SS booklet, 1

‘An early marriage with many children is hence a basic requirement of National Socialism’ (see pic here).

Published in: on June 3, 2021 at 11:16 am  Comments (6)  

6 Comments

  1. when I was 14 I had a relationship with a blond boy of 16. But after that I became straight and have remained since.

    • Okay (not very rare among ancient Greco-Romans). With a son I would only worry if, after male hormones arose, he persisted in that relationship.

  2. Are women really designed for child-cultivation? Are they really “the nurturing, empathic sex” ? Are they truly so irrational & driven by emotions? Don’t you need to perceive reality in order to more effectively manipulate & lie?

    Bruno Cariou presented a very simple yet compelling theory that, “decadence” comes from men/fathers leaving their children – especially their sons – with women/mothers rather than taking them to work on a daily basis. https://www.bitchute.com/video/niDLEV7F6jsJ/

    It’s been observed that women work as a team against men, against their own sons (ie “Son Husbandry”), from the time of their (sons) births. Sure, it can be said that, at some point, female-wise (Aryan) men failed the test & let women usurp everything, shame on those few generations; but, after the threshold had been crossed, it was done. The females were able to wage a Jewish style subversion (allied with the Jews & christians) against men, against Aryans.

    I used to believe the “it’s only due to men’s consent” meme about “feminism,” about gyno-centrism, but not anymore. Not after having learned more about biped nature. When you have women united as a team (despite the fact they paradoxically despise each other) to wage a “left-hand path” style of stealth warfare on their own male children so as to femininize their sons – so as to “liberate” themselves to chase **** – and to conceal their own subversion, what chance do men realistically have? I was born in the late 1980’s, long after this crap had gone into the Twilight Zone. Not saying nothing could be done at all nor that men should reject “taking responsibility.” Am saying that to assign ultimate culpability to all Aryan males period is insane, & incorrect.

    Around age 7 or so, I was struck by a holiday gathering with my extended (upper middle class) family. Aryans have been a minority in my city for a long while, my entire life. My grandfather was a customs agent when I was young. He knew about niggers, & he tried to warn us about how dangerous they are in a milquetoast manner. So, at the thanksgiving or christmas celebration, talk began about crime, pretty sure my aunt who was hosting the gathering had experienced the break-in robbery (almost certainly committed by a nigger, who was possibly still inside the residence when my grandmother – the above grandfather’s wife – was dropping something off inside my aunt’s house). The nigger stole a lot of stuff from her & her bf, including a big water jug container chock full of coins.

    So, my grandfather made his milquetoast anti-nigger commentary.

    Suddenly, en unison, the females of my tribe flew into action. His wife, my grandmother (almost a perfect real life example of Tony Soprano’s mother Livia; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wqYmXqZRs8 ) snapped into an apparent toxic blend of hysterical indignant outrage, contempt, disgust, & rage. Her daughters, my aunts, immediately joined in to reinforce her vicious attack. They spewed gibberish word salad platitudes in defense of the precious necrosis tinged apes, something about how “not all blacks are like that!!!!” while clearly communicating they wholeheartedly disagreed. He was just trying to warn us in a weak way. This basic pattern repeated itself quite a few times during my youth.

    Naturally, when my grandfather or my uncle in law (the only other male who dared to say anything, who’s supposedly racist father + mother had adopted a deformed crack baby nigger who lacked facial features) were not around, these same dumb bitches contradicted themselves & voiced dislike of niggers. I don’t buy it, the “women are sooooo irrational” meme. Sure, they definitely are less rational than are males, but in some ways, they’re also less irrational. They don’t betray their animal nature. Point being, I’ve come to believe that contrary to the “women have been corrupted” meme, we’re just seeing what’s always been there, the mask is off. It’s a jagged pill to swallow, so most Aryan males will refuse to do so. I’ve experienced too much first hand to think otherwise.

    Have you not ever seen the way women speak of virtues which men at least admire & respect? Ideals which we hold dear, like honor or loyalty, regardless whether we manage to live up to them? Women roll their eyes & scoff, as though, “awww, what poor liyttle boys…they don’t get it, what children!” when contemplating such virtuous concepts. They seem to have nothing but contempt for such ideals.

    Men in my age range were born in our own graves, we didn’t stand a chance (to see through everything, much less disrupt the macro patterns); the police state was almost omnipotent by the time I was born, and the Jews had all mass communication platforms on lockdown, beaming programming into Aryan males minds 24/7-365. Supposedly, up to approximately 75% of bipeds completely lack an inner voice ( https://www.dazeddigital.com/science-tech/article/44494/1/living-without-inner-speech-voice-inside-head-psychology-science ).

    *If* you accept that women work as a team – a conspiracy of sorts – to deliberately mislead men, especially those in their own immediate families, about their true nature, that they train us from our birth’s to be docile people pleasing trophies – mere decorations with which they exploit us to create false impressions, to think of ourselves as inherently individualistic & lacking any purpose other than being lackeys for women, how could things have progressed differently? Supposedly, women are soooo soft for hyper-dominant men. Sure, they indeed are; *but,* why do they also create “beta males”? Why do they go beyond mere (shit)-“testing”?

    If you think about it, the shit-test is not quite what the manosphere presents it as being. For ex- an ex girlfriend from my teen years claimed she wanted me to take a different girl to the upcoming school dance instead of her. I flatly refused, but she refused to drop it. She acted like she was offended & upset that I refused to obey her. Now, if the shit-test were simply a test, theoretically it’d be neutral. Theoretically, she would have backed off. Theoretically, I should have passed that test. She persisted for over a week. She insisted she wanted me to take a different girl to the dance instead of her, & said I was a jerk for refusing. I refused at least 10 times, over a span of days. I’ve realized w/hindsight that this girl was looking for an excuse to dump me. After over a week of her persisting with this provocation, refusing to stop bringing it up & arguing over it, I finally gave in, I “failed.” Of course, she later claimed to be deeply hurt & confused as to why I would not take her to the dance, & about a month later she dumped me (& it came out she had a new beau, who I’m now sure she had been cheating on me with before she dumped me).

    Point being, I used to believe the manosphere’s framing of shit-tests (& female intuition + instinct at large), the idea that female sexual instinct is some super accurate & refined weaponry. That ex girlfriend isn’t the only one to have not just tested, but who instead placed me into lose-lose scenarios where there was no apparent way to prevail (short of pre-emptively dumping them), and my experience isn’t limited to myself, I’ve observed my male friends’ girlfriends do the same thing. To hyper-aggressively push & push & push the man into a corner, even if he first responds in a collected assertive self-confident way.

    If you drug a man, tie him up, take him to the edge of a cliff & push him over, is that “proof” he is a weakling, “unfit”?

    You can argue that they’re just determined to push every potential mate to the maximum conceivable limit, to “assess” his hardcore survival “fitness,” employing every manner of manipulation in the process (in other words, lying to us), but wouldn’t it be wiser to just be honest about what they desire? If submitting to dominant males is what they truly want, wouldn’t it make more sense to cultivate (“raise”) male children to be tougher, or at least, to be semi-honest about what women find arousing & so on? Why do the exact opposite?

    Son-Husbandry & petty selfishness (of women) are the only reasons I can think of to explain the apparent contradiction. Oh, & women’s supposed hyper-“irrationality,” their “frail” gentle histrionic nature. But, there are problems with that reasoning. They know more than they let on; again, in order to be an effective liar or manipulator, you must be able to discern reality quite accurately. The framing of themselves as hyper-irrational “emotionally driven” beings enables them to use our ego’s – our desire to believe ourselves superior to them – against us, while also absolving them of any responsibility. Arguably, they’re far more pragmatic than are men. There are numerous examples of “behavior altering parasites, mind controlling parasites” in nature, and why not apply this model to women? Accepting that premise wouldn’t necessarily mean men cannot “take responsibility,” as indeed we must.

    In short, women are natural reservoirs of so-called “Dark Triad” traits, just like the Jews. They indeed are “empathic,” in a cold calculating way. They don’t seem capable of experiencing “warm” empathy. They don’t seem capable of feeling guilt. They’re known to plan divorces before they even sign no-fault divorce contracts, before they’re even married! Speaking of vows, who wrote the traditional wedding vows? The “in good times, in bad times, for richer or poorer, in good health & bad health, as long as we both shall live” pining, the desperate pleading, a woman!?

    Did the women mentioned in the “Aryan Practical Idealism: Decadence” (video linked above) from the medieval ages, who dressed up their own sons in women’s clothing & treated them as though they were girls, long before any of the “woman’s suffrage” garbage got going not know what they were doing? Was it just some “hehehe this is silly mindless fun” type of pattern, or were they intentionally weakening males as a collective, preparing their subversion? Did the Roman whores who demanded that they be allowed to wear all their fancy jewelry after the 2nd Punic War not intend to subvert & usurp men? If women stealthily work as a team to indoctrinate entire generations of males from birth into gyno-centric thinking wherein males literally cannot perceive what’s even happening, how reasonable is it to assign culpability unto men (for “letting things” spiral out of control).

    Men ought to develop the artificial womb & explore it’s implications. There needs to be some sort of leverage with which protect ourselves from women (& to protect women from themselves), b/c they have overwhelming advantages. Even if men are “female-wise,” chances are, that by the time women start to drop their masks, it may as well be too late. Not technically too late, but too late in practicality. Only the most radical & ruthless counter-measures can be employed to halt the estrogenization of males, of a nation or folk, once it’s begun. Chances are women do not pounce until they’ve first laid the groundwork – regardless as to whether they’re fully conscious or not – wherein there simply are not enough “female-wise” males in position to be able to counteract female warfare. Blame them all you like, but it seems approximately 85% of males are simply incapable of resisting a decent looking woman’s sexual advances. I don’t put it past women to seduce their own grand/fathers, if it means they’ll get to ride the carousel in exchange. All it takes is just one moment, one well placed breast brush against a man’s body, followed by her leaning over to reveal her voluptuous breasts with a innocent appearing childish inviting smile & batting of her eyelids (or followed by something more…aggressive).

    Did not the “based” ancient pre-christian Aryan men fight a damn fratricidal war over some skank from Sparta? Scuse me, I mean a virtuous princess who really was loyal. Supposedly, according to the essay included in “TFRDH,” Sparta was a patriarchal nation. Was it? Marriages were said to have taken place between similarly aged women & men, yet the excuse is given that if the man “was old,” then he allowed his wife to screw other men. How is that a patriarchy? Reading between the lines, it seems like it might have been more of a matriarchy. Sure, Spartan men supposedly had the “final say.” Like my father? Sounds like they weren’t much better off than my father or modern males. Men were going off to be slaughtered in the battlefield while Spartan wives were apparently hanging out with pool boys. Scuse me again, they were “supervising” the Helot slaves. Were there Spartan men supervising the warrior’s off fighting wars wives while they were gone?

    Interesting that today we see the rise of so-called “polyamorous marriages, open marriages” where women convince their spouse to let them screw other men openly, with his blessing. After restricting sex, men are much more likely to agree to such coercion. That isn’t a patriarchy in my book. Even if it’s arguably good for the species, no. We convince ourselves that we don’t even deserve to have a damn wife who’s coerced (if necessary) into not screwing other dudes while we’re slaving away being told we better not return alive unless we have total victory, unbelievable. We accept all sort of rationalizations – which incidentally align with women’s sexual proclivities – as to why we don’t deserve to have just one damn woman all to ourselves for the brief period of time she might look good. Women love to use our desire to feel superior (to them) against us (“Spartan women are the only women who give birth to ‘real men'”…cuz “real men” let their wives screw other dudes as we’re living in a barracks while she’s apparently alone with pool boys…I don’t believe for a second that – if they were unsupervised by reliable supervisors – that Spartan women didn’t screw the slaves en masse). And the very “pool boy” phenomena is itself also evidence that women are not so preferential to high status dominant men (insofar as to sex, “hook ups,” though I do accept that they definitely prefer to get their talons – a conmittment – into a high status “Alpha male” – who they’ll still cheat on, if they have the opportunity to do so).

    “When it comes to sex, men are said to be communists; women are capitalists.”

    (I didn’t coin that quote, I’m pretty sure I heard it in a manosphere video). Thank you for publishing an anti-“feminism” book, simping is disgusting. Especially under conditions like this, she’s gonna cheat & play all the games they play today, unless literally chained to a wall in some sadomasochistic tingle swarm inducing dungeon. Men just aren’t equipped to withstand female mind-warfare in the long-term. Maybe if all non-Aryans are counter-exterminated, maybe then there’d be a chance; but, the notion we ought to be able to resist their left hand path style warfare – which Aryans suck at fighting (thus far) – is quite absurd. They’re more determined than us. They’re unscrupulous, psychopathic to be precise. A different ex girlfriend was literally jealous of my pet cat. They’re jealous of an alligator taking attention away from them ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzFR2I3TKyk ). They always need to be the absolute center of attention & despise anything that threatens their “spotlight.” They’re impossible to please, & the only way they come semi-close to being satiated is when you least try to please her.

    Take care!

    • I laughed a lot, thanks. I love these occasional schizo long posts on Señor César Tort’s blog.

      • It’s the last ‘essay’-post I allow on this site.

  3. Cesar, I think I found something of interest for you to read.
    https://16chan.xyz/fascist/catalog.html


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: