From Joseph Walsh’s desk

It has become clear to me that us white males must kill our enemies or our race will go extinct. By our enemies I mean primarily the Jews, and before someone imagines these Jews are invincible and untouchable, just think how many synagogues there are around your country? THE ENEMY that is genociding us is sitting comfortably in our own countries unmolested by the people he is exterminating. That says a lot about us. Unlike our ancestors, white males of today don’t kill our enemies. We send memes to them. We talk about them. Anything but actually killing them. But unless we resume the ways of our ancestors in dealing with their enemies we are not going to survive. If we are too cowardly to kill our enemies then our extinction will be richly deserved.

If there were no police, white men would be more likely to kill their enemies for the danger of life in prison would be put aside. The idea of a ‘collapse’ holds appeal to many because it’s assumed that in the chaos of the collapse, the police will somehow be dispersed and Whites can start killing their enemies without the threat of prison. But we should not rely on a collapse to take place, we must prepare for the worst—that things continue to remain the same. In that case we must simply kill our enemies. What is holding us back is ourselves. There are enough White Nationalist men worldwide to do serious damage to the Jews.

A thousand Breiviks attacking synagogues and the earth would tremble. It is white males who are to blame for lacking the initiative to carry out attacks on their enemies, white males who are to blame for their failure to secure our race’s existence. Real Men would have done something about all this decades ago. In fact real men would never have allowed this situation to come to pass. At some point during the end of WWII the White Man made the unconscious decision that he couldn’t be bothered to contend with the Jews and just chose extinction instead. It is this unconscious death-wish that has made it so easy for the Jews to genocide us.

If it becomes clear to me (and others) near the end of my lifetime that the White race is not going to survive, I will not pity us. For our extinction is justified by Natural Law. Nature’s Law of Survival of the Fittest ensures justice, and we will have been weighed in the balance by that law and judged unfit to survive. Extinction is the logical outcome for a species too cowardly and stupid to preserve itself, and although it is my own race that is perishing, from a detached, impartial perspective there is no need to pity it. It simply got what it deserved.

Published in: on August 9, 2017 at 5:23 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags:

On the white sharia meme

I don’t use the white sharia meme but in my soliloquies I constantly say to myself in humorous vein: “Lo más importante de todo en la vida es que las mujeres sean lindas Caperucitas (Most important of all in life is for women to be cute Little Riding Hoods).

Yesterday Irmin Vinson, the author of an important pamphlet about Hitler, had his latest article published at Counter Currents. He cannot understand why The Daily Stormer dislikes a photo of three modern white women showing their legs. The answer is simple: because that means that they are not lindas Caperucitas.

Vinson is ten years younger than I. Younger generations are so alienated from their past that they completely ignore that old-time marriage was a rock-solid institution in the Greco-Roman world even before Christian takeover. Vinson says that he doesn’t feel the tiniest bit of hostility to the three women in the picture that the Stormer article tags as “Skanks having the time of their lives whilst their cities are conquered by foreigners?”

What Vinson cannot see is that presently women are exempted from their former responsibilities—marriage, motherhood and submissiveness. Let’s forget the white sharia meme if its Islamist implications offend you. Use instead the European fairy tale about a young girl and a Big Bad Wolf. Vinson and the effete commenters on Counter Currents are clueless that when traditional marriage is abandoned (the above pic is taken from the television adaptation of Pride and Prejudice) Western society collapses. The welfare state will become overburdened and finally crash. The demographic winter of whites will reset back to traditionalism, but this time it will be a traditionalist Sharia for a white Europe turned into a brown Eurabia.

To compete with the brown barbarians whites won’t have any choice but to return to the brutality of Ancient Rome, when the father was the judge, jury and executioner of the family (pater familias), wife included. Those who have read the newest edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour will remember this passage:

In Rome the problem started right after the Second Punic War, when a vital law was abolished. Lex Oppia restricted a woman’s wealth. It forbade any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold. 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 brownish 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. 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.

This informative piece can be read: here. Alas, many white nationalists will continue to deny that women’s lib has been as lethal ingredient for the brew that’s killing whites as Jewry.

Traditional women

My paternal grandmother was born in the 19th century, specifically in 1888, and I lived alone with her in the late 1970s and early 80s, when she was in her nineties.

When I was a small child the institution of marriage was pretty solid. How well I remember in my sixth year that a boy of my age talked about a case of divorce: an unheard of phenomenon in my family! Nobody talked about homosexuality and no degenerate music was heard even in shopping stores (this was before the malls). No degeneracy was shown in those elegant, old-time theatres like opera halls where I used to watch films. As a boomer I am a witness that all of these catastrophic changes happened within my lifespan.

Below, my abridgement of “Just what are traditional gender roles?,” a piece published last month on The Daily Stormer:

 

“I’m in a traditional marriage”
“I’m all for traditional gender roles”
“I want gender norms to be like the old days”

These are refrains I’ve heard endlessly repeated as the discussion over White sharia has advanced. They are coming from women and a few weak men counter-signaling the White sharia meme.

Because of the critical importance of this discussion for the survival of the white race and its European civilizations, I wanted to take a minute to explain to all the men and women claiming to be so-called traditionalists all the concepts and social boundaries that defined traditional relationships. This is the most important education that I can possibly give the community at this moment, and I ask that you ask yourself if you are really embracing traditionalism like you claim to be.
 
Coverture

Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the mid and late 19th century, when feminist agitators, the media, and academic establishment triumphed with their agitations through its abolition. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself. William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I:

The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.

UCLA gender studies professor Ellen Carol DuBois (whose career is chronicled in the Jewish Women’s Archive, of course) highlighted in her histories of women’s rights “the initial target of women’s rights protest was the legal doctrine of coverture,” and that 19th century feminist icon Lucy Stone despised the common law of marriage “because it gives the custody of the wife’s person to her husband, so that he has a right to her even against herself.”

If a woman decided to leave her marriage she was a penniless non-entity no matter what her previous position was in life (truly, there is no better position for an errant whore to be rendered into). Any restoration of traditional gender roles starts by restoring coverture, thus removing financial incentives for worthless scheming whores to destroy the sanctity of marriage by abandoning it over whims and lusts. Marriage, up until the abolition of coverture, meant that the woman was permanent property of one man; it allowed continued existence and any degree of freedom only in accordance with his desires.
 
Bride price

The dower grew out of the Germanic practice of bride price (Old English weotuma), which was given over to a bride’s family well in advance for arranging the marriage.

Before a woman was her husband’s property, she was her father’s. This is why the father gives away the bride at the marriage ceremony. Traditional marriage was a transfer of property, with the priest serving the role as the trusted third party to do the background research and make sure the transaction was honest. It was essentially like getting the sale of your apartment validated by a notary. The daughter was sold off by her father, and it was the father’s sole judgment of who was eligible to lawfully purchase his property.

The status of women as property was nearly universal in European cultures, with the exception of Jewry and some groups of gypsies, where access to tithes and trust followed a matrilineal line. This was why the Jews were so keen to attack these ideas, because the patrilineal passing of property was innately offensive to their culture. Europe only has this absurd notion of women as independent entities because of organized subversion by agents of Judaism.
 
Domestic discipline and “marital rape”

Coverture and bride price were abolished to ridiculously assert women were independent entities with “rights” so that they could lobby for suffrage. The implementation of suffrage culminated in legal penalties for domestic discipline and the concept of marital rape so that women could abandon their most basic household duties, thus destroying their homes and their husbands’ lives.

The thing about these changes is that they are really fresh and new. While the 19th century might seem like a long time ago for many of our young readers (it isn’t, on the civilizational timescale it is just last month and on the evolutionary timescale it is mere seconds) these new changes began in the lifetimes of our parents and finished in many of ours, and civilization was immediately and measurably the worse for wear. According to Wikipedia:

The reluctance to criminalize and prosecute marital rape has been attributed to traditional views of marriage, interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas about male and female sexuality, and to cultural expectations of subordination of a wife to her husband—views which continue to be common in many parts of the world.

These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman’s right to self-determination (i.e., control) of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape… The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.

Rape is a property crime and nothing more. First a crime against the property of the father, and then a crime against the property of the husband. This change only finished in the US and UK in the nineties, when I was eight years old. Women existing in a state of slavery to the sexual whims of their husbands is not some barbarism of prehistory. This was universal common sense for whites up until a couple decades ago.

Likewise, hitting a woman out of her head was seen as benevolent and a universal necessity in every marriage until the sixties, and even portrayed positively in movies and film. Regular slapping and the occasional vicious beating of a woman was a necessity in every household. Women need to be regularly disciplined to keep their heads about them. They can be intellectually mature and clever to the point of deviousness, but they will always have the emotional state of a very young child and we all know what happens when you spare those the rod.

On this subject I hear two narratives from low-T men in the alt-right. The first is that all these transformations in the rights and status of women happened in reaction to family abandonment and general hardships upon women. Even those I respect fall for this sniveling lie from the mouths of manipulative whores. To these I have said: let us examine the data. [Editor’s note: the graph is not included in this abridged post.]

Broken families happened as a result of these changes in the status of women, not as the cause of them. The reality is that extramarital sex and birth was at an all time historical low because of Victorian standards of morality. The only spikes on that chart before 1950 were a result of world wars, because a man that died in some kike’s war could not marry his whore. Men held up their end of everything. They married women, they provided for them, they gave them newfound comforts and innovations like laundry machines that reduced their domestic workload to nil. They gave them full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline.

What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.

They did this because white men had a fool’s compassion in their hearts and lost the good sense to shove their faces into a countertop and give them a swift kick to the gut as hard as they can when these skanks had it coming to them.
 
Men counter-signaling White sharia

So most of this “I’m totally traditionalist but White sharia is terrible” nonsense is coming from women, but sometimes it is coming from small-souled bugmen as well. Some of these men are being bullied by their wives. Some of them just have no will to power. Beardson just used this line, and as far as I’m concerned he’s not only no longer the leader of the thot patrol, but no longer eligible to even be on it. We’ll be bullying whores without him from now on.

Here’s the reality of European tradition: women were a category of property that had a single instance of sale. They were complete slaves to the will of fathers then husbands, both having free reign to beat them and the latter having the lawful right to fuck them, where and when they pleased.

This was the reality for thousands of years of European history and the change in this status only finished in our and our parents’ lifetimes. There’s nothing Islamic about this. It is just the default position of any civilization that is not being destroyed by decadence.

Man up, put women under your heel, throw away their birth control and make them bear you children and take care of your house. If they resist, discipline them.

If you are uncomfortable with the White sharia meme because it contains the word sharia, I can understand that, but “muh feels” is not an argument against the efficacy of the meme. This meme is effective because it has an immediate effect of being shocking and lurid to the senses of women and weak men and forces people to talk about the status of women in our civilization.

All we are pushing for is a return to the status of women we had in the early 19th century before Jews and their feminism ruined our civilization. This should not be controversial. If you are opposing White sharia because you disagree with women being reduced to the status of property to be beaten and fucked at the whims of her husband, you are a faggot and a cuckold and have no place in any right-wing site, and instead belong at the bottom of festering bogs like Reddit and Voat.

Published in: on June 15, 2017 at 3:12 pm  Comments (13)  
Tags: ,

Lack of men

“The country is dying because of a
lack of men, not a lack of programs.”

—Codreanu

Published in: on May 18, 2017 at 1:51 pm  Comments (1)  

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.

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, 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, 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

War of the sexes, 18

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 ______

 

Why civilized society hates men

 
Back in 2009, before my full racial awakening, the following comment by a Swede in a Counter-Jihad site attracted my attention:

Well, what sort of men does it take to put things right in a lawless Wild West town? There is a very good movie that I recommend, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Lawrence Auster (just to mention his positive sides) pointed out the important analysis of that movie: “It’s about the idea that civilization depends on men who use violence, but that civilization, once it is founded and secure and no longer needs violent men, ignores and derides the very men without whom it wouldn’t exist.” The bumbling city slicker (James Stewart) wasn’t up to the job, the town had to be saved by the violent, marginal brute (John Wayne).

Auster again: “The image is not of restrained, upright men who just use force when absolutely required and within the rules, but of tough men, violent men, men who have something primal about them, men who can subdue Indians, men who can blow away the Liberty Valance types and rescue the softer, civilized Jimmy Stewart types, men who are ready, able and willing to kill barbarians and save society, men like Nelson, who used apocalyptic levels of violence to kill thousands of men and destroy Napoleon’s navy and prevent the invasion of England.”

Whenever you find such men, hold on to them. You cannot afford to be picky when it comes to choosing here. Only princesses in fairy tales can afford that… So in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance James Stewart is the civilized city-dweller that can build civilization. But John Wayne is the brute who makes civilization possible in the first place!

Without the men like John Wayne, the James Stewarts are therefore useless. It’s pretty pointless then to lament the John Waynes’s lack of Jimmy Stewart properties, isn’t it?

In his video “Why civilized society hates men” the blogger says: “Society is not gynocentric because of the Jews or a conspiracy. Society is gynocentric. Period.” Remember what I said about gynocentric Sparta in my previous post, or even better read the whole mini-book about Sparta that I translated to English.

turd-flinging-monkeyThe blogger adds that gynocentrism only perishes during war. Perhaps the most extreme example of this was the burning of the Gaul villages by the Gaul Vercingetorix to prevent the Romans from gathering food supplies. Vercingetorix also expelled Gaul women and children from his fortress during the Roman siege. The lives of soldiers, and soldiers alone, had value in the war!

Back to our times. Presently only the Jimmy Stewart types are allowed to thrive. The blogger does not mention The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance but he says that because the West only wants feminized white males “this is why marriage laws punish men but don’t punish women.” Those are laws designed to castrate the alpha male. The blogger maintains it is no coincidence that right after the Cold War ended in the 1990s together with the threat of nuclear annihilation came the third feminist wave. America did not need the Waynes anymore, or speaking plainly: “Respect of masculinity is directly proportional to the threats that a society faces.” And also: “As soon as the threat passes, masculinity is demonized.”

Giving women or feminized males positions of authority shoots us on the foot. In another video the blogger said: “Ethical leadership is a male characteristic. Women make terrible leaders because they are inherently selfish and so incapable of ethical leadership.”

If Clinton wins in a couple of days Americans will learn it the hard way. Of course: a woman is running for president because virtually all westerners believe in equality. Even most white nationalists don’t rebel against feminism. Who among them forbids women in their conferences? The grim truth is that nationalists are only partially awakened. In another video the blogger said: “Equality is a lie: a myth to appease the masses” and still in another one he claimed that he has seen more men destroyed by women than by bullets, even after he served in the Iraq war.