Edwin’s arrows


 

On Guillaume Faye

Guillaume Faye outlines a compelling vision to the immigration problem in the last chapter of his book Archeo-Futurism. This is presented in the form of a utopian dream, and should be seen in part as a reaction against the doom and gloom despair of the French New Right. I might also add that fiction has the added utility of allowing a French writer to advocate more extreme solutions and avoid hate speech laws.

The basic narrative is straightforward enough, if short on details. Sometime in the mid-twenty first century, due to a series of environmental disasters and resource shortages, Europe is plunged into a series of internecine wars. America is gripped in an endless series of race riots and is unable to help. Into this chaos, Russia sends an army of liberators to restore order.

What follows afterwards is reminiscent of the more visceral moments of William Pierce’s Turner Diaries. Native Europeans regain a sense of their identity. A Nietzschean hypermorality is realized. The vast majority of non-whites are summarily liquidated over the course of a few months. The handful of non-white survivors are forcibly shipped en masse to the remote island of Madagascar.

A new European Imperium is created out of the ashes of the Old Europe. Picture an empire with explicit inequality enshrined in law, an agrarian paradise with a small bureaucratic elite lording over a continent of hobbits. Faye is obviously borrowing heavily from the American writer Francis Parker Yockey.

Curiously, Faye is dismissive of America, seeing it as a separate entity—culturally, spiritually, historically—from Europe. Indeed, America is seen as an occupying power, imposing its grotesque lifestyle and values on Europeans. It could even be said that a new European Renaissance requires the death of everything American, including America itself. I sense a certain amount of schadenfreude in Faye when he describes an American continent in a state of mass starvation with race riots in every major city.

But who can blame Faye in wanting to write off America as a lost cause? The white nationalists have a far more nebulous ephemeral definition of identity than their European ancestors (i.e., if a man gets a stamp certifying his whiteness then he is my brother is how your average WN reasons). Then there is the feminism, the patriotards, the rock music, the culture, the greed, the degeneracy, the conservatives… the problems never seem to end.

Faye is dead wrong, however, on the Jewish question. He regards the Jews as a part of the European social fabric and is a rabid supporter of Israel. Just like Jared Taylor, Faye believes that European Jewry will come around to his way of thinking. Indeed, Jews are a well integrated minority in Faye’s Imperium. This is simply unacceptable.

Just as problematic is Faye’s biological concept of a European. It’s clear in his writings that he makes no distinction between North and South, Mediterranean or Nordic, Germanic or Slav. Faye would have you believe that very limited racial mixing has taken place in Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Just close your eyes and pretend that all the Europeans living from Lisbon to Vladisvostok are pure White. Of course many white nationalists share this delusion. In Europe, the sand nigger from Malta, Norman Lowell and the Finn, Kai Murros, peddle similar nonsense.

What to make of Faye? I am rather ambivalent here. Not a good writer or a bad writer. His ideas need to be taken with a ton of salt.
 

On Tom Sunic

There is a distinct dualism in Sunic. An abyss between the radical and respectable that is not easily reconcilable.

There is Sunic as the erudite scholar, translator and academic. His two books Against Democracy and Equality and Homo Americanus are the most eloquent critiques of America from a European New Right perspective I have read. There is a sense of nobility, aristocracy, refinement, taste, beauty and greatness. I must admit that it was Sunic who first introduced me to the potency of National Socialist scholarship; and the importance of incorporating pre-Christian pre-Socratic pagan writings in European consciousness. Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with him as a writer.

Then there is Sunic as the political imbecile. The man who promotes the path of “non-violence”, of kosher country club reactionary conservatism, of democratic demagoguery, of “taking back” the US, of endless qualifications, of the lowest common denominator, of outright craven cowardice: the American Freedom Party.
 

On Arthur Kemp

Kemp is the most outspoken public figure I noticed who advocates the desperate Orania-style solution (isolated Aryan outposts) in his book Nova Europa: European Survival Strategies.

Kemp’s solution is only viable if you agree with Alain de Benoist and much of the French New Right (Faye excluded) that it’s far too late to achieve any success through revolutionary party politics; that some sort of political accommodation with the hordes of non-whites now invading Europe like a swarm of locusts will have to be made.

I read the above mentioned book after being very impressed by March of the Titans. I came away bitterly disappointed. He’s actually one of the few men out there who has an accurate view of history yet he won’t fight.
 

On WN feminists

They accept every single triumph of the left on the woman question as a fait accompli. Covington is a prime example of this.
 

On Johnson et al

Johnson, Spencer, Sunic and other white nationalists retain traces of conservatism, a belief that a perfect argument exists that can convince Whites to suddenly “wake up”; that the correct presentation of the “facts”, on whatever issue, will make a difference to the wider culture at large; that only ignorance has prevented otherwise decent and level headed Whites from taking action thus far. Hence, the endless multiplication of essays, speeches and conferences. The post-modern radical suffers from a singular blindness: that action and words are the same thing.

The problem with Johnson and others of similar ilk is that they think winning can be done without a drop of blood being spilled. No one needs to dirty his hands by engaging in street politics. No one needs to get hurt. No one needs to die. All that is needed is a quiet infiltration of the existing institutions with men sympathetic to our views, and a bloodless counter-revolution will happen.

White survival can only be properly understood as a war, without any rules of conduct. We are not dealing with an opponent that understands the concept of fair play. There will be no smooth transition of power. Should it not be obvious by now that all pro-white groups active in America are harmless?
 

On Francis Parker Yockey

Yockey, like Julius Evola, held to a spiritual conception of race which he believed to be more important than the biological. Already in the 30s he observed white Americans behaving like blacks and Jews. He did not object to clever non-whites immigrating to America as long as they assimilated into white society.

Imperium is a clever eloquent mish-mash of Lamark, Spengler, Schmitt, Haushofer, National Socialism, and even trace elements of Catholic Scholasticism. Yockey wanted to “prove” that a “Germanic” European aristocratic element existed within America. He is not your garden variety white nationalist patriotard (hence his popularity), but the book is a failure.

But I agree with you: universalist religions like Christianity have no use for a purely biological conception of race. White Nationalists are deluded in this and Linder is correct that one must choose a side.
 

On Revilo Oliver

I take two important lessons from Oliver that most white nationalists would do well to heed:

1) A contempt for everything supernatural and conspiratorial. There is no “god” out there looking after the interests of Whites and ready to rescue them at the last moment. There is nothing written on the stars or in the book of life that says Whites must survive. Whites are as beholden to the laws of the universe as all the other animals. And the universe does not know “mercy” when confronted with degeneracy. (Some white nationalists envision a “Mad Max” scenario in which a system collapse presages a mass racial “awakening”. But this assumption is without hard evidence and a mass extinction is just as likely. That is, no political movement can guarantee victory.)

2) A disgust for the ordinary White American, the “ordinary Joe”. Whites are to be saved for sake of the handful who are wise, beautiful, noble, and strong. The white working class has no value apart from the few who are culture creators; they are to be treated as raw material by those who lead. To put it bluntly: most whites are not intellectually or physically impressive.

In my view, white nationalists should see Oliver as a source of inspiration. Will this happen? I highly doubt it.
 

On women

Reading this article reminds me of a passage written by William G. Simpson in his book, Towards the Rising Sun:

There is hardly one man in a thousand who will not put aside his ideals, his highest vision, everything which for him is God, in order to get the girl he loves or to be able to stay with the girl he has married. Moreover, there are all the ways which the wiles of woman have with a man. Nietzsche said, “Women always intrigue privately against the higher souls of their husbands,” and as a generalization his statement is true. And such must most women be.

For, again speaking generally, the instinct in man is to create, and the instinct in woman is to procreate. She is more physical than man, lives closer to the earth, and, naturally and justly since to her is committed the continuation of the race, once she is with child she is almost certain to be overwhelmed with a veritable tidal wave of sheer biological concern for security. And a reasonable degree of security both she and the child ought to have. And if you as would-be creator feel that you cannot do your work and provide that security, then you had better simply refrain from marrying.

Sadly, the numerous absurdities written by women and their male sycophants in the white nationalist movement to rationalize (encourage) weakness does not inspire much confidence.

A man’s focus is to create. A woman’s focus is to procreate. Nietzsche said, “Practically all problems a woman encounters can be solved by one solution: pregnancy.”

Of course we can imagine outliers or exceptions. Savitri Devi is known to have written: “I cannot love any man that chooses me over his ideals.” But Linder is correct in writing somewhere that such women are one in a hundred thousand…
 

On overmen

Nietzschean morality requires that superior men surrender all hope of personal gain for the sake of the cause: fame, money, wealth, respectability, hope for an afterlife, even a normal family life if need be. If they can die for the cause, living in penury if need be is mild by comparison. The German Idealists already pointed out that sincere authentic “virtue” requires a man to have no possibility for personal gain. Otherwise, what is the whole point of this struggle if whites merely end up as spiritual semites (inner Jews)?

Very few American Whites grasp this. Pierce and David Lane being the notable exceptions.

War of the sexes, 28

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 enemy of men

 
turd-flinging-monkeyThe nature of us males is the subject of a series of videos that the blogger titled “The enemies of men.” He starts by saying that there is no chivalry in the animal kingdom. We can imagine what would happen if a lioness attacked an adult lion in the wild. Only the bonobos and the humans behave deferentially toward physically abusive females, even when we are stronger.

A common cognitive mistake in our gynocentric society is the belief that women are masters of manipulation. “No, they’re not” responds the blogger. They didn’t plan the current status quo. “Our gynocentric society is the result of men oppressing other men [my emphasis] in order to pander to women for themselves. We are our worst enemy.”

Exactly, and I would add that our Judeo-liberal society is the result of whites oppressing whites in order to pander to the system for themselves. If women can vote it was because men competed among themselves and made a diabolical alliance with Eve’s serpent. Neither Jews nor women but we are our worst enemy. Analogously, for the blogger gynocentrism is enforced by us. “We men are our own jailers.”

Even after taking the red pill, the blogger claims, we are still slaves of our own biology (remember Sparks’ phrase “the sperm and its slave, the male body which produced it” in the fourth installment of this series). He illustrates his point by explaining the aspects of male nature that make us our enemies.

First, there is the instinct of domination. The blogger does not mention it, but this instinct is especially nasty among Aryans. Those bellicose Scandinavians could have easily conquered this continent and wipe out the Mongolid-American population that had crossed the Bering Strait, but they chose to fight among themselves. (In his table talks Hitler complains that this intra-racial bellicosity was only tamed with Charlemagne.) The blogger also fails to mention it, but Nordics have a more pronounced sexual dimorphism than Mediterraneans: something that explains a lot of their behavior. Aryan individualism also explains why Germany took so many centuries to become a nation.

Back to the blogger. If we want to overcome the gynocentric system the instinct of domination stands in our way. By inciting alphas to fight among themselves this instinct makes room for the gynocencrat betas. But the instinct of dominion has a luminous side. It is only a matter of how to tap its energy. In our times the right way, I would say, is through fascist militarism where upward mobility is available for the bellicose alphas.

For the blogger male dominance is equivalent to female hypergamy. We can understand human nature through both of them: the psychological aspects of survival and reproduction. By shaming the alpha males society has tamed its dominance instinct.

The most common tactic to attack MGTOW is shaming (remember once more the white nationalist hysteria at the comments section of The Daily Stormer when Anglin dared to debunk feminism). What separates MGTOW from the other anti-feminist groups is that they don’t care what women think. Most of the guys at the manosphere, says the blogger, are still looking for external validation. It is through shaming that the betas and the women control alpha males. The role that such system assigns us is humiliating madness (think of white girls sucking black dicks at this very moment), and even so Aryan men comply in search for external validation. “Not giving a shit is the secret to a happy life” says the blogger, who in one of these videos we learn that he served in Iraq. The war experiences helped him realize that the feminists used to give white feathers to white men and many took the shaming seriously to the point of going to war to get killed or maimed.

The ego that avoids public shaming by complying with the feminized system is thus another enemy of white males. The blogger illustrates his plain definition of “ego” by pointing out that skeptics are very good to debunk, say, paranormal claims. But once you put egalitarianism on the table, the secular skeptics make the sign of the cross and go into “immediate retards.” They become as believers of the irrational cult of equality as the Judeo-Christian religion they criticize.

Why do the skeptics have a blind spot, the blogger asks. Because they identify their egos with the egalitarian ideology that has been inculcated in their minds since their tender years, and it would be a blow to their egos to place their cherished ideology on the dock—precisely what the blogger himself fails to do regarding the scientific racism that he so vehemently rejects. “The problem is the ego” says the blogger. The ego is exactly what has him and those pseudo-rationalists who reject racism trapped in a cognitive jail.

But the blogger has a point in the final video of his series “The enemies of men,” the one devoted to the male sex drive. It is precisely our sexual drive the most dangerous factor within us. This revelation, uncommon even in the manosphere, moved me to reproduce this series.

caperuzaBefore puberty we didn’t think obsessively about women; we had other interests. After puberty the sexual drive overwhelms our psyche. Mother nature tricks us: the most primitive layer of our brain starts sending us signals to feel tremendous hunger of little reds ridding hoods. The blogger mentions fascinating scientific studies demonstrating that human males have a sexual drive about ten times stronger than the human females. During adolescence we start taking seriously the validation that the opposite sex offers to us. We are hardwired to be nice to beautiful girls, even when we are not thinking in sex.

Dominion and hunger of little reds have to do with survival and reproduction. But such a tremendous impulse has a dark side. Pandering to women in search for sex created the climate for universal suffrage. In 1869 in Wyoming the madness started. It was the first state that granted women the right to vote. There were six thousand men and only a thousand women. Bachelor men were feeling lonely. To attract women from other states they offered them the right to vote. For the blogger, women’s suffrage in 19th century America was the equivalent of Jewish emancipation in France for white nationalists: the origin of the tragedy. It started when sexually-starved white males wanted to get laid. Our lust destroyed civilization.

The blogger, who apparently is in his thirties, invites us to remember the rosary of imbecilities we have committed when the sex drive was behind the wheel in our respective biographies. He adds that we are only about 30 percent a bonding species, and 70 percent tournament species, and reminds us how in the past we went to war to kill the males and rape any little red we fancied. “This was part of the tournament.” Obviously, men were the primordial victims of such wars, as girls were too precious creatures for the wolves’ needs.

Nature made man inherently more disposable than women due to the dynamics of sexual reproduction. But it also made men, due to their disposability, bigger, stronger, smarter, etcetera. You see this in sexually dimorphic species, like the peacock.

Male peacocks are so beautiful not only to attract the female, but to divert the attention of the predators away from the rather invisible female. The peacock’s feathers are like our superiority. Think of the amazing constellation of male artists that the white race has produced. That’s why, says the blogger, when we embrace egalitarianism we are breaking the equilibrium, as almost all dimorphic species are patriarchal. Finally, the solution would be to clone, in an industrial scale, the cutest little reds we salivate for in order to artificially create the magic of male scarcity.

This last video soon got 120,000 hits, “by far the most viewed video of all time” said the blogger. In a follow-up he responds to the criticism of one of his phrases, that “men don’t need women.” Commenters complained that sex is a need, that we guys really need it. The blogger replies that we don’t need sex to live, and as an example he mentions the monks.

Conversely, as to the question “do women need men?” He answers: “Yes!” because the government is the man. It’s the taxes what artificially allows these spoiled women to make a living in addition to the male police, the military, etc. If all of these institutions disappeared women would start to die. Unlike sex, those are real necessities. This is so in spite of the fact that “men marry women; men have relationships with women because they are getting their asses.”

The blogger tells us that in the manosphere the subject of men’s nature is not discussed. His pals spend their time discussing women’s nature. But if we don’t know ourselves we won’t solve the problem. That has been the goal of this series: know thyself.

Always remember: “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster” (Sun Tzu). The blogger ends his video with the plea that we must not allow that our sex drive reduces our lives to ruins. We gotta be conscious of our base instincts! Autobiographically, I will try to expand this premise in From St Francis to Himmler.

Published in: on November 17, 2016 at 1:57 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags:

War of the sexes, 24

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 ______

 

“Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it.”

—Schopenhauer

 
turd-flinging-monkeyCommenters of the blogger’s channel often complain that Not All Women Are Like That (NWALT). He counters that the exceptions prove the rule. The blogger then advances a good litmus test to those women who claim they are traditional gals and anti-feminists: Why don’t you fight to abolish marriage rape laws?

In the last entry I labeled the blogger a degenerate. In “Guide to WALT” he says that the reason guys are taking refuge in videogames and porn is the high risk involved in dealing with today’s women: you can be accused of rape and then obliged to prove your innocence. Presently, the word of a woman is so sacred that it means you are presumed guilty.

Regarding NWALT women, those who still comply to real traditionalism, they generally come from very religious backgrounds, where you have to actively work for your own salvation. But most women don’t take religion as seriously as to fear in eternal damnation. Their hypergamy program, which is hardwired, takes control. They always want to get into a higher caste or social group, discarding their husbands. Remember that hypergamy = materialism + opportunism + selfishness. All women have the potentiality to act on their hypergamy program at any time. “Once the woman gets married she can use the State in order to extract the resources from her husband and she has no incentive to continue to be a NWALT.”

In “Regarding hypergamy and generalizations” the blogger continues to defend himself against the accusations in the comments section of his videos. He is being accused of making broad generalizations and the commenters claim that it is a logical fallacy. He counters by giving a speech on statistics showing, again, that the exception confirms the rule.

He then uses a cartoon of a couple under the shadow of a tree, the girl saying: “I’ll love you forever and ever until something better comes along or I get bored.” In other words, women are always looking for an ever better deal. He adds that since the 1940s the polls show that women have confessed that wealth is the fundamental factor that attracts them to men. In a more recent poll, no single woman wanted to get married with a man who made less money than her. This proves that we are wired very differently: we don’t care the least bit about how much they make a year. In fact, we would rather she doesn’t make a penny, so we may have within our property the little riding hood of our dreams.

The blogger claims that stats also show that women are more capable to cheat on their husbands (I would have to check and see if he got his statistics alright) and adds: “There is no morality in nature [cheating, opportunity, etc.], only survival.”

Taking of being wired in different ways, he says we even have a different set of values. We men are interested in justice. Women are prepared to dispatch justice for what is convenient for them and the family (caring). “You cannot rule a society based on ‘contextual justice’,” the Newspeak term that the feminists use.

In a nutshell, women are more selfish than men. See Schopen’s epigraph above. The blogger concludes: “She deserves that money because she is a woman; because you have it, because she needs it more than you.”

Published in: on November 13, 2016 at 7:29 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

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, 20

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

______ 卐 ______

 

The case for patriarchy

 
turd-flinging-monkeyWe have seen that the patriarchal society is the only kind of society that, in the long run, can be functional. Society degenerates in proportion of abandoning the patriarchal model. To no avail, I have told white nationalists many times that they must widen their optics from a perspective to a meta-perspective of white decline. For example, the fact that the Iberians polluted their blood in the peninsula and in the Americas when their Inquisition targeted crypto-Jews proves that there is an Aryan problem in addition to the Jewish problem. No monocausal nationalist has answered this challenge honestly.

We could say something analogous disregarding the old story Spain and Portugal: present-day Japan. With no Jewish press they are committing demographic suicide. While they are not importing masses of coloreds into their island, the blogger says that Japan will also face collapse. Like the deranged West, the Japanese government is pandering the women through welfare programs. In his video “Women will not save Japan” the blogger says that the Japanese women won’t ever consent any reform, even facing a demographic winter.

The West is in far worse shape. Ant-racism, anti-whitism and feminism have reached maddening proportions. Women have become so toxic that white men are pretending to be eunuchs. In “She will never love you too” the blogger responds to a common objection: “Men are just as bad as women. They just want a woman for her body, which means they don’t love women either.” He responds: “No: You are your body” in the sense that we love women directly, not indirectly (economic resources and protection). I have observed how in the lives of cousins of my age the wives are the ones who have applied for divorces taking away their houses and children, while my cousins continue to love them.

In another video, “The case for patriarchy,” the blogger addresses two common objections:

Objection 1. The moral or fairness argument: Patriarchy oppresses women; it is unfair.

Before answering this argument we have to ask a question: Are the sexes equal? The blogger recapitulates what we have seen before. In his video he inserts diagrams of human skulls showing the dimorphism between men and women. The male skull is taller and stronger and its brain larger and denser. This is reflected in his higher IQ.

This is so because in barbarous times the alpha male had his harem. Civilization tamed him through the institution of marriage. In tournament species the strong has the power on reproduction and controls the society of that species. If the dimorphic species is controlled by the female, and here the blogger reproduces a photo of a queen bee, we have a matriarchal society: the queen controls reproduction. If the dimorphic species is controlled by the male, the king of the tribe controls it. In our species sexual dimorphism shows that Aryans were biologically predestined to form a patriarchal society (see also William Pierce’s Who We Are).

Brainwashed normies usually reply to our rhetorical question Are the sexes equal? with platitudes like “Everyone should be treated equally” or “Everyone should have equal rights.” The blogger replies that treating people equally doesn’t mean that they are equal and that “rights” is a legal concept, not one observed in Nature. If men are wired biologically to be the protectors and the providers of the family that means that we do the primordial thing. The blogger comments that the sexes are drastically unequal in their contributions to society. Giving birth? He mentions the extreme example that a woman in a comma state gave birth to a baby. Like the Spartans, we do the really hard work.

Since the 1970s the patriarchal authority of the man has been destroyed and handed over women, even the custody of children. The result is the collapse of fertility of the white peoples (and the Japanese). “Whichever sex controls reproduction controls the family and thus controls society.” In sharp contrast to thousands of years of history and prehistory, presently a matriarchy is imposed throughout the West.

Objection 2. The economic or practical argument.

France was the cradle of modern egalitarianism. But the spear-head of feminist movements initiated in the 19th century in the United States, according to the blogger. Then the US 1963 “Equal pay” Act was copied by the English in 1970. But women will never be equal to males. Sexual dimorphism favors the male in humans. This is why, when men are allowed to compete physically or intellectually with women, like in sports or chess, they usually win. “Since equal opportunity favors men, the only way to achieve gender equality is to tear them down.” Eventually men are going to be tired of this perverse game. “This is the inevitable result of the feminist matriarchy. By attacking men and tear them down to the level of women, the society is attacking its own foundation.”

Like me, the blogger hopes that a new society will be born after the ashes of the present one.

War of the sexes, 17

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 ______

 

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 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 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, 15

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 ______

 

“Winter is Coming”

—1st episode of the 1st season
of Game of Thrones

 
My view about western history has, at its axis, the raciology and histories of the white race from Gobineau to Kemp. Race may be the primary factor, but there are other forces as explained in my approach to psychohistory and now with the blogger’s traditionalism cycle. If, at least partially, the blogger’s philosophy of history is right, the implications are enormous for us racists. In this and the next couple of entries I’ll try to explain some details of the previous post.

 
The magic of male scarcity

turd-flinging-monkeyIn his video “The magic of male scarcity” the blogger says that after those wars in which most males die, the scarcity of men produces patriarchy, as women can do no hard work nor train for the next war. In this post-war scenario a man may have three or four women at his disposal; he could even get rid of three of them. A mere ten percent of men could control ninety percent of women. A woman’s blows are scratch, while a single punch from one of us knockouts her, the blogger says.

One or two generations after a devastating war the numerical balance between the males and the females is restored. But gynocentrism is not necessarily restored. The blogger repeats what he has said in other videos: gynocentrism is not an instinct but a cultural choice. He speculates that women in the 1950s were under control due to the deaths of the Second World War, though the soft patriarchy of the 50s lasted only a decade. Then came the baby-boomer generation and the second feminist wave. If a Third World War comes “all those feminists will be sucking our dicks just to know the taste of it.”

That’s the magic of male scarcity. Conversely, the blogger adds that a society that is fifty percent of each sex is incredibly gynocentric, as men compete for the women and the latter become choosy to the highest bidder (our species is a mixture of tournament species and pair-bonding species). On the other hand, in a society with few males women have to compete with other women about who among them will be taken under the protecting wings of the brute: their market value has been cheapened by the scarcity of males.

“Feminism itself is a luxury,” says the blogger. “It doesn’t exist in poor countries, for a reason. In each so-called feminist wave it lasts until the next war causes the male population to become scarce. Male scarcity is the key, and it is inevitable” —inevitable in the sense that Winter is coming throughout the West.

Published in: on November 5, 2016 at 11:56 am  Comments (14)  
Tags: ,

War of the sexes, 14

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 traditionalism cycle

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.”

—Oscar Wilde

The reason that I initiated this series with excerpts from John Spark’s book on the science of animal sexuality is that it is the basis to understand human sexuality. The blogger seems to agree: “In order to understand society one must understand reproduction and sexual dimorphism.” In both animals and humans patriarchy is a system in which the males have the power, not the females. Power here means which gender controls reproduction and the resources of the species.

We have seen in Sparks’ excerpts something that we may call Tournament mating. In tournament species the male skull is larger; males are bigger and stronger but have shorter life spans than females; males compete for or select the females (hence the word “tournament”) and after mating often abandon the family. On the other hand, in Pair-bonding species the skulls are of the same size and shape as well as the bodies of the two genders; they have about the same life spans and the females selects the male; sometimes the female abandons the family. In both forms of mating, the blogger says, “we are addicted to pussy because that’s how reproduction works. Without that pussy addiction humanity would have died a long time ago.” In his videos this blogger mentions other bloggers of the manosphere, and he often quotes them by their pennames. He devoted five videos to one of his favorite subjects, the first under the title “The traditionalism cycle.”

In this blog I have referred several times to The Course of Empire, the paintings that Thomas Cole painted in 1833-1836. The Course of Empire reflected popular sentiments of the times when many saw pastoralism as the ideal phase of human civilization, fearing that an American empire would lead to gluttony and inevitable decay. Cole’s paintings remind me the stages that the blogger tries to explain in his civilizational cycle. Let me rephrase his exposition and add a little input of my own.

The_Savage_StateThe Savage State

Brutal patriarchy. Very harsh for women. In the most primitive or barbarous stage of human prehistory, little reds riding hoods are just the property of the wolves. They can be raped or even killed at the discretion of the lycanthrope in question. There is low child survival and early sexual maturity. Both males and resources are scarce and reproduction is prioritized. Endless tribal wars to obtain young females and resources. The male-female relationship is a master-slave one. Polygamy reigns and the way that males get access to the rather cute bodies of their little reds is through tournament mating (see my excerpts of Sparks’ first chapter).

The_Arcadian_or_Pastoral_StateThe Arcadian or Pastoral State

Humane patriarchy. This is the point when civilization began thousands of years ago. Men stop killing each other in tribal wars and women have already some rights. Survival is prioritized and there is more male stability. Polygamy starts to be abandoned (cf. my excerpts of Starks’ last chapter). Soft patriarchy also marks the beginning of monogamy and a pair-bonding society. The master-slave relationship is replaced for an adult-child one, where men are the adults and treat women as grown-up children. In this society civilization starts to thrive. The economy of the tribe grows and the population develops patterns to work around the environment. There is still high fertility rate but late sexual maturity. Resource stability increases. Although the laws explicitly favor men over women, an embryonic form of feminism begins. Today’s feminists claim that they were oppressed during the humane or soft patriarchy. “They really weren’t,” says the blogger. “It was a very balanced society if you think about it.”

The Consummation of EmpireThe Consummation of Empire

Feminism. High child survival. Low fertility rate and late sexual maturity. Resource stability increases but the welfare state starts to replace the male provider. Women are exempted from their former responsibilities—marriage, motherhood, submissiveness—but men are still obliged to provide resources even after their wives have applied for divorces. Women obtain authority that traditionally was a privilege for men but liberated women cannot be drafted—again, they enjoy authority without responsibilities while men are expected to have exactly the same responsibilities they had in the patriarchal society. The laws favor women and more laws are being issued at the expense of men. The welfare state cannot be reformed because of universal suffrage, and women consist of 51-52 percent of the population. “Once women can vote the slow death begins and cannot be stopped democratically.”

The Consummation of Empire Destruction

Feminism run amok. Harsh for men. The women have now completely betrayed us by claiming that they don’t need us anymore. Since egalitarianism cannot be enforced by laws in a dimorphic species like humans, it devolves into open misandry: an anti-male society, or more specifically an anti-white males society. Right now we are in this terminal stage. All those horror stories of the divorce courts we hear in the men’s rights movement describe this late stage. We can see it in Japan too, even though the Japanese don’t suffer a Jewish problem. If Third Reich Germany was destined to become an Empire of the Yang, what we might be calling the Empire of the yin reigns today throughout the West. According to the blogger this is our paradox: “The more peaceful or successful a society becomes the closer it becomes to collapse.” There are no matriarchal civilizations in recorded human history because it is men who carry civilization over our own shoulders.

Empire_Desolation Desolation

Economic collapse. Marriage is abandoned. The welfare state becomes overburdened and finally crashes. The demographic winter of whites ends in societal collapse. Once civilization collapses “the whole system resets back to traditionalism.” According to the blogger the best way to keep women at bay is through poverty. More specifically, in order to reestablish patriarchy three factors must come together: a hostile environment, male scarcity and resource scarcity. The blogger believes that there cannot be a return to patriarchy without the three factors because, to use his crude words, women would still use their pussies to obtain what they want. In a non-collapsed milieu they won’t submit yet but trade sex for food and protection. But we represent survival for the weak sex. Once these factors come together women will beg us to protect them as in times of yore. If there are no men around women, the latter start dying like flies.

* * *

As I said, the blogger devoted five videos to explain the cycle that I am paraphrasing here, injecting bits of pro-white concerns absent in his YouTube channel.

In one of his videos he used the paradigm of Ancient Rome, when the father was the judge, jury and executioner of the family (pater familias). Roman history does not even register how many apprentices of feminists were executed by their husbands or fathers, as women are still executed today by husbands and fathers in the Muslim world. In our culture, decadence started after the Second Punic War, when a vital law was abolished. Lex Oppia restricted not only a woman’s wealth (it forbade any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold) but also her display of wealth. 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 mudblood 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, especially in England. 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. From the 1990s feminism transformed itself into runaway feminism. In 2010 the welfare state was expanded again to include Obamacare. The beneficiaries of this state are women, especially single mothers, not men. Marginalizing the engine of society will end in economic collapse, something that I believe will happen under the watch of the next US president, whether Clinton or Trump.

For the blogger, the most important question is exactly when we handed power over these creatures of long hair and short ideas. “We dropped the ball when we ceded authority to women.” He illustrates the cycle in an elaborate diagram:

tfm1

War of the sexes, 12

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 ______

 

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.”