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.

Published in: on July 2, 2011 at 5:25 pm  Comments (4)  

4 Comments

  1. Agree…

  2. As a curently frustrated young male I think what my friends tell me is the truth and, unfortunateley, in my current conditions I can’t and I won’t act on THE TRUTH due to something very close to that Evolian Uranian Virility.

    The truth is: Look around. Women suck, they aren’t worth shit and you shouldn’t lose your precious time in one woman who you think is special. Lose your time with woman who enjoy you and think YOU are special.

    Okay, the truth is that a man shouldn’t be “under the spell” of women. A man should be bigger than women. If a woman comes in, good, great, we’ll deal with it. If a woman doesn’t come in, bad luck, who cares? A man shouldn’t NEED a woman nor should a man give a woman power over his happiness.

    Back in the day there were heartbreaks and love pain amongst men, of course. But the “social knowledge” was that, despite women’s virtue, a man does not *need* a woman, and men *vallue more* than woman. Nowadays we all know that women are spoiled sluts who can’t be trusted BUT (don’t know why) we take women so seriously that it seems that women have more vallue than men. It’s ridiculous.

    That’s only my two cents. I know, I really do know, that I would be much happier if I dated half the girls that come to me with well… at least sexual intentions. I would be happier. I so would. But that fucking Uranian Virility of mine tells me to ignore those women below me (below me even if they are richer than me, more beautifull than me, as much intelligent as me or behaving much better than the average girl) and to focus on that impossible girl which I really lust for and who would, very, very easily make my life so much better even though she would not actively try to do it like those “below me” would.
    Actually, lust is not really the word, but I don’t want to say love. Want and been looked for I think would be the words which suit best.

    • The solution to this dilemma is simple (here).

  3. “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.”

    This has definitely not proven true in my case. Not that I’ve noticed anyway.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: