the white race. Demography is destiny and, with dozens of millions of Muslims in Europe, the wind has already started to change. The only question is if the coming patriarchs will behave like Clark Gable or, more probably, like towelhead decapitators.

Conservatism Feminism Women

On Ann Coulter

by Jack Frost

At 53 years old, Ann Coulter, a Christian fanatic who once said at a public lecture “I don’t care about anything else; Christ died for my sins, and nothing else matters”, and who, in one of her books, once characterized evolution as bogus science, seems an unlikely pinup girl for any advocate of white interests.

She’s a never-married career girl who’s “dated” non-whites, including at least one Jew. No white children ever issued from her shriveled womb, nor, at this point, will they.

White people are abolishing themselves, and Ann Coulter is a case study in how and why.

Tags Christian problem (CP)

Abortion Homosexuality Marriage Roger Devlin Sexual "liberation" Women

On sexual lib

Never forget the sexual side of the destruction of the white race. Below, “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide,” a Roger Devlin address given at The Occidental Quarterly Editor’s Dinner on October 30, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia.

What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream.

But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime?

The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.