Print this post Print this post

Sex

3,854 words

Whether or not human beings have immortal souls, we live as biological entities. As such, we recombine our genes with each other in a process known as sexual reproduction. That is where the easy statements end.

Some believe sex should be no more than a bodily function: a need to be discharged. Others think we should sacralize life, and see sex not as an end, but as a means to an end. This end is the family, it is love, and it is a cornerstone of our civilization.

Without people in love raising healthy families, we quickly become a rabble of emotionally-damaged people who want to one-up each other in an ongoing quest for social supremacy. This centerless society is miserable because no one can tell what sort of behavior is rewarded, leaving them to guess and (statistically most likely) get it wrong, then be punished by bad consequences.

In a centered society, a clear path exists. Once a path exists, you start to judge your actions by “are these on the path, or off the path?” And since decision itself is selective, these societies reward selectivity. Instead of consuming with mass appetites, thinking that more is better, we are forced to acknowledge that better quality in the right context is what we seek.

We’ve chucked that out the window in a modern time, and made sex a bodily function. What’s the result? For starters, many more single women in their 30s and above. The Western world is awash in single women nearing the end of their reproductive age, and most of them have had too many sexual partners to be seen as highly valued, or to value themselves highly. As a result, they keep giving it away, and men treat them like free sample packs at the supermarket.

Now, we know that the peak of a girl’s sexual market value is in her late teens/early twenties. After 25, her value starts declining slowly, and after thirty, it plummets. Not to mention that unless she is a chaste angel, her number of partners is only going to go up. Idle vaginas are the slut’s workshop.

So basically, the conventional wisdom of the dating world mandates that a man has to spend INCREASING amounts of money on a woman as her sexual value DECREASES! The only time this relationship collapses is when the woman in question hits cougar years and her value has gone so low that not even the marriage-industrial complex’s nonstop fusillade of lies can obscure what can be seen with your own eyes.

What this means is if you’re a beta male (the majority of men), in order to gain access to that sacred portal of pleasure every woman has betwixt her thighs, you’re expected to shell out cash for dates. If you want to have an LTR, you’ve got to shell out a whole lot more. And when you finally pop the question, like the good little obedient serf you are, you’ve got to spend three months’ salary on a goddamn ring and four or five figures on the ceremony and related shit. All this so your blushing, mid-to-late twenties bride, who likely spent her salad years hoovering down the jizz of players, bad boys, pickup artists, and other alphas FOR FREE, can brag to her fellow yentas about how she’s snared herself a nest slave husband. – In Mala Fide

The author above uses the term “beta male” differently than we do at this blog. Around here, betas are the wimpy geeks who do not have the vir to create and to think outside of the box. Alphas are the ones that do that. Alphas would not necessarily look good in a movie; it’s a spiritual-intellectual-physical status, not an aesthetic one. In the way Ferdinand Bardamu, author of the above post, uses the term, betas are normal productive people and alphas are movie stars and pro athletes. I think that classification works in the third world, but not in the Northern communities of Asia and Europe, where smart, reliable, competent men are valued and seen as more virile than some screwball with a Camaro.

In another piece, he continues:

The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”

To benefit betas and keep them invested in society, checks were placed on the sexual behavior of women and the alpha males whom they lusted after. The configuration of marriage afforded betas a chance to procreate, while protecting the women with whom they entered into holy matrimony. In the past four decades, these checks have been annihilated. Using the power of the state, radical feminists initiated a massive redistribution of wealth from the provider beta class to women. Alimony and child support payments, along with no-fault divorce, have annihilated marriage’s value, while welfare state programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, Children) reward women who become pregnant out of wedlock. Put simply, the socialist state has reduced the value of the provider beta to nothing. If provider betas were a corporation, it would have filed for bankruptcy and had its assets sold to the highest bidder years ago. Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot. – In Mala Fide

Many of us drift toward conservatism because we realize just how vast a disaster liberalism has been. In the United States, our parents and grandparents in the 1960s inherited the wealthiest nation on earth, and they’ve turned it into a third-world Kali-Yuga ruin. By third world, I don’t mean the third world, but having the level of dysfunction, kleptocracy, disorganization, bad hygiene and low average IQ that we associate with the third world. The USA’s average IQ is probably heading downward to 98 at this point, coming close to joining Russia and France, who both reduced theirs to 96 by having a People’s Revolution and killing off the smart people, who were blameless for the nation’s failures.

The family is the root of selective behavior. When you choose a mate, it becomes a choice and an empowering one. You have selected this person as important to you, as sacred to you, and by opting for none of the others, you have made them the focus of your world. There is no resentment for past lovers if they do not exist. If they do exist, the resentment becomes understated, but lurks constantly. Fidelity and trust go out the window, and marriage becomes a political and economic contract only, and loses any sacred character. With that goes much of the respect you could have for your spouse.

Obviously, the left- and feminist-inclined will object here. “But what about bad marriages?” What about the fact that despite our sexual liberation and no-fault divorce, people are still living in bad relationships? One explanation is that if you screw up the choice the first time, you’re going to screw it up the second time — and you’re already used goods, a markdown. Subconsciously, we all know someone who has gone through one divorce is more likely to go through a second, which means the reasons for that bad choice and the ensuing bad or illogical behavior are still there in that person. Which is better, one bad marriage — or four? Even worse, how about those two bad marriages and then being single for your declining years, while you increasingly struggle to find sexual partners in an attempt to salve with quantity what you lack in quality?

Marriage allows men and women to rest easily, if chastity is also enforced. After the sexual revolution? Not so much, and men lose out because the woman has her slutfun for her early years, then settles for marriage, but she’s not only used goods, but also unlikely to abandon her previous promiscuous behavior entirely. After the sexual revolution, our divorce rate is 50% of all marriages. What does this tell us about its effects on us? Quite simply: it has ruined our ability to commit, and to make discerning choices. Instead, like other areas of modern life, sex and marriage have become subsets of the pursuit of convenience and desire. This is why traditional societies emphasized sexual fidelity not just for women, but for men as well, in order to set that cornerstone firmly and give people an expectation of happiness, love and sacred union, instead of an expectation of bodily functions which decrease one’s worth to potential future spouses.

The truth is that men willing to commit to a woman in this day and age are in short short supply, and your value is high. You can afford to be a little picker than you think. Here’s my list of criteria:

4. Positive Family History. Did she have a reasonably intact family home and childhood? If she’s from a divorced family then you will have a higher likelihood of divorce in your marriage to her. Again the purpose of your marriage is not to save a woman, it’s to have a happy productive life with someone. Is the rest of her family basically normal and generally free of mental illness, developmental disabilities, crime, cancer and drama? By all means make allowances for the few black sheep in every family, but a coherent bad pattern is a stumbling block. If meeting her family feels like a social worker visit just bail and start over.

5. She Has A Clue. I don’t care what it is that she does at college, or even if she doesn’t go, but either way she needs some sort of direction and purpose to her life that doesn’t really require you to be attached to her for her to have a life of her own that’s functional and productive. If the whole point of her life is simply to meet a man and be a Stay At Home Mom, that fine as long as she is displaying a top notch SAHM skill set already. I’m talking baked goods, knitting, cooking, child care, cleaning, decorating and social planning skills. Or put another way – would some rich ass family hire her as housekeeper/nanny for $40,000 a year? I want to see some sort of ability to hold a job and responsibilities together as an adult.

6. Virgin. You heard me. The fewer sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher her marital satisfaction and the sexual satisfaction she has within marriage. You very much want your wife to sexually imprint on sex with you and completely bond to you. The sex is just going to be that much better over the long term. Not to mention no other ex-lovers lurking on Facebook, sexual diseases, bad experiences and regrets to worry about. The harsh truth to the modern hook up girl is that yes indeed every time you sleep with another man, you damage your long term wife potential. Plus the best predicator of future behavior is past behavior and highly promiscuous women before marriage are probably far more likely to cheat on you during marriage. – Athol Kay

Let’s re-read that:

The fewer sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher her marital satisfaction and the sexual satisfaction she has within marriage.

This isn’t just about men; it’s about men checking out because women have debased themselves, which ends up with both women and men — both part A and part B of the marriage equation — feeling bad about life, or living in constant distrust, or reducing their standards to those of rutting animals. Our conservative politicians have mostly failed us on this front by attacking abortion and gay marriage as symbolic assaults on the family, but the bigger assault is the sexual revolution itself. However, like race and class war, this is a topic that’s “off limits” for corporate/prime time-friendly politicians. Let’s talk about arms sales to Outer Bloviatopia instead.

Not only is the family the cornerstone of society, but the way we approach sex and the family defines how we view all other parts of our lives:

Actions viewed as means to an end often register to us as a loss, or more specifically a psychic sunk cost. And like I’ve mentioned before, human beings are very loss averse. Actions views as ends on the other hand register as a psychic win, even if it’s a goal that to most sane people would consider anything but positive.

The means/end paradox occurs in when two people are caught in a dynamic where one person’s viewing his actions as means to an end, thereby accruing losses, or psychic sunk costs, while the person viewing his actions as ends is mentally maximizing wins. Thanks to the principle of loss aversion, the means-motivated person becomes more heavily invested and winds up in a sunk cost trap. And the end-motivated person increasingly feels less invested because he’s only been accruing psychic gains the whole time. As a result, the means-based person will usually have more trouble walking away from the relationship and being more tempted to invest more resources than the end-based person.

Means/end congruence on the other hand is when both parties are on the same page when it comes to motives and sunk costs and therefore feel similarly invested. – The Rawness

With marriage as sacred, there is inherent means/ends congruence and no partner comes out ahead and can spite, scorn or disrespect the other. Even more, it shows us an archetype for life: our bodies rot, our wealth disappears, and even the people who know slowly vanish. What lasts? A sacred experience of life, a union with the process of living and transcendent acceptance of what it is to be alive. Is that the best way to live? If you can do it, yes; not everyone can. But a society that emphasizes this encourages the best of life for the best of its people, and those who cannot participate are just as doomed as they are in any other type of society.

From a traditionalist source:

When the sense of metaphysical reality is lost, the proper place for morality in metaphysical relation is lost as well. This is seen most explicitly in the modern world. Where morality ceases to serve its higher principle, it becomes abstract, loses its positive world-forming function, and has a deleterious effect on the virile functioning of the person. Made individual, morality loses its demonstrable value; there is no longer an effective basis for spreading its fruits. – Gornahoor

If we have party A (a man) and party B (a woman) there is an implicity party C (a goal/a values system). Parties A and B can fight back and forth for dominance, or agree that C is the goal, and fight for that instead of trying to manipulate, control and cheat each other. This is a more enlightened way of life than the progressive, liberal and modern idea of the individual as a nexus of desire and choice finding significance in choices that are essentially indistinguishable from those others make. Yes, you wore a red hat with the maroon boots, so you must be unique — except not. Trivial choices do not define us. Character-building choices, like who to marry, do.

What else has sexual liberation brought us?

An estimated 95% of the rapes that take place in the UK are never reported. Only 6.5% of reported rapes in England and Wales result in a conviction on the charge of rape. – The Guardian

Why so few convictions? Because in a time of sexual liberation, there’s almost no way to prove rape. Unless a dozen people saw the woman screaming “stop rape” after she was assaulted by a random person, there’s no real evidence. Semen or a condom? Also used for consensual sex. Evidence of roughness? Also happens during “normal” sex. He will say she said she wanted to have sex; she’ll say she didn’t. Did she change her mind? Did he misread the signals? It’s not as serious a crime anymore, because with so many women chucking the goods out the door without a second thought, it’s hard to prove they were unlikely to have said yes. No one wants to start another million-dollar court case where the evidence will never be strong enough to satisfy many critical observers.

Men’s response to this neurotic and increasingly unstable situation is to check out. Men love sex, but when sex becomes a risk and a burden, there’s beer and video games, or even just doing something productive. Tragically, this means the people who drop out of the mating/dating game first are those most likely to have a measure of self-control, and thus intelligence. We are downbreeding ourselves into idiots by turning our women into whores, driving away the good men, and alienating anyone left into sexual burnouts.

Another take on the morality angle:

1. How do we restore a virtuous society?

Short Answer–by restoring its women. Which, is why I put so much emphasis on calling women out for their sins and getting them to realize that they have the capacity for great evil, just like men. It may seem common sense, but I do believe a good deal of women live in some sort of bubble where they think they are immune to evil forces. It’s not a fight against women that I engage in, but a fight against sin.I focus more on sin in women, because they hold the key in restoring the society. There is talk that men aren’t doing their part in restoring society because they are refusing to marry ungodly women. One should not marry just the sake of marrying. You first need good stock; good wife material in the culture and that we do not have. Probably only 10% (and that is being generous) or so of women qualify. Women bear the burden of returning themselves to good stock and exhibiting qualities that men will find as an asset. For the 10% who are assets, they end up getting lost amongst all the liabilities. A man finding such a woman is like searching for a needle in a haystack; where the needle is the asset woman and the hay are the women who are liabilities. It’s hard for a man to recognize a needle amongst all the hay. What we need is for all assets to become hay and for the needle to become the liability. The good qualities in the few will not be recognized until the good qualities are in the many. It used to be this way, before feminism spearheaded our cultural decay. In order for men to do their part, women need to first do their part. They can then select a quality women once women en masse make it desirable to do. They will make the waters safe to swim in again. – Laura Grace Robins

Sex is the fundamental archetype for how we view the world. It is an inherently future-looking act, if we continue the means/ends convergence of past times, because it creates the next generation. It also determines how we raise them and thus, what type of people they turn out to be. Our attitude toward sex is our attitude toward society itself, and from that, the values that inform our philosophies.

While an act of male infidelity is as morally wrong as an act of female infidelity, the faithlessness of women is much more destructive on a societal level. It more often leads to the dissolution of marriage in an age of easy divorce. Women, who are the primary initiators of divorce, are more inclined to end a marriage because of their own outside indiscretions than because of the indiscretions of their husbands. This conclusion is confirmed by Michelle Langley’s work and the psychological differences between men and women.

Please note that when I talk about the faithlessness of women, I don’t mean merely their affairs, but also their desire for romantic adventure regardless of whether they have a specific man in mind. For women, marriage is generally meaningless if they are not emotionally involved with their spouse, which in an era of easy divorce and favorable custody laws leads to a great deal of family breakdown. A man is more capable of seeing marriage in terms of an abstract commitment. This is why female adventurism is so much more destructive. A woman wants to leave when her feelings for her spouse are diverted and she is more easily overcome by her feelings to the point of insensitivity toward her children. Also, male infidelities are more likely to be about sexual pleasure, rather than emotional involvement, though of course this is not always true at all.

Women tend to react to their errant sexual desires with more guilt and confusion than men because of the common conviction that women are essentially monogamous. This guilt causes them inner dissonance which often manifests itself as manipulative behavior toward their spouse and leads to the end of a marriage. I have witnessed this a number of times. Many women successfully convince themselves that their decision to leave is caused by the faults of their spouse. There is almost an innocence about their self-deception. They are the creatures of passion. – The Thinking Housewife

When we allow sex to become an end in itself, and not a means toward a sacred end, we destroy female happiness — and, as with other things in the modern time, replace stability with a kind of emptiness and longing. We make ruins of our women and we make men who retreat into oblivion. These ideas then migrate to the rest of society: why have any faithfulness to anyone at all? Be in it all for yourself. Throw that litter on the ground, because these trees aren’t going to pay your electric bill for you. And so on.

If you want to know why conservatives oppose sexual liberation, the sexual revolution and the trivialization of marriage, there you have it: it undoes one of the cornerstones of a society geared not just to lowest common denominator function, but a life where we sacralize existence itself and are able to live better as a result. Beware the snake oil salespeople. When they say “freedom” and talk about fulfilling your desires, remember there is a price to pay, and it may take you a long time to see, and it will be one you will not like at all.

Source: http://www.amerika.org/social-reality/sex/

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted January 31, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Touching this issue (so to speak!) is like touching a bear trap. Touch too hard, and you will lose body parts, effectiveness, and your life, alone in the wilderness.

    On the other hand, this piece is about five topics of foundational importance in one article, and it will be difficult indeed to deal with all of them with the skill they deserve.

    The excellent summary paragraphs- in this case, the end of the beginning – seems a good place to start.

    Brett Stevens wrote (1):

    When we allow sex to become an end in itself, and not a means toward a sacred end, we destroy female happiness — and, as with other things in the modern time, replace stability with a kind of emptiness and longing. We make ruins of our women and we make men who retreat into oblivion. These ideas then migrate to the rest of society: why have any faithfulness to anyone at all? Be in it all for yourself. Throw that litter on the ground, because these trees aren’t going to pay your electric bill for you. And so on.

    In reply, we note that sex has always been “an end unto itself,” and modern contraception simply reduced the risks inherent in intercourse, turning risk into opportunity.

    Women in leading ideological positions cheerfully embraced historically masculine roles, and the welfare state reduced the need for so-called “beta males” to pretty much zero.

    Thus, leading edge women can have the benefits of marriage – house, income, children – without having to “settle for second best.” The beta male – the “good provider” – is now seen as an easily manipulated chump, while her affections are reserved for the (Alpha male) “bad boy.

    As one wit so clearly defined the issue, “Women would rather spend forty minutes doing anything Robery Downey Jr. wants, particularly Downey as “Tony Stark,” billionaire industrialist, technological genius, and creator of “Iron Man, than forty years with some “good provider” Beta male.

    All of the process of Civilization, particularly under the Progressive Regime, is aimed at turning barbarians – uncivilized young adolescent males – into Beta providers, “civilized” males.

    The young men who have played by those rules saw the foreshadowing of their value when their fatehrs came home from Vietname, and were openly scorned by the leading edge women of their time; this trend has only accelerated.

    Those who could accept the horror before them – men who had adopted the highest values of Civilization, and had went to combat for their extended family, their nation, their country – realized that something was profoundly wrong.

    Affirmative action, on the high end, and the welfare state, on the low end, marginalizes what men uniquely do – achieve, as testosterone is the chemical of conquest. Thus, our sons in elementary school are doped into geldings, and resistance will bring sanctions from Child Protective Services.

    Recapturing the Vital Masculine will be a foundational component of the metapolitical project. This will have to be quite intentional, and will be the work of decades, and generations.

    Ultimately, patriarchy will return.

    The alternative can be seen in the blasted urban heath we call cites. There are no models of successful masculine achievement in the Manless – but not maleless – environment of the colored ghettto.

    That process has continued past the point of no return.

    We are not that far gone yet, and have choices.

    I can write for days on this, but I will try to reduce my precription to the framework of the metapolitical project.

    We have to adopt the mindset of Conquest, and Patriarchal Dominion, and harness it into a project that wil take generations to fulfill.

    We must learn to adopt a policy of benign neglect to our competition, and simply not care what they think about us, for their anger will come from our refusing to dance court, and play White Knight for them.

    The energies we will have then freed up can be put to more productive effort.

    Historically, Civilization – which is a function of the Patriarchy – saw sex as a means to an end, and marriage as a means to a social end.

    The New Matriarchy is so hostile to Masculinity – except when the lights go out! – that we must see the Creative Force that is in our souls as something that must not be placed in the service of our enemies.

    Let me remind one and all that when Christianity was Masculine – yes, using the pagan energy to transform itself – Christianity was successful, and so was Civilization.

    Matriarchal societs are steaady-state, agrarian, and dead ends, for the Race.

    We have choices, and do not need to fall into the dead ends they offer us; we need not become batteries for The Matrix.

    Let me be painfully forthright about this:

    Marriage is an institution designed for the State’s interests to be represented in the raising of children. Parens matrie – a legal doctrine that puts mothers first, foremost, forever, and reduces man to Homo Economicus – is no longer a viable choice for us.

    It hurts to write that, but it also reflects the fact that conservatism is a losing game.

    That takes us to…

    Brett Stevens wrote (2):

    If you want to know why conservatives oppose sexual liberation, the sexual revolution and the trivialization of marriage, there you have it: it undoes one of the cornerstones of a society geared not just to lowest common denominator function, but a life where we sacralize existence itself and are able to live better as a result. Beware the snake oil salespeople. When they say “freedom” and talk about fulfilling your desires, remember there is a price to pay, and it may take you a long time to see, and it will be one you will not like at all.

    In reply, Conservatives have lost every hand in the Game of Culture in the Twentieth Century. They are Oh for Ten, a perfect record of perfect failure.

    It is time we recognized the importance of revolutionary thinking, and a return to First Principles.

    The legendary radio host, Tom Leykis, said:

    “I know why you listen to me. I know why you are late getting home, and why you sit in the car you paid for, in the driveway of the house you pay for, after you are home. YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO HOME. For the time we have together, you are listening to the ONE man who will tell you the truth – that you are good, smart, and valued for your self, above all.”

    Leykis is right.

    We have accepted the values that were correct in an earlier time, a time the Conservatives wish we could return to.

    We can’t.

    As Harold Covington so astutely observed, “Ozzie and Harriet have been replaced by Ozzie Osborne. You can’t go home, people. There is no ‘there’ there.”

    On THIS issue, which is of foundational importance, we must ignore the Conservatives, and develop true revolutionary thinking if we are to merely survive, much less flourish.

    We can learn from this.

  2. Posted January 31, 2011 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    Quoting the Guardian undermined my confidence in this article. Believing anything the feminasty scum write about rape is unwise.

  3. Lucius
    Posted February 1, 2011 at 2:42 am | Permalink

    I would like to know where asexuality fits into this whole essay and line of thought. What if sex is simply not interesting to a person: that it is, to put it bluntly, the very last thing on one’s mind and life agenda.

    I have to ask this question because an awful lot of white people are asexual and this issue is not only taboo, but never gets addressed seriously. It’s actually a rather significant problem with many causes.

    The Luce

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted February 1, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

      The Luce has made a very strong point.

      In seeing Humanity as Mankind Becoming, we see the individual as being a microcosm of the solar system, and the cosmos.

      Thus, in the broader perspective of history, Mankind evolved into Humanity, and a spiritual form that carried a dynamic balancing of both aspects of what became the sexes became two separate sexes, as you would expect from a dualistic realm.

      Think of those who are “asexual” – a poor term, but as good a one as we have for the moment.

      They are (1) small children, and (2) the elderly.

      You will recognize that these two groups are not deeply incarnate; one has yet to do so, and the other has, and hopefully has learned the lessons.

      Thus, “asexuality” = non-dualistic Creativity, if you will – is becoming more and more viable for two reasons: women are very hostile to the failures of men to meet what they have been told are their due, and men are (finally) learning to walk away from situations that are literally no-win in nature.

      In short, the women who watch Oprah hate us. and we would do well to deal with them as little as possible, particularly making sure that overtones of Alpha malesness are absent. In fact, for the Beta males – the core of Civilization – there is absolutely no reason for them to deal with such women at all, familial forces aside.

      Thus, the newest demographic, the Virile Female, and those females who admire the Virile Female, simply hate all men, and will only associate with Alpha males, solely to use their energy to balance out, and replenish, her own.

      Years ago, I had a brilliant teacher who forced us to use simulation software for business modeling. His final exam simply drove all of us to distraction, and we all told him we had done our best – our projects were submitted on time! – and he told us the trap.

      The correct solution, he said, was None Of The Above; to go out of business, liquidate, pay off the bank and the shareholders, and close up shop.

      It was a stunning example of lateral thinking, and forced us to question our First Assumptions in business problems.

      This is no less true in Life.

      Why does Society wish for us to become geldings for the Oprah watchers, the Oprah admirers?

      When you can answer that question, Grasshopper, you can go.

      Until then, we should see asexuality, and, I never thought I would say this, the mature, discreet practice of homosexuality, as very acceptable alternatives to unacceptable situations.

      COMPREHENSION: The Game is rigged.

      Until we can change ourselves, and then what is before us, some painfully honest observations from Tom Leykis, and some comments, as to why, every time we play their Game, on their terms, we lose.

      Think of Lucy, Charlies Brown, and the football.

      That is what Conservatism has been, for us, and the unwise, unquestioning acceptance of the Roles and Values were were addined by society.

      We must begin, starting where we are, to be in the world, but not of it, seeing ourselves as Ambassadors from a better world. This is the great gift of Harold Covington, whose Northwest Republic offers us a framework in which to be in this world, while being of a much better world.

      Until then, some painfully learned lessons from Tom Leykis, which are relevant to the metapolitical project.

      Paraphrasing, Tom Leykis observed:

      Women are dream killers. They look at you, size you up, look at your potential. amd move to manipulate you, and control you, replacing your dreams with their plans for you.

      Reread that last sentence. When I played a Leykis mp3 for guys I was in a car pool with, one of them literally screamed at the speaker, and pounded the dashboard, shouting, “You bastard! Where were you twenty years ago! You bastard!” None of those is the car had happy looks ontheir face, as the Hoffman Lenses – the sunglasses in “They Live” – were forced on them, if only for a second.

      Think of the code word women always use when they are talking about us, “potential.” To them, it means YOUR potential to make their dreams a reality. If you do not do this – and she will never explicitly discuss this with you – then you are not doing your Duty to the relationship, or the family. In her mind, unbeknownst to you, your potential to fulfill her fantasies becomes a duty – THAT is the purpose of The Relationship.

      Note that when she speaks of The Relationship, it is always in vague terms; she draws the outline, and you, responding without thinking, as she and Society want you to do, get to fill in the dead outline with the colors of the substance of your Life.

      Note that she will never speak of your potential to you; she will dicuss little else with her girlfriends, all of whom are trying to get you, and every other male, to fulfill your potential – which is to say, your DUTY to The Relationship.

      This is why sports bars are very popular.

      In there, you pay for overpriced beer, see the moving pictures of powerful, smart, disciplined, high-achieving young men, like YOU used to be, and, for those few minutes, YOU are rewriting YOUR Life Script, and YOU control the picture, YOU control the horizontal, YOU control the vertical, YOU control the colors, the players, and the Scripts, and YOU can dim them to a warm, soft focus, or YOU can sharpen them to crystal clarity.

      Then, you go home, and, in doing so, you go to Hell.

      Thus, we see asexuality as the place of Innocence (the Child) and Wisdom (the Sage).

      We can learn from this.

      • Lucius
        Posted February 5, 2011 at 1:56 am | Permalink

        @Fourmyle

        Wow, I wasn’t expecting such an intensive, metaphysical reply. Allow me to rephrase my concern in a different way. What if some people, who seem to include an awful lot of whites, are asexual — as in NON-sexual? Again, I am asking whether there might not be a genetic propensity at work here because white birth rates are low and falling EVERYWHERE, including areas that are not Judaized or Anglicized and Liberalized (think Eastern Europe). Even Hitler had a tough time getting Germans to have enough children and he piled on the incentives and created an environment that fostered German prosperity and racial pride.

        This is a somewhat personal issue for me as well because I am not at all interested in sexuality and I am wondering how common this is. I think a lot of white people are in denial about it; it may even be part of the reason why so many marriages fall apart and/or why whites tend to put everything before procreation. Even casual sex is not embraced by whites like it is with certain other races.

        Just a few thoughts.

        Lucius

        • Fourmyle of Ceres
          Posted February 5, 2011 at 8:50 am | Permalink

          Lucius wrote:

          Wow, I wasn’t expecting such an intensive, metaphysical reply. Allow me to rephrase my concern in a different way. What if some people, who seem to include an awful lot of whites, are asexual — as in NON-sexual? Again, I am asking whether there might not be a genetic propensity at work here because white birth rates are low and falling EVERYWHERE, including areas that are not Judaized or Anglicized and Liberalized (think Eastern Europe). Even Hitler had a tough time getting Germans to have enough children and he piled on the incentives and created an environment that fostered German prosperity and racial pride.

          In reply, let me address your first concern by being a bit metaphysical. Sex is seen by Nature as a means to an end; sex is seen by Man, particularly during times when the Sensate Impulse rules a Culture, as an end unto itself.

          The problem is, when sex becomes an end unto itself, it creates a thirst that can never be slaked, and you are trapped on the hamster wheel of seeking the next high from the next person, the next choice, the next technique – whatever.

          In classical Aryan thinking, the purpose of sex was exclusively for procreation. After that duty to the Race has been met, their focus was on brahmacharya – and the Creative forces that went into seeking sexual gratification went into more effective direction in the service of the ongoing process of Creation.

          Look at your friends who chase the next sexual high, and ask yourself how foolish they seem to be. Their activities are rewarded by the Culture before them, as they are trapped in it, making it an end unto itself, rather than a means to an end.

          More’s the pity.

          Let me address your second concern.

          Economic collapses lead to smaller families, particularly as they are further removed from their agrarian foundation. Large families were the order of the day in agrarian America; farm mechanization did not really get going until the Twenties. (With that came a lot of debt that could not be liquidated, but that’s for another time.)

          Incidentally, the endocrinology of women loses a lot of its balance under times of stress and hardship, like war. Yes, they want children, but no, they don’t want to provide lives of short, grueling hardship for them.

          Lucius wrote:

          This is a somewhat personal issue for me as well because I am not at all interested in sexuality and I am wondering how common this is. I think a lot of white people are in denial about it; it may even be part of the reason why so many marriages fall apart and/or why whites tend to put everything before procreation. Even casual sex is not embraced by whites like it is with certain other races.

          Just a few thoughts.

          Lucius

          In reply, casual sex shortens your life expectancy dramatically. The basic diseases are mutating into highly drug-reistant variants. Slow, nasty karma, and proof of what Nature thinks of casual sex.

          These are people who can conceive of Humanity at its worst, just by looking around. They can not imagine Mankind at its best. Pity them, but don’t fall prey to their petty jealousies.

          Much of the demand for contemporary sexuality is essentially a trap, making you a never satisfied consumer of whatever they say you need to achieve sexual fulfillment. If your thinking has transcended the overwhelming marketing, then you can be in this, but not of it.

          All the better.

          It just might be that their lack of desire for sex is the circuit breaker used by the spirit to keep the Mind in check, as children are very, very expensive, and, in an imploding economy, might be seen as more of a burden than a blessing.

          This last part seems rather harsh, and I apologize for that.

          Let me restate it.

          Would you want your children to be born as third class citizens in a second world country, where you would not be able to provide for them appropraitely, and you could not afford to develop their unique gifts, turning their talents into capacities?

          I’ll catch Hell for this, but the cold, hard facts are before us.

          The elite have always groomed their children to rule; the poor simply had children, who served the purposes of, and children of, the elite.

          I read the genetics blogs. I firmly believe, within less than a century, the elite will be having children who will be “better, stronger, smarter, and faster.” They might well be lacking souls as we know them, but, regardless they will look down on us as we look down on dogs. Reread Brave New World. Almost seems prescient, doesn’t it?

          So, what is the best strategy for those whose lack of desire for procreation might well be a blessing in disguise, the equivalent of a circuit breaker kicking in?

          Again, the metapolitical focus to the rescue.

          You don’t have to be a father.

          You can take the time and energy your brethren put into having and raising children, and make a better world for their children.

          In particular, you might find your efforts being the last bit needed to help them fulfill their unqiue destinies, on behalf of the family, and the Race.

          What for you would be a small effort, quantitatively speaking – topping off the tuition and uniforms money for a good school, or paying for tutors in all areas of human development – would have a vast effect on their lives, qualitiatively speaking.

          Take that, and compound it over the twenty years of their lives until adulthood begins.

          The Family moves forward dramatically, and, compounding THAT over millions of families, do does the Race.

          We can learn from this.

  4. Steve
    Posted February 1, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    “The energies we will have then freed up can be put to more productive effort”

    This quote resonates, as does the whole New Right approaches on this much neglected topic. I have found that sexual energy is a potent form of power. This power is something that really needs to be thought about, metaphysically speaking, by more able minds than myself. Here’s my brief snip…
    After my second excursion and departure in that now defunct practice of matrimony, I have for the first time (I’m 33 years old) set aside the chase for woman ( No way in hell am I going to go that discreet practice homo route, this ultra-straight White man just doesn’t have it in him — my vice, I love fine White woman sexually, nothing else will do.) I actually feel, as a result, more vigor in my life. It’s weird… I will say it in plain English: chastity does something that invigorates, especially for a man on a mission. That sounds like such an archaic thing to say; but I attribute a part of this “something” to the fact that my passions are not released during sex or during the chase for sex; instead, it’s contained and sublimated in a way to make myself more focused and determined. This sexual restraint and self-control produces nourishments in a way that I can’t explain, but I do feel its effects and changes in my development positively for the better.
    For the record there is no spanking the monkey, like our distant mammalian relatives do in the zoo yard. No! You use all that bent up form of “frustration” (power) and put it towards the Work that is laid out for you. Sounds a bit ascetic, I know; but hey we could use some in this mediocre world of mundanity.

  5. Posted February 2, 2011 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    Sour grapes! Enough complaining about American women. Look inward. Have any of you considered there is something wrong with American men, a certain man-child, video game obsession, baseball cap unerotic awkwardness that has led your women to react in ways that confound you? Nah! Better to blame the NY Times and a handful of ugly Jewish lesbians for the “corruption” of women. Please.

    In all times and in all places, those on the bottom of the sexual food chain have found theories for their dispossession and loneliness. This is just the latest. There will be others.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted February 2, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      Marcus made comments worthy of commentary, as they reveal just how far down the social system has devolved. To make sense of them, a constructive critique of some of the points in the article is necessary.

      Marcus wrote:

      Sour grapes! Enough complaining about American women. Look inward. Have any of you considered there is something wrong with American men, a certain man-child, video game obsession, baseball cap unerotic awkwardness that has led your women to react in ways that confound you? Nah! Better to blame the NY Times and a handful of ugly Jewish lesbians for the “corruption” of women. Please.

      In reply, the “man-child, video-game…” issues are more effect than cause, as men become irrelevant, in the eyes of the managerial elite, and scorned by women, for failing to perform their historical roles in the furtherance of Civilization – a patriarchal process.

      Absent patriarchy, Civilization shifts from process to state, and the state then devolves to mere culture – the culture of the steady-state, agrarian social order, where the work of men devolves to manual labor, which is supplanted by machinery. The machinery, of course, does not improve, decays, and the economic productivity declines – the textbook example is, of course, the incarnation of Judeo-Feminism in practice, the Soviet Union.

      We don’t “blame the New York Times, and a handful of ugly Jewish lesbians for the ‘corruption’ of women.” After all, blaming these institutions for the “corruption of women” is like blaming the temperature on a thermometer; wrong, and dumb.

      Power develops with the proper acceptance of proper responsibility. By allowing man-women relationships to be reduced to their essential sexual foundation, the higher functions they fulfill – having children, civilizing them into familes, and so forth (all totally absent in the poverty-filled matriarchal system of the ghetto) – are not given the foundation they need to develop.

      The result is the stagnant state of affairs we find around us, stagnant only as a phase before catastrophic devolution.

      At the institutional level, every default choice in this society is anti-male, and very anti-man. Indeed, the deliberate gelding of the potential Warrior caste , even their State-supported destruction in the womb! – works to lower the standard of living of all of us, a decay that compounds into a collapse function for the social order.

      The complaints are grounded in understatement; the ease with which a man’s life can be destroyed by the most casual claim of “domestic violence” is absolutely breathtaking. Look at the “spousal outcry” sections of most domestic violence laws, the way the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been interpreted. Are you aware of “must arrest” provisions in these laws? All of the power goes to the Sate, who use these women as tools for the destruction of families – their own, and those of the society.

      You talk to the young women of today, and their “affections” are solely for the Bad Boy, IF he is the Alpha Male of Bad Boys. Think Robert Downey, Jr., when he isn’t playing Tony Stark, billionaire (Alphe enough for you) industrialist, and inventor of Iron Man.

      The Good Guy? Hard working, reliable, steady, “Good Provider” Beta Male? He is not a Real Man at all, in their eyes – is simply Homo Economicus, a Good Provider whose role has been replaced by the State system of welfare.

      At best, he is a Tool.

      At worst, he is eminently dispensable.

      Again, The Game Is Rigged.

      The only way to win is to not play The Game.

      Marcus wrote:

      In all times and in all places, those on the bottom of the sexual food chain have found theories for their dispossession and loneliness. This is just the latest. There will be others.

      In reply, those on the bottom of all food chains have found reasons for their state of affiars, and many of these have been little more than rationalizations.

      Many have been reasoned, and well-reasoned, at that.

      There are subgroups within the growing Men’s Rights Movement, and the most useful of these have developed a mindset called MGTOW.

      That’s “Men Going Their Own Way.”

      No longer are they choosing the soft victimhood of their de facto gelding by the State, and the folly of seeking the approval of women who, all too often, prefer Oprah to responsbile thinking, and the abrogation of responsibility, to the mindless pursuit of pleasure.

      MGTOW.

      Again, Leykis is right:

      “You have the right, and the responsbility, to live your own life, on your own times. If you do so, you will be prosperous, and successful beyond your wildest dreams.”

      An excellent place to start is the dvd of “Fight Club.”

      We can learn from this.

One Trackback

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance