War of the sexes, 10

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______


Marketplace value for men & women

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published in: on November 1, 2016 at 12:19 pm  Comments (8)  
Tags: , , ,

Ten films I recommend


1. Hamlet (1948) 

2. Sleeping Beauty (1959)

3. Andrei Rublev (1966) 

4. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

5. Planet of the Apes (1968)

6. Death in Venice (1971)

7. Iphigenia (1977)

8. Sense and Sensibility (1995) 

9. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

10. Pride and Prejudice (2005)

Pride & Prejudice

It took Will Durant more than three decades to write the monumental The Story of Civilization. After finishing the ten volumes of the Story, it followed the essay The Lessons of History, which reflect both Durant’s erudition and his accumulated wisdom. I read The Lessons of History while living in the States and would like to quote some excerpts from one of the chapters, “Biology and History”:

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; and she sees that a nation with low birth rate shall be periodically chastened by some more virile and fertile group…

There is no humorist like history.

No humorist indeed! Presently the Moslems are gradually outbreeding the Anglo-Saxons, the French, Dutch and the Germans in a Europe that will soon become Eurabia. But how could this have happened?

The 2005 movie adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is a good start to approach what I said in recent posts about the Jane Austen world, even if the 1995 television series depict more faithfully the early nineteenth-century England. The music of the 2005 adaptation (hereafter referred simply as P&P), composed by Dario Marianelli, mostly for piano and very little for the orchestra, demonstrates that it is a lie that sublime music cannot be composed by whites after the century of Mozart and Beethoven.

Watch the film! This is my own selection of some of P&P scenes that give the flavor of the whole movie, although I understand that this YouTube clip has been blocked in some countries (or that sometimes it stops after minute three; just rewind it to watch the whole ten minutes if possible).

I have posted nine short diatribes against degenerate music—a National Socialist term—, the simian music that even white nationalists seem to be very fond of.

It is impossible to demonstrate objectively that to like contemporary pop music (which must not be confused with folklore) is a symptom of degeneracy, insofar as intra-psychic emergency from Neanderthalism is a thoroughly subjective dimension. What can be done is to imagine a future ethnostate that re-establishes marriage as the central institution for the white people. After the first and second generation of citizens of the ethnostate pass away, I bet that the surviving grandsons and granddaughters, so imbued in Austen-like sexual mores and memes, will not comprehend why their granddads fell spiritually as low as liking rock music and its heaviest modalities.

Presently Western popular music, television and the overwhelming majority of movies only reflect the utterly rotten souls of the white peoples. It is no coincidence that those white nationalist sites that promote rock and Hollywood also promote homosexualism or heterosexual fornication—never traditional marriage, generous breeding and chastity. What can I say to those nationalists who want to break away from their colleagues’ sexual memes, which are almost identical to the mores of the typical liberal? Only this: The latest filmic adaptation of P&P reflects a possible future.

The dollar will crash soon. Social havoc will result especially at the epicenter of the crash: Washington, New York, Los Angeles—precisely the western cities with more non-whites.

A huge political change will follow the crash, with a bankrupted US no longer capable of playing Globocop and with all the American military bases called from overseas to deal with the chaos at home. It is not clear what would be the fate of Israel once its sole defender is removed.

To boot, later in this century the monetary/social/political crises will converge with the depletion of oil, as Sebastian Ernst Ronin has been hammering in his Hammer & Anvil site, with no reliable energetic resource capable of replacing it in due time. This will cause mass starvation, especially in the undeveloped countries. The convergence of catastrophes will lead to a world completely different from our own, with country farming as the central lifestyle instead of big cities advocated to the glory of Mammon.

If after such convergence white ethnostates are formed, and I believe that Harold Covington has a point in what he describes in his futuristic novels, the ethnostate will likely resemble past centuries with whites living in bucolic Englands and wearing Victorian clothes as a sign of repudiation of the liberal ethos of our centuries.

It surprised me that Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in 1888 that Europe was starting to abandon the institution of marriage in the pursuit of more eudemonistic sentiments. And it surprised me too learning that Francis Parker Yockey wrote that even in the 1940s Hollywood started to promote the ideal of mere romantic loves with no connection to biological reproduction or the perpetuation of our species.


Fortunately, after the Dantesque conditions that the convergence of catastrophes will bring to the western world, the white people will rediscover that Life has a prize: that many young white soldiers will perforce die virgins while defending their new nations, and that each fair, young woman will be bringing lots of white babies to the world even if that means going back to domestic drudgery. Yes, there may still be occasion for romantic love but the general rule for whites will be to breed generously and to fulfill what Durant called a lesson of history.

The womb of the white nations must be reopened.

Europe’s vagina

I had posted this entry on February 5 but want to repost it so that it may be read along with my previous entry on Nietzsche’s very traditional views about what used to be our most sacred institution before Western man committed racial suicide: Marriage.

The subject of the virtual abolition of Marriage is, to my mind, more important than the Jewish question. Those who want to know why are advised to print Roger Devlin’s article “Sexual Utopia in Power” and study it carefully.

During pre-Christian times Nordics began emigrating in wave after wave heading south. The original Romans, themselves the descendants of one of these waves, would later refer to the German-Scandinavian area as vagina gentium, the womb of white nations. Also, the land which ultimately comprised Russia ought to be hugely significant for white nationalists because it included the Caucasus area, the original source of the “Indo-European” (Caucasian) peoples.

What pained me the most while reading both William Pierce and Arthur Kemp’s stories of the white race is that Europe’s vagina was closed and raped into the Asiatic gene pool in the course of the Asiatic invasions. After those interminable invasions that lasted centuries the Caucasus area ceased to be the womb of the Nordish peoples. “It was perhaps the single most important racial genocide in history” wrote Kemp.

The aggressor was external of course. But during my lifespan I have witnessed the destruction of whites by whites themselves on a scale no seen since the Mongolian invasions. With reproduction levels below the minimum relacement of 2.1 per family, we, not the Huns or Genghis Khan’s hordes, have closed the womb through the so-called sexual liberation movement, feminism, the pill, the legalization of abortion, the empowerment of women, mixed marriages, and the destigmatization of lesbianism and male homosexuality.

It is my hope that, after the dollar crashes and Western society falls into utter chaos—and, thanks to the laws of social entropy, ethno-states are formed at both sides of the Atlantic—, Roger Devlin’s dream to reinstitute heterosexual marriage will become reality.

pride-and-prejudice 2005 film

If our civilization is under the grip of liberal mores, especially the belief that non-discrimination on race and gender is the highest moral value, when values are transvaluated back to Austen mores our women will be having six or more kids.

If whites are to survive as a people the vagina gentium must be reopened, whether our spoiled women like it or not…

Nietzsche on the institution of marriage

P&P TV series

F. Roger Devlin’s views on marriage made a fairly deep impression in my worldview. So deep in fact that nothing has aroused more my emotions in the last few months than watching over and over both the British television series of Pride and Prejudice as well as the 2005 movie adaptation of the same novel, together with the well-known 1995 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility: the classics of Jane Austen.

Presently I cannot stand a single minute of TV or Hollywood. Indeed, while imbued in the feeling that today’s West is like a Gomorrah that has to be burned to the ashes, these adaptations stir my soul to such degree that the stories’ conclusions—old-time traditional marriages—move me almost on the verge of tears.

It must come as a surprise that the anti-Christian Nietzsche maintained, like the Christian Devlin, a quite traditional view of marriage until the very end of his intellectual life. The following is a passage from section 39 of “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man” of his 1888 book Twilight of the Idols:



Our institutions are no good any more: on that there is universal agreement. However, it is not their fault but ours. Once we have lost all the instincts out of which institutions grow, we lose institutions altogether because we are no longer good for them. Democracy has ever been the form of decline in organizing power: in Human, All-Too-Human (I, 472) I already characterized modern democracy, together with its hybrids such as the “German Reich,” as the form of decline of the state. In order that there may be institutions, there must be a kind of will, instinct, or imperative, which is anti-liberal to the point of malice…

The whole of the West no longer possesses the instincts out of which institutions grow, out of which a future grows: perhaps nothing antagonizes its “modern spirit” so much. One lives for the day, one lives very fast, one lives very irresponsibly: precisely this is called “freedom.” That which makes an institution an institution is despised, hated, repudiated: one fears the danger of a new slavery the moment the word “authority” is even spoken out loud. That is how far décadence has advanced in the value-instincts of our politicians, of our political parties: instinctively they prefer what disintegrates, what hastens the end.

Witness modern marriage. All rationality has clearly vanished from modern marriage; yet that is no objection to marriage, but to modernity. The rationality of marriage—that lay in the husband’s sole juridical responsibility, which gave marriage a center of gravity, while today it limps on both legs. The rationality of marriage—that lay in its indissolubility in principle, which lent it an accent that could be heard above the accident of feeling, passion, and what is merely momentary. It also lay in the family’s responsibility for the choice of a spouse. With the growing indulgence of love matches, the very foundation of marriage has been eliminated, that which alone makes an institution of it.

Never, absolutely never, can an institution be founded on an idiosyncrasy; one cannot, as I have said, found marriage on “love”—it can be founded on the sex drive, on the property drive (wife and child as property), on the drive to dominate, which continually organizes for itself the smallest structure of domination, the family, and which needs children and heirs to hold fast—physiologically too—to an attained measure of power, influence, and wealth, in order to prepare for long-range tasks, for a solidarity of instinct between the centuries.

Marriage as an institution involves the affirmation of the largest and most enduring form of organization: when society cannot affirm itself as a whole, down to the most distant generations, then marriage has altogether no meaning. Modern marriage has lost its meaning—consequently one abolishes it.