War of the sexes, 23

Update: The 30 entries of this series have now been revised and can be read more comfortably from the beginning in a printable PDF (click: here).

______ 卐 ______

 

“What feminism calls patriarchy is simply civilization, an abstract system designed by men but augmented and now co-owned by women.”

—Camille Paglia

 
turd-flinging-monkeyTreating men and women as equals, the blogger says, can only hurt men. “This retardation of equality needs to stop.” As he has said in previous entries, gender equality is absolutely impossible due to sexual dimorphism in human beings favoring men. Exactly the same should be said about race: but the folks at the manosphere are only halfway regarding egalitarianism.

Alas, the blogger’s worldview is not only partially cooked. Not being a follower of the 14 words, he is a degenerate. He has many videos that I won’t watch about porn, sexual robots and sexual toys. This is one of the problems with the manosphere in general. Without the moral compass of the 14 words, partially awakened whites kill their time in self-debasing ways.

But the blogger’s observations about the whys of the Empire of the yin that we are suffering still merit citation. In his video “social intelligence is bullshit” he responds to some critics of his video “Men are smarter than women”: guys who advance the argument that women have “emotional intelligence,” presumably to manipulate us. The blogger counters with a thought experiment: If a woman waked up with the body of a guy she would loss all of her power over us! It is not emotional intelligence what they have to manipulate, but merely their fuckable little bodies.
 
Old and young women

The blogger adds that when women reach the age of 50 they become invisible. They usually cannot manipulate us as they used to do. The reason is obvious: their bodies are now unfuckable. Even before their forties they are no longer little reds riding hoods. Lycanthropes no longer drool while seeing them. Older gals are not even fertile anymore. In the words of the blogger, “Social intelligence is not intelligence at all. It’s merely female difference, specifically, young attractive female difference.”

All of this bullshit of social intelligence and emotional intelligence are pure gadgets to assist the self-esteem of inferior humans: women. The blogger’s exact words once more: “Women are basically retarded children. They have to be shielded from reality, the reality of sexual dimorphism.”

Remember de Tocqueville: equality is a slogan based on envy. Ultimately all of these pious self-delusions do not help women. They are the same kind of delusions that career women suffer: those who, in their forties, start looking for a husband clueless that we wolves don’t find them palatable anymore. This is what Nietzsche wrote in “Old and Young Women”:

Why do you steal along so furtively in the twilight, Zarathustra? And what do you hide so carefully under your cloak?

Is it a treasure that has been given to you? Or a child that has been born to you? Or do you go on a thief’s errand, you friend of evil?

My brother, said Zarathustra, it is a treasure that has been given me: I carry a little truth.

But it is naughty, like a young child; and if I do not hold its mouth, it screams too loudly.

As I went on my way alone today, at sunset I met an old woman, and she spoke thus to my soul:

“Much has Zarathustra spoken also to us women, but never spoke he to us concerning woman.”

And I answered her: “About woman, one should speak only to men.”

“Talk also to me of woman,” said she; “I am old enough to forget it presently.”

And I obliged the old woman and spoke thus to her:

Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one answer—it is called pregnancy. Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child. But what is woman for man?

The real man wants two different things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

The warrior does not like fruits which are too sweet. Therefore he likes woman—bitter is even the sweetest woman.

Woman understands children better than man does, but humanity is more childish than woman.

In a real man there is a child hidden: it wants to play. Up then, you women, and discover the child in man!

Let woman be a plaything, pure and fine like the precious stone, illumined with the virtues of a world not yet come.

Let the beam of a star shine in your love! Let your hope say: “May I give birth to the overman!”

In your love let there be courage! With your love you shall attack him who causes you fear!

In your love let there be honour! Little does woman understand about honour otherwise. But let this be your honour: always to love more than you are loved, and never to be second.

Let man fear woman when she loves: then she makes every sacrifice, and everything else she regards as worthless.

Let man fear woman when she hates: for man in his innermost soul is merely bad; woman, however, is evil.

Whom does woman hate most? – Thus spoke the iron to the magnet: “I hate you most, because you attract me, but are too weak to draw me to you.”

The happiness of man is, “I will.” The happiness of woman is, “He wills.” “Lo! Lo! Now has the world become perfect!” Thus thinks every woman when she obeys with all her love.

The woman must obey, and find a depth for her surface. Woman’s soul is all surface, a mobile, stormy film on shallow water.

Man’s soul, however, is deep, its torrent thunders in subterranean caverns: woman feels his strength, but does not understand it.

Then the old woman answered me: “Many fine things have Zarathustra said, especially for those who are young enough for them. Strange! Zarathustra knows little about woman, and yet he is right about her! Is this because with woman nothing is impossible? And now accept a little truth by way of thanks! I am old enough for it! Swaddle it up and hold its mouth: otherwise it will scream too loudly, the little truth.”

“Woman, give me your little truth!” I said. And thus spoke the old woman:

“You go to women? Do not forget the whip!”

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

War of the sexes, 20

Update: The 30 entries of this series have now been revised and can be read more comfortably from the beginning in a printable PDF (click: 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 30 entries of this series have now been revised and can be read more comfortably from the beginning in a printable PDF (click: 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, 17

Update: The 30 entries of this series have now been revised and can be read more comfortably from the beginning in a printable PDF (click: here).

______ 卐 ______

 

Solutions

 
turd-flinging-monkey
Apropos the traditionalism cycle, in his fourth video about “solutions” the blogger says that the current feminist stage simply cannot get back to the stage of humane patriarchy, that he calls soft patriarchy. The pendulum has swung so far to the left that it will come swinging violently to the far right, towards brutal patriarchy. This is exactly what we have said in one of the most popular posts of this blog, “Lycanthropy,” and you can see it visually if you pay attention to the arrow at the bottom of the blogger’s triangle. He also predicts what I’ve been saying in my books about the rape of the Sabine women.

But brutal patriarchy is not the solution. It is a harsh stage not only for women but for most men. In polygamous societies women are monopolized by a few alpha males (matriarchy is bad for every single male). It is the Aristotelian golden mean what whites must strive for, the humane patriarchy of the Jane Austen world. It may still be a gynocentric society but males are in charge. It is the world that I knew as a small child: and is the same world that my parents, grandparents and great-grandfathers lived in.

In his video the blogger says that in this society there must be marriage because this institution avoids tournament mating by the alphas. The Austen world is a pair-bonding society. Soft patriarchy is the lesser of the three evils of the cycle as illustrated in the triangle. Women obey. The blogger disagrees with those vindictive fantasies in the manosphere to remain in the brutal stage so that women may be “sold like cattle.” This is a passage from the poem Goetterdaemmerung:

For England or Iceland,
Byzantium, Vinland,
Far land or ancient
And ripe for the plunder,
The burning of roof-trees,
The seizing of women,
The tooting of treasure,
The flowing of red blood,
And wine for the victors.

Presently, in our Empire of the yin, the mores are exactly the polar opposite from those times when white women were sold like cattle. In our times, the blogger says, the problem is not the unchanging female nature but the government, the laws and the liberal zeitgeist. I would add the influence of the Jews in the media, Hollywood and the universities.

In the Aryan ethnostate women won’t be treated as slaves but like a father treats his child. Never empower children to the point of enacting laws against toothbrushes or having free candy! “Feminism at its very core” says the blogger “is exactly the same as having a spoiled child.” Every time the child makes a tantrum we buy him or her a toy. “And the kid turns into a spoiled brat. That is what feminism is. Society has given women everything they wanted, and now they’re spoiled old brats.”

The blogger comments that he has seen videos in the manosphere claiming that women are evil. He counters that that is only true if we consider that spoiled children are evil. When women are under our control they behave reasonably well. By empowering them they become bad but neither they nor the children are intrinsically evil: they should simply be controlled. It’s only when women are left to their own devices that they do become bad. Our goal should be to treat our spouses as we treat children. However, it must be pointed out that even these patriarchal societies are gynocentric—even the super-Yang Sparta was gynocentric!

Gynocentrism has reigned but presently women are not only out of control. Many are indeed evil. Just see those pictures of spoiled European women with pickets welcoming migrants with skin of the color of shit saying, “Better rapists than racists!”

The blogger is concerned that a soft form of patriarchy could last only a hundred years. He fears that even with protections and education feminism will come back (again, see the arrows of the triangle). The new generations can fall again to the original sin, superbia. They will think they know better and will throw all accumulated wisdom out of the window, as it has happened before. (Remember the imposition of Christianity on all white peoples that destroyed the pagan temples, the statues of Aryan beauty and burnt the Greco-Roman libraries.) The blogger says that when this is about to happen again—when our wives start whining and complaining (e.g., in the ethnostate) that the storm is over and they want the right to vote, we must tell them angrily: “Fuck you! Go on your knees and suck my dick!”

We must convey a most emphatic “No!” as if they were brats making a tantrum. “Children and women are just incapable to understand these abstract concepts”. They don’t know what is good for them in the long run. The key for a functional ethnostate is to keep authority outside the reach not only of Jews, but of women alike.

War of the sexes, 16

Update: The 30 entries of this series have now been revised and can be read more comfortably from the beginning in a printable PDF (click: here).

______ 卐 ______

 

“The desire for equality becomes more and
more insatiable as equality increases.”

—Alexis de Tocqueville

 
turd-flinging-monkeyIn his “Guide to feminism” the blogger explains that the first wave of feminism was women’s suffrage; the second wave equal pay, and the third wave hatred of patriarchy. He reminds us that, once women were “liberated” in those three waves, they never accepted responsibilities like going to war to risk their skin: they merely demanded “rights” —a Newspeak term that in Oldspeak means exactly the opposite: privileges. The blogger defines feminism as “a hypocritical ideology for mentally-retarded children with penis envy that resent their biological inferiority and would never be satisfied no matter how much legal, political, social and economic superiority is granted to them over men.”

The feminist epitomes the Orwellian sentence that everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. Affirmative action was not enough for her: like the coloreds she now wants equality of income and equality of opportunities. To boot, through the divorce courts the feminist is oppressing men, in addition to pushing for an exception of the law regarding her claims of rape: men must be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Presently, as we are continuing to pander or going along with her desires, the West is heading toward the cliff. Imagine for a minute forcing gender quotas on a basketball team or in one of those international chess tournaments formed by four boards each nation. These hypothetical teams of males with females, whether they compete for physical or intellectual ability, would lose big time in the real world.

Let’s think about de Tocqueville’s epigraph above. My working hypothesis is that Christian ethics is the devil of the white race. Given the Christian insistence of regarding all souls as “equal in the eyes of God,” cognitive dissonance has been the axis of the escalation of both anti-racism and Western feminism. Races and genders are unequal. But because of the laws of cognitive dissonance, the liberal mindset is condemned to escalate egalitarianism as reality never stops fact-checking the liberal.

The blogger says: “Women are biologically inferior to men and they know it even when they deny it.” I would add that only by falling into an ever-amplifying downward spiral of male bashing the feminist is able, through the mental gymnastics of cognitive dissonance, to self-bamboozle herself into believing that they are just equal to us.

War of the sexes, 12

Update: The 30 entries of this series have now been revised and can be read more comfortably from the beginning in a printable PDF (click: here).

______ 卐 ______

 

Are men superior to women?

 
turd-flinging-monkey
Those who design computer games depict warrior women as faster than robust men. The same with Hollywood. Remember one of the films of the Matrix trilogy? The black actress who plays Niobe is the best pilot of a Zion hovercraft. In reality women are slower. Men are not only stronger but faster, including reflexes.

The same with intelligence. I used to be a chess player. Generally, the sexes are separated in chess tournaments. Even those female child prodigies in China trained to become chess masters are no match for male grandmasters. (By the way, the 2016 world chess championship is scheduled to start this November 11 in New York City between Magnus Carlsen and challenger Sergey Karjakin: two male whites.)

The same can be said about the careers of physics, mathematics and computing. Men perform far better. The System’s solution? The blogger does not mention race but what is being done with the fair sex is exactly what is done with the niggers: “lower the math standard for women.” That is the official policy in the universities. Once again, Hollywood brainwashes us with poisonous films like Starship Troopers where the main characters, Johnny Rico and his girlfriend Carmen Ibañez, travel in a spaceship to conquer a bug planet. Johnny had obtained low math grades and has to work as a mere infantryman while the smarter Carmen got high math grades, obtaining a job to pilot a starship.

Independently of this shameful inversion of reality in Hollywood and computer games, the blogger says that emotional intelligence is bullshit, that it does not exist. But I agree with Schopenhauer on this point, that “women never see anything but what is closest to them. To consult women when you are in difficulties, as the ancient Teutons did, is by no means a bad idea: for their way of looking at things is quite different from ours, especially in their propensity for keeping in view the shortest road to a desired goal and in general what lies closest to hand, which we usually overlook precisely because it is right in front of our noses”.

The blogger continues to say that the only way that women can win against men is if the system is rigged, exactly what is happening now with the 2016 US election. Sean Hannity is virtually alone in the entire media to openly support Donald Trump!

In his video the blogger has concluded that men are superior to women not only physically but mentally. In a follow-up video, “Men are smarter than women,” he adds that he received critics for his prior video even from the manosphere. He refutes the argument of deceiving IQ studies conducted by dishonest egalitarians showing that pubescent girls score better than boys of the same age. The dirty trick consists that girls reach physical maturity before boys, something that is reflected in IQ studies of the span of puberty where girls score better. But they reach their maximum brain volume at 10.5 years, and boys at 14. (“The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and more slowly does it mature. The man attains the maturity of his reasoning powers and spiritual faculties hardly before his twenty-eight year; the woman with her eighteenth” —Schopenhauer.) Adult men have a brain ten percent larger than women, and five more points of IQ (again, the antiracist blogger simply ignores IQ studies among the races). In the case of those humans who reach the Himalayas of IQ, say from 140 to 160, they are all males. “In conclusion, men are smarter than women, period.”

I would add that we men are not only physically and intellectually superior, but morally (honor, nobility) as well—and thus objectively superior.

But like white nationalists MGTOWers are still plugged in the Matrix of political correctness. Remember the hysterical fuss at The Daily Stormer that Andrew Anglin suffered for stating the obvious about women? Exactly the same happened to this blogger in the manosphere community. In a follow-up video, “False stereotypes,” the blogger says that in the comments sections of his YouTube channel he was accused of incredible claims: that he was probably gay; an ugly fellow incapable of getting laid; an unredeemable misogynist who lived in his mom’s basement, etcetera. All false, ad hoc stereotypes coming from those who cannot stand hard facts.

Still in another follow-up, “Men are smarter than women 2,” the blogger responds to another tactic from utterly dismayed viewers: the denial of the validity of the science of sexual dimorphism.

anas_platyrhynchos

Natural science impossible to refute:
male and female mallards. The male mallard
has an unmistakable green head.

In this follow-up video the blogger responds to a feminist that made a career in so-called gender studies. The woman claimed that men have larger brains because the brains are proportionate to their larger bodies in general. The blogger counters with the fact that even children have more cranial capacity than girls, and the same can be said about adults: the difference between the male and the female brains is of the size of a soup bar. Liberals want us to believe that this has zero relevance for their egalitarian dogma.

The blogger then mentions a crude test for cranial size that we could use at home: measuring tape around the heads of family males and females. But as the staunch antiracist he is, the blogger fails to present the perfect argument. Even tall and robust, muscular niggers have a smaller brain size than skinny Caucasians!

So far for the proportional argument that the feminist used. Finally, remember once more Schopenhauer’s wise words about the fair sex:

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, “Man”.

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of his life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy.

In another video, “Women are children,” the blogger implies that today’s westerners are slaves of the egalitarian dogma: a dogma they pursue independently of the data we can gather from nature. Gender equality simply cannot be enforced in the real world, and he concludes his video with the words “Women will always be children.”

On women’s lib

by F. Roger Devlin

 
SexualUtopiaCoverWhen I began writing and talking about sex in racialist circles a few years ago, even some very intelligent people did not understand the relevance of what I was saying to their concerns. The relevance is, of course, that races reproduce sexually. Feminism in all its aspects is as much an attack on our race as Boasian egalitarian dogma, and the same struggle must be waged against both.

Like the Soviet Union of old, the contemporary West is a regime built upon lies, and cannot survive once those lies are brought into open and general contempt.

Published in: on December 30, 2015 at 11:41 pm  Comments (4)  

Hamlet vs. Harold

Hamlet-1948

Harold Covington’s novel The Hill of the Ravens is dedicated “To those who shall come after: from the time of struggle, we greet you.”

According to the internal narrative of the story, The Hill of the Ravens is the fourth book of the Northwest Quintet, though it’s the first novel of the Quintet that Covington wrote.

The Ten Principles of National Socialist Thought on pages 187-89 are a gem, of which I’ll excerpt just a few lines:

I. National Socialism above all represents living truth in its purest form

III. No one must be allowed to spoil what Nature created down through aeons of racial evolution. Your highest purpose in life is to carry on that evolution toward a stronger, better, more beautiful mankind

VIII. Every aspect of life must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race; anything hindering these attainments must be ruthlessly rooted out and destroyed

X. Where there is a will, there is a way. Everything falls before the man of indomitable will. Suffering and sacrifice are necessary. We are hardening ourselves for the most decisive struggle in all human history.

These noble principles for elemental racial preservation explain a dialogue on page 278: “‘You a Nazi sir?’ ‘I am’.”

As long as we cannot openly say in the West that we are Nazis, the West, and especially the US (“the fount and wellspring of all that is evil in our time”—page 110) will be suicidal.

Consider principle III, “Every aspect of life must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race; anything hindering these attainments must be ruthlessly rooted out and destroyed.” Compare its living truth to what’s happening to whites.

Throughout the West white birthrates have suffered a catastrophic decline. During this same period, ours has become the most sex-obsessed society in history. As Roger Devlin has demonstrated, these two trends are related. This is what The Hill of the Ravens, page 103, says: “The whole history of our race and our culture tells us that when women of child-bearing age remain unmarried and babies aren’t being born, then that is a sign that something is gravely wrong.” Principle III explains why in the novel’s Day of the Rope right after the revolution, mixed couples, mostly white women and their beasts of pleasure are targeted for destruction.

But not only the blood mixers got what they deserved in Covington’s novel. The traitorous media is beautifully handled. Reporters and media personnel were declared enemy combatants and legitimate military targets. Once the traitors understood that they would be held personally responsible for the content of their reportage, all of a sudden they got restrained. “They would either see the Party’s point of view, or else they’d see me.”

This said, The Hill of the Ravens has a fatal flaw.

On page 253 envious Covington depicts William Pierce as a Fed informant (see full article on this subject: here). Since his younger years Covington has built a fame of defaming his comrades, starting with Ben Klassen.

I have read most of Covington’s Quintet about the creation of a White Republic and found most of it inspiring. But Covington’s character flaw strongly reminds me the epigraph that Laurence Oliver chose for the beginning of his 1948 adaptation of Hamlet:

So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

On sexual lib

socalled liberation

Never forget the sexual side of the destruction of the white race. Below, “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide,” a Roger Devlin address given at The Occidental Quarterly Editor’s Dinner on October 30, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia.



What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream.

But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime?

The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.

Feminism

wlp_bas_relief

Excerpted from a 1996 interview
with William Pierce by Kevin Strom:

 
Feminism is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem. But when a society begins to decay—when the men lose their self-confidence—then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it’s a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it’s a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman’s primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It’s not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It’s based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we’re all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There’s no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I’m not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I’m not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there’ll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won’t have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m not so optimistic as to believe that I’ll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there’s a very good chance we’re going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It’s not simply a matter of our deciding that we don’t like Mother Nature’s plan because it’s not fashionable any longer, and so we’ll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can’t change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there’s hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women.

It’s true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for normal men and women.

What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children.

If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes about feminism being fashionable.

Published in: on July 3, 2015 at 10:03 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: