The scourge of male feminism

in the WN movement

by Andrew Anglin

Male feminists refuse to explain why a book—written by a woman for women about BDSM is now the best-selling book of all time. I get a lot of hate from white knights (who should really be called “male feminists”) for my straightforward commentary on the collective behavior of women.

The fact that women are sexually aroused by the idea of rape and abuse is extremely difficult for a lot of men to process. In particular, men have a hard time processing this in relationship to the female obsession with flooding the West with men who are shockingly prone to rape and abuse of women.

However, although I have laid out my arguments for this phenomenon in great detail, as of yet, no male feminist has bothered to give a counter-argument. Instead, they attack me personally, claim I must have some personal problem, or else I wouldn’t even care about the data which supports my claims.

It doesn’t matter what people think of me. If I was concerned about the opinions that random anonymous people on the internet have of me, I would have chosen a different profession. My concern is with the concept itself, that of shaming men who dare question the behavior of women.

By attacking me, these male feminists are sending a message to all men: if you question women, we will turn against you, we will insult and attack your masculinity. This is called “Man-Shaming.” It is the same exact system that the Jews used to silence men opposed to homosexuality: “If you’re against the gays, you must secretly be one yourself.”

The reason that white men will shame other white men with feminist garbage is that they themselves are emotionally incapable of dealing with the fact that their girlfriends and wives (or their objects of romantic interest) are not the princesses they imagine them to be.

This is objectively true. If they simply disagreed based on data, they would present counter-arguments and relevant data. Instead, they personally attack the man making the argument that causes them to feel the uncomfortable emotions.

I am absolutely disgusted by the idea that white men are willing to shame other white men, to question their virility and masculinity, in order to protect their own fragile emotions. This needs to stop. Man-shamers within the white nationalist movement are inhibiting free and open discussion of ideas, which can only be good for our enemies.

Beyond this, they are also creating a narrative that will harm men who are trying to have successful relationships with women. In order to have a successful relationship with a woman, a man must understand that they are fundamentally non-loyal (as opposed to disloyal), amoral (as opposed to immoral) and have a strong need to be dominated and controlled (in the modern system, where this need is not being fulfilled because men have been taught to treat women as “equals” with “valuable input,” their desire to be dominated and controlled expresses itself through pathological sexual desire).

 
I take criticism well

I am very good with criticism, and am fine with the idea that I might be wrong about certain things. I don’t consider myself infallible, and am always open to discussion and debate. However, because the feminist arguments are emotional and not based on data or logic, they do not engage in constructive criticism or debate, instead resorting to name-calling: woman-hater, MGTOW, etc.

All insults, no data or logic. My point, continually, has been that these concepts have nothing to do with me, and attacking me for presenting the concepts shows that the attacker lacks a rational, data-based defense.

I understand that this is a sensitive issue for many men, and I do my best to understand men where they are. I believe that the bonds between men are what make up the foundation of any society, and so I do my best to remain as sympathetic to the men who are taken in by feminism as the men who are able to acknowledge that they are victims of the Jewish-feminist agenda.

Nevertheless, it is the male feminists who are in the wrong, and who are harming others with their man-shaming agenda. Attack me all you want. It doesn’t matter. I care about my brothers, and sticking up for my brothers. We are all victims of feminism, whether we acknowledge it or not. All you have to do is look around you. In all likelihood, your own mother destroyed your life and the life of your father, for no explainable reason. Your friends have family members [who] have had their lives destroyed by women.

You are told that “somewhere out there” there are women who are different. But you keep looking, and you do not find them.

 
For the sake of the movement

It is very important to our personal lives that we understand women and their behavior. But our personal lives, individually, are irrelevant in the face of our agenda. And our agenda suffers very greatly if we do not take a realistic approach to the female issue. For one, if we allow women to assert influence on the movement, it will never go anywhere.

Perhaps even more importantly, we want this movement to expand, and we are not going to do that by being a movement of a bunch of losers who can’t get women. As such, it is important to me to teach men to be the kind of men who are successful with women, and the kind of man who fantasizes about women as princesses is not the kind of man who is successful with women.

The ironic thing about all of this is that while I am accused by the male feminists of “alienating women” and “limiting our movement to men only,” I am in fact doing the opposite of this. The only women who are ever going to truly feel adamantly about right-wing politics are women who do so because they have a boyfriend or a husband who is involved in the movement.

Women do not have moral convictions and do not have ideologies. These are masculine concepts. All philosophers understood this fact (literally, all of them, so there is no need to cite an individual philosopher here).

Given that women do not naturally possess their own beliefs, they adopt the beliefs of who they view as their natural physical protector. So in our modern situation, women adopt the beliefs of the state. The way we will get women “into the movement” is by getting girlfriends for the men already in the movement. Not by trying to cater an ideological message to women.

Single women who get involved in the movement do it either to find a man, or for attention whoring/funding purposes (in certain cases, they may also find it fashionable). Not because they were moved by a logical or ideological argument. As the woman exists for the sole purpose of producing children, her entire orientation is geared towards gathering resources and/or acquiring a man/men who will gather resources for her.

As such, the way to get women involved in the movement is very simple: Create a movement of men who are desirable to women. The female partners of those men will then, by default, be involved in the movement.

Male feminists are inhibiting our ability to do this, by attempting to shame men who take on a character that is attractive to women. Men who “respect women” are not attractive to women. They are viewed as weak and pathetic. That is not the kind of movement we want.

 
You cannot compare this to leftism

One cannot say “we have to follow the pattern of the leftists and recruit single women into our movement ” because the concepts are totally different. Women are naturally drawn to leftism, for innumerable reasons. In part, it is because they are natural communists.

One should read the ancient Greek play Assemblywomen by Aristophanes, about women taking over the government (or at least the Wikipedia synopsis of it). In 391 BC, this man was able to predict that women, if given the chance create a government, would institute communism. This is because women do not have the ability to gather their own resources, so they prefer that they are distributed based on “equality” rather than merit.

In the play, the women also dissolve the family, and require that the most attractive men be forced to have sex with all of the women in the city, so that unattractive women are also able to have a chance to mate with attractive men. It has always been understood that the sexuality of women is deranged by any male, moral standard.

Modern leftism is also satisfying the sexual desires of women by importing men whom they find sexually desirable. They manipulate weak, beta males (the type of males who are drawn to leftism to begin with) into helping them import brown people who they view as sexually dominant.

 
Blaming Jews for the behavior of women isn’t helping anything

There is a saying: “the only thing worse than a white knight is a white knight who blames Jews for the behavior of women.”

This is accurate. Of course, Jews should be blamed for the liberation of women. It was, on the whole, their idea. However, the behavior of women is the behavior of women. As I mentioned above, men in the 4th century BC understood that women, if given the chance, would do exactly what they are doing now.

If Jews released thousands of tigers out onto the streets of New York City, and they started mauling people, you would say “Jews are responsible for the fact that these tigers are mauling people on the street,” but you would not say “Jews are responsible for the fact that tigers are natural predators.” Claiming that Jews are responsible for the behavior of modern women simply confuses the issue.

Jews are responsible for creating a culture in which the worst, primitive instincts of women are celebrated as virtue, and the natural male desire to protect women is redirected into protecting her ability to indulge in these destructive, primitive behavior patterns.

 
Man-Up

It is time to act like men, and to take responsibility for the situation we are in, which includes taking responsibility for our women. Claiming that women are not a problem is simply a way of passing off male responsibility.

Our movement needs to be sexy. We want men to look at us, and say “that’s something I want to be a part of.” A huge part of that is being something that is attractive to women. And women are not attracted to men who “respect women.”

Call out the man-shamers for what they are: subversives who are harming this movement in order to fulfill a sad emotional need to believe in the virtue of women.

West’s Darkest Hour’s News

It occurs to me that I might start adding those recent news stories that I consider really important to the Addenda of this blog.

See for example my excerpts there of Andrew Anglin’s “Crucifixion of Bill O’Reilly”.

Published in: on April 20, 2017 at 12:14 am  Comments (2)  

Patriarchy vs. feminism

redgirl_and_knight

I have just deleted the PDF “War of the sexes.” The section where I quoted the blogger Turd Flinging Monkey was long-winded. I have extensively reviewed it for inclusion in the 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. This abridged and reviewed version is now available in another PDF for a more comfortable reading (if the visitor wants to print it):

https://chechar.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/turd-flinging-monkey.pdf

The article shows that feminism will die and patriarchy will be restored in Europe, either by regenerated Whites or by Muslims. Pay special attention to what we say in the last three pages.
 
Thursday update

An “angel of the library” visited me. Lately I have been reading Tacitus’ Germania very slowly, opening his book written in 98 AD once in a while. Today, in the edition of Ostara Publications, the bookmark I had left on page 8 opened the book here:

Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband’s power. Having cut off the hair of the adulteress and stripped her naked, he expels her from the house in the presence of her kinsfolk, and then flogs her through the whole village.

Although it is feminist rubbish, we saw something like this in the chapter “Mother’s Mercy” of Game of Thrones: the punishment of adulterous Queen Cersei.

The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit another husband. No one in Germany turns vices into mirth, nor is the practice of corrupting and of yielding to corruption, called the custom of the Age…

They receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state.

Here I lean toward Roger Devlin more than Turd Flinging Monkey: marriage was instituted to control hypergamous women, not brutish alpha males. It seems to me that, since we men are morally superior to women, our male ancestors had no choice but invent marriage as a rock-solid institution. It is the only way to avoid that female hypergamy, a residual instinct so natural in prehistoric times, destroys an incipient culture or civilization.

The wisdom of the ancient Germanics in Tacitus’ passage (thanks angel!) can be fully understood if we take a look not only to the PDF linked above but also to Devlin’s seminal paper.

The empire of the yin

The following is the introduction to the sixth part of the forthcoming 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.

______ ______

 

Part VI:

Sparta vs. feminized western males

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK:

The empire of the yin

White nationalists are waking up. But they are cowards: they are not organizing to do anything in a concerted effort. They are still thinking like civilians, not as freedom fighters. As the creator of our fourteen words put it in the following article, “Unless we have an unseen army of total barbarians devoid of pity, of compassion, of compunctions, of restraining moralisms, we are doomed.”

In this section I have chosen the example of virile Sparta, another long text by Evropa Soberana, to shame nationalists a bit with the antithetical example of their pussy ways. Sparta is located at the farthest polarity of Yang that the white race has reached.

Like the rest of whites, the feminized nationalists I have interacted with are still living in the Empire of the yin. Whites have become so emasculated that they are no longer fighting for sex, preferring masturbation or porn instead. The feminization of western males comes hand with hand with feminism: the sinful masculinization of western women. Many white nationalists do not hate feminism, which should be hated with more vehemence than their hatred of the Jews.

After the essay on Sparta I excerpt texts from two disparate sources in still another long article. The first source are excerpts from John Sparks’ Battle of the Sexes in the Animal World (1999). Sparks, who uses very elegant language, studied animal behavior at the Zoological Society of London. After the fundamentals to understand the dialectics of animal yin-Yang I quote from a YouTube blogger, Turd Flinging Monkey whom I refer simply as “the blogger.” He is one of the most radical voices of the MGTOW movement (Men going their own way). The blogger uses profanities and I imitate his style in that section. Underlined words mean keywords for the scientific case against feminism, like dimorphism, gynocentrism, hypergamy, etc.

But first I must reproduce the letter of David Lane and the book on Sparta that I translated from Spanish.

War of the sexes, 30

Freedom’s daughters

 
harold_covingtonHarold A. Covington is a neonazi and a novelist. He advocates the creation of a new nation, a white Republic in the Pacific Northwest region of the US as a sanctuary to prevent the extinction of whites. Covington’s five novels present a fictionalized account of the rise of a future Northwest American Republic. This nation secedes from the US, ejects all non-white inhabitants from its territory and becomes a regional superpower, defeating US attempts to re-conquer it.

Corinna Burt (“Axis Sally”) was Covington’s personal assistant, co-host and appeared on his weekly podcasts numerous times. She apparently was screwing black guys while working with white supremacist Covington. After leaving Covington Burt went back to her vomit: bodybuilding and a pornstar job. The bitch even attacked Covington and white supremacy in her blog and in her YouTube channel.

How could this have happened to a novelist that has been compared to Homer by one of the finest Europeans intellectuals? The answer is simple: because Covington believes that in the coming racial wars women are interchangeable with men. He even coined a term for such women in his quintet, “gun bunnies.” If we keep in mind what John Sparks and the blogger have been saying in the last 29 entries we can see how silly this view is from the standpoint of natural science.

The best way to illustrate Covington’s feminist views is simply quote from what he wrote in the last novel of his quintet, Freedom’s Sons, a book of almost a thousand pages. In the prologue he wrote:

Wingfield scowled after her: “I’m sorry if my order to keep our female comrades out of direct combat ruffled their feathers, and I know they’re all as brave as lions or they wouldn’t be here… [p. xxxvii]

Brave as men. Really? Where’s the historical precedent that soldier women have joined men on the front during the bloody battles that marked the destiny of the nations?

A number of Nationalist soldiers wearing NDF [Northwest Defense Force] tiger-stripes—mostly female, in view of Wingfield’s ban on women in direct combat for the operation—were manning the electronic gear and talking into microphones, wireless phones, and typing on laptops. [p. xli]

From the feminist viewpoint the Northwest American Republic looks like Murka II, and to boot Murkans incorporate second-wave feminism (keep in mind the blogger’s analysis of feminism in the previous posts).

“Okay, comrades, we’re going to have a major troop movement of about four thousand men crossing the enemy’s front, and we need to make sure they don’t get hammered by the heavy stuff,” called out Wingfield. “Who’s hooked up with artillery fire control?”

A woman soldier raised her hand. “I am sir.” [xliii]

Covington is no natural scientist. The point of keeping women away from the front is that their wombs are too precious for the fulfillment of the fourteen words. In addition to their lower strength, lower resistance and lower IQs you simply cannot endanger them as if they were mere grunts.

“Two of ’em at least are gone, sir,” Lieutenant Campbell said. “We have a Threesec spotter doing a Tarzan act up on top of the I-5. She climbed up there onto a beam or something pretty high up, where she can see over what’s left of the buildings along the river. She’s got a set of field glasses, one of our radios she got from somewhere, and a wireless laptop. What she can’t see, she can get off Google and CNN. She has a bird’s eye view of Edgewater golf course, the Arboretum and Delta Park East. She’s calling in to C Battery, that’s the 155s on the corner of Maritime and Columbia, and also to the Sector Two mortar crews’ fire control officer. That’s about twenty-five pieces, eighty-one mils mostly. She’s dropping some heavy shit on those niggers along MLK and all the way down to Bridgeton.”

She?” shouted Wingfield in exasperation. “Judas priest, did none of you ladies understand my order to stay out of direct contact with the enemy? I thought I was supposed to be a general or something? Army Council says so, anyway. Didn’t any of these mutinous gals get the memo?”

“This girl says she’s Third Section and she knows you, sir,” replied Campbell. “Anyway, she didn’t ask me or anybody else here. She just went out there on her own. First we heard of it was when she started calling in to C Battery a few minutes ago.”

“Pipe it up so I can hear whatever the hell she’s doing,” ordered Wingfield. [p. xliv]

What would a Nazi of the 1930s think of this American neonazi? This fictional liberalism looks like a typical Jewish psyop to sabotage the military of an Aryan nation.

In the first chapter of Freedom’s Sons, “A Madhouse of Ministries” Covington wrote what is perhaps the most offensive lines of his long novel:

The new government department consisted of 32 people plus himself, about evenly split between male and female. [p. 8]

So in Covington’s “Nazi” cabinet more women were appointed than what Donald Trump is appointing for his cabinet this very day! Another offensive line appears a few pages ahead:

“A lot of Christians and general Neanderthal male chauvinist types want to go back to an all-male army.” [p. 23]

The only Neanderthal is he who believes that only the Christians have had all-male armies. You can imagine what would have happened to the Muslims in their battles with us if they harbored armies evenly split between male and female, and let’s not talk about the non-Christian Spartans or the ancient Romans.

“No more. From now on citizenship and the right to vote is something that has to be earned, and right now the only ones who have earned it are those who fought in the NVA [Northwest Volunteer Army] and the NDF. I have been told that there will be ways in which non-NVA veterans may apply for and receive third-class citizenship, which will get you one vote. Us guys who put our lives on the line for our race and our new nation will have two or three votes each, that’s true, but that’s as it should be. And there’s other ways you can get a vote. For example, one of the things they’re talking about at the Convention in Olympia is allowing mothers with children to get third class citizenship right away, so long as you’re willing to take the oath of loyalty to the Republic. We understand that the results of an election that allows only NVA and NDF people to vote would be considered morally questionable, and so for the first couple of years until we can work up a whole new order of society and a whole new way of doing things, we’ll be kind of playing it by ear. [p. 43]

Unlike the Third Reich democracy continues in the Northwest American Republic and to boot women can vote. What would the blogger think (remember that the welfare state is related to women’s suffrage)?

Robert, this is Millie, one of my part-time admin assistants from the high school. She graduates in June and she’ll be doing her Labor Service here at UM along with night school for a teaching degree, and so she’s getting a head start on things now, after school.” [p. 195]

The Northwest American Republic is indeed a sort of second incarnation of Murka. Women are still making careers like any other guy in today’s West. About a hundred pages later we read:

“So what can we throw against these bastards?” asked Morehouse.

“Almost five million men and women under arms, including our regulars, who are the best trained and most highly motivated individual soldiers in the world. [p. 288]

Neonazi women are perfectly interchangeable with neonazi men, even in the army. Let’s jump 235 pages ahead and hit this passage:

With Barrow was his blonde and Canadian-born wife, former NVA Captain Jane Chenault, who was now the senior Permanent Secretary for Education, essentially the senior civil servant working under the Cabinet Minister for that department. For the duration of the war, Jane had reverted to her reserve military rank of colonel, and she had promised her husband that if she were not allowed some role in the conquest of Canada, their future married life would be something to make him shudder. Like all wise husbands who know when their wives really mean it, Frank gave in immediately. Jane was proud and pleased to discover that her statuesque figure could still fit into her old Kevlar vest from her NVA days. [p. 524]

In Covington’s world white women are not only empowered, they are still doing shit tests—and men comply! No wonder why Uncle Harold misjudged the character of Corinna…

The novel actually ends on page 537. The remainder of the book is like a sixth novel of Covington’s saga about the creation of an ethnostate. My guess is that since Covington had promised his listeners that Freedom’s Sons would be his last novel, instead of recognizing that it was not the last one he decided to insert the rest of the manuscript under a single cover. But the plot of the rest of the book is so different that a future editor would separate the books.

In the climax of the “fifth” novel a woman kills Hunter Wallace, the president of the United States, when he was about to nuke the racist ethnostate. Notice that the heroine is a woman. In the reminder of Freedom’s Sons the Republic is consolidated. If you read it all together the remainder represents a big anticlimax.

Covington even goes back to the detective fiction genre of the first novel that he wrote of this saga, The Hill of the Ravens. In this “sixth” novel another crime has to be solved within the now safe Republic. The very title of the first chapter of this “sixth” novel betrays that is another book altogether: “32 Years, Seven Months After Longview.” On the very first paragraphs of that chapter Covington wrote:

Colonel Robert Campbell, who at the age of 46 was now the head of the Civil Guard’s Montana regional Criminal Investigation Division, shook his salt- and-pepper head in bemused admiration. “I’m sorry,” he said, “I still can’t wrap my mind around it. Where the hell did you come from again?”

“From down in the number four traverse trench,” replied his daughter-in-law, Allura Myers Campbell, a graduate student in archaeology at the University of Montana. She was wearing khaki shorts, a khaki work shirt, mud-caked work boots and knee socks, and a large floppy straw hat to protect her head from the sun, which in May was already becoming uncomfortably hot in the pine hills of Lost Creek. [543]

Two pages later we learn that this woman is an intellectual:

“Nope, first time for both of us,” said Campbell. “Tom and I are going to be running point on the security aspect of this visitation of foreign eggheads. No offense, honey.”

“None taken,” said Allura with a merry laugh. “I am an egghead.” [p. 545]

Allura is a 22-year-old girl of the ethnostate. So women not only compete with men in the military but in the world of ideas. Covington doesn’t seem to realize that the feminist world he depicts is contradicted with what he himself writes on the next page: “…a wide range of uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins” as if it was possible to have both radical feminism and prolific families within the same society.

Three hundred pages later, on page 852, a female character made me feel skeptical. Not even tough guys have that icy nerves that this woman showed in a mission. A few pages later we see that the novelist pays attention to the education of the girls—multiplying fractions! What about kitchen tasks or preparing them for motherhood? Is this a novel written by a traditionalist? Covington can’t have a cake and eat it. Either these traditional families make their women submit or they become Murka-like feminists. Covington seems to believe that with the liberties of his fantastic ethnostate these career women would simply chose having lots of kids. On page 864 we read:

She had experienced this on her first weekend at the Selkirk spread, when her new sisters and cousins had taken her down to Northwest Butte and gone on a shopping spree, fitting her out with a whole new wardrobe of hats, long dresses with fully sleeves, new lace-up shoes that displayed no immodest ankles, and assorted hats.

It is the women who chose to dress like a pre-1960s western society, not the patriarchal codes what obliges them to do so. Concurrently, Covington wants us to believe that some of the liberated women of his ethnostate would choose to have eight kids! On page 867 we are told, again, that they have the right to vote and what is worse: these little women are now applying to get first-class citizenship.

By the end of the long novel, on page 908 we learn that Nightshade is a national heroine of the ethnostate. I have read the whole saga. When I devoured A Mighty Fortress a scene of this gun bunny, Nightshade, struck me as psycho. She got upset with a comrade in arms and intended to poke a switchblade through his eye. But of course “Nightshade” is a woman and, like the sexually-starved Wyoming males, Covington apparently writes to attract both male and female volunteers.

In conclusion, I stick to everything I published on January 1st about “ethnosuicidal nationalists.” The ideology of today’s racists is both part of the problem and part of the solution. Crossing the river from liberalism to the other side involves several stepping stones: Donald Trump’s Alt Light, the Altright (not yet a direct approach to the Jewish question), white nationalism (or southern nationalism), neonazism (which is but WN with Nazi paraphernalia) and reaching the other side, National Socialism.

I would like to finish this post telling that yesterday I received five books from Ostara Publications: Germania by Tacitus, The Origin and Deeds of the Goths by Jordanes, The Inequality of the Human Races by Arthur de Gobineau, The Racial Elements of European History by H.F.K. Günther and Hitler’s Second Book. How I wish that white nationalists jumped from the final stepping-stone to the safer shore of solid ground.

War of the sexes, 29

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 ______

 

One more brew ingredient

 
In his video “Regarding red pill rage” the blogger talks about the explosion that comes when a normie realizes that his most cherished ideals—home, family, children—have been subtracted in the very system where he lives.

But the blogger, his MGTOW pals and the guys of the manosphere in general overstate their case. As can be seen in the maps of the latest US elections many white women voted for both Romney and Trump. From the viewpoint of racial preservation the real shock comes not from women, but from the all-blue map that shows what would happen if only the coloreds voted.

mapsI have said that the white nationalist myopia bothers me. They have awakened to the colored and the Jewish question and that is great. But they are tone deaf about what I have been saying of the Mediterraneans. For example, they ignore that in Latin America the Iberian whites dislike so much the Nordish whites at the north of the Río Grande that in our media there is not even a single white who has defended Donald Trump—not even one, not even in the written press or intellectual magazines! [1]

I almost never watch TV in Spanish. But this month my hobby has been to see what the Spanish-speaking media is saying about the recent US election. Regarding their hate of Trump, it is mind-boggling that the mestizos and the Iberian whites throughout Latin America are exactly on the same page of the Mexican Jews! I don’t want to give some nasty examples about what I have been watching in this new hobby of mine. Let’s rephrase keeping in mind the hate the Jews feel for the Aryans: the Iberian white pundits that talk on TV or write articles share exactly the same hatred toward the embryonic white awakening at the North resulting from Trump’s successful campaign.

So the blogger and the manosphere movement in general have been focusing on a secondary issue. The primary issue is race, and not only the false Aryan/Jew dichotomy in the orthodox narrative of white nationalism.

Nevertheless, the blogger is right that the feminized western men must grow a pair. The white masses may be as feminine as Hitler saw, and it is good that an alpha male has grabbed the American electorate by the pussy. Trump may be implicitly pro-white but now an explicit work must begin.

Although it is secondary compared to race, I don’t want to dispatch the knowledge that the blogger and others are patiently gathering in this movement that they call Men Going Their Own Way. I will illustrate why they must be taken seriously in the next and final installment of this series, where I’ll review Harold Covington’s last novel of his quintet.

In conclusion, both MGTOWers and WNsts are purple pilled, not red pilled (jargon for those who are not fully awakened). The manosphere community needs to become acquainted with the hard facts of race realism, e.g. with the work of the granddaddy of the Altright, Jared Taylor. Similarly, those racists who like Covington et al believe that men are interchangeable with women need to become familiar with the research of the blogger and his comrades.

Finally, I must add an ingredient—see bold-type below—to our lab analysis of the lethal cocktail we have ingested. “A witches’ brew” is a page from the book that I edited, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. This is what I wrote:

William Pierce, in Who We Are, said in his concluding remarks: “It is difficult to analyze the witches’ brew and place exactly the proper amount of blame on each ingredient.”

It seems to me that from Pierce’s point of view the Jewish problem would be a very strong catalyst that has accelerated the process of Western malaise in the last centuries, but certainly not the active ingredient of the brew.

I for one believe that individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) plus egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) plus the empowerment of Jewry since the times of Napoleon and women since the 19th century (ingredient added!) has created a lethal brew for the White peoples, as we shall see in the next section.

_________________

[1] By “Iberian white” I mean those white Latin Americans who look like Spaniards. Some of them have Amerind blood in their veins but phenotypically look like Iberian whites; others only have a few drops of that blood, and others none of it. All of them, even those with zero Amerind blood, call themselves mexicanos and may be the product of several generations of whites living in this part of the continent. None of them has any objection whatsoever about further mestization with the darker mexicanos.

War of the sexes, 22

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

 
turd-flinging-monkeyUnderstanding 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.

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

 
turd-flinging-monkeyIn 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.

chimpanzeesThe 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.

bonobos_whcalvinIn 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…

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

 
turd-flinging-monkeyWe 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.

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

 
turd-flinging-monkeyIn 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.”

peplodorio