Print this post Print this post

The Feminine Sexual Counter-Revolution
& its Limitations, Part 2

5,468 words

Part 2 of 2

Let us consider Wendy Shalit’s account, culled from anecdotes and women’s magazines, of the sexual situation women face today. The humble corporate drone who has to fear harassment charges and loss of livelihood if he winks at the girl in the next cubicle will feel as if he stepped through Alice’s looking glass when he reads this material. Here is a realm in which men have reduced women to struggling to see who can offer them the most and the best sex, frantically searching the Kama Sutra for some new position or technique that will manage to gratify their cloyed appetites.

The men who inhabit this world are concerned not that women remain faithful, but that they do not become “clingy.” Cosmo supports them, advising women to scurry out the door immediately after sex for fear of intruding on the Big Important things their man has to do that day that do not involve them — and that may well include a tryst with another girlfriend. “It’s sad to see that this is what it’s come to,” says one woman: “that guys will raise the bar and girls will scramble to meet it. Women just want to know what they have to do to get these guys to fall in love with them” (GGM, p. 176). One young woman explains: “If I don’t do whatever [my boyfriend] wants and he broke up with me for some reason, two days from now he’d have somebody else. That’s just how it works” (GGM, p. 177). “The men who share these women’s beds,” says Shalit, “are treated like kings or princes whose authority comes from God himself, whereas the women’s own feelings and even their health concerns are restricted in the extreme” (GGM, p. 81). Shalit advises one such woman to “run, not walk, to the nearest exit, trying not to trip over all the naked women on her way out” (GGM, p. 79).

All these stories certainly make it appear that, in the brave new world of the sexual revolution, the man’s position is stronger than under monogamy while the woman’s is weaker. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Let me pose a simple question that Shalit never considers. It used to be that there was roughly one girl for every boy; if men now have harems, where are the extra women coming from?

The answer is equally simple and obvious. Most men do not have harems, of course, and there are no more women than formerly. Some men have harems because women “liberated” from monogamy mate only with unusually attractive men. This situation demonstrates not the weakness of the woman’s position but its strength. If the male sex instinct were the primary determinant of mating, the overall pattern would be the most attractive women getting gang-banged.

In order to understand what is really going on, it will be necessary to shine a harsh light on a matter women instinctively prefer to keep under wraps: the female sex drive. Shalit almost never refers to it, and there is even a certain appropriateness about this, since such reticence is part of the feminine modesty she is trying to reestablish. But it means a veil is drawn over some important circumstances that must be honestly confronted if marriage and the natural family are to be restored as social norms.

When a young girl becomes erotically aware of boys, she is endowed by nature with a set of blinders that exclude the majority of them — including many who can make good husbands — from her sight. What gets a male within her narrow range of vision is called “sexual attractiveness.” What is it?

It is not possible to find out by asking women themselves. They will insist until they are blue in the face that they want only a sensitive, respectful fellow who treats them right. “Intelligence, kindness, personality [and] a certain sense of humor” make up Wendy Shalit’s list of supposedly sought-after male qualities (RM, p. 116). In a passage on the decline of male courtesy she delivers the following ludicrous assertion deadpan: “When . . .  a man does dare to open a door for a woman, he is snapped up right away” (RM, p. 156).

When women claim to be seeking kindness, respect, a sense of humor, etc., they mean at most that they would like to find these qualities in the men who are already within their erotic field of view. When a man asks what women are looking for, he is trying to find out how he can get into that field of view. Women do not normally say, either because they do not know themselves or because it embarrasses them to speak about it. The advice they do give harms a lot of lonely men who mistakenly concentrate their mating effort on showing kindness and courtesy to ungrateful brats rather than working to gain the things females actually respond to.

Fortunately, we do not have to depend upon female testimony. It is with women as with politicians: if you wish to understand them you must ignore what they say and watch what they do. Plentiful evidence gathered over a vast range of history and culture leaves no room for doubt: women are attracted to men who possess some combination of physical appearance, social status, and resources.

In the environment in which we evolved, the careful choice of a mate was critical to a female’s success in passing on her genes. If her man was not strong enough to be a successful hunter, or not of sufficiently high rank within the tribe to commandeer food from others, her children might be in trouble. The women who were reproductively successful were those with a sexual preference for effective providers. A kind of erotic “tunnel vision” was selected for, which causes women to focus their mating effort on the men at the top of the pack — the “alpha males” with good physical endowments, social rank, and economic resources (or an ability to acquire them). Today the female preference for tall men, to give just one example, no longer makes much sense, but they, and we, are stuck with it.

What women instinctively want is for 99 percent of the men they run into to leave them alone, buzz off, drop dead — while the one to whom they feel attracted makes all their dreams come true. One of the keys to deciphering female speech is that the term “men” signifies for them only the very restricted number of men they find sexually attractive. All the dirty articles in Cosmo about “giving him the sex he craves” and “driving him wild in bed” concern this man of her dreams, who by some amazing coincidence usually turns out to be the man of some other girl’s dreams as well.

During their nubile years, many women are at least as concerned with turning male desire off (i.e., telling the 99 percent to drop dead) as with turning it on (getting Mr. Alpha to commit): they get more offers of attention than they have time to process. Cunning feminists, many of them lesbians, have exploited this circumstance to the hilt, convincing naive young women they are being “harassed.” Quietly observing the furor over so-called harassment during the past two decades, I wondered how these women could fail to realize that the men of whom they were complaining constituted their pool of potential husbands and that they could not afford to alienate all of them. Clearly, I overestimated their intelligence. And Wendy Shalit does not distinguish herself in this respect either; she uses the term “harassment” as freely and uncritically as any man-hating feminist could wish.

But surely North America’s leading spokesman for feminine modesty would never encourage young women to date simply on the basis of their sexual urges?

Well, let’s see. At one point in her first book she is discussing a woman’s use of the controversial drug Prozac to help her “date calmly.” She then blurts out: “Maybe a woman shouldn’t be dating calmly — maybe it should be dizzying and tailspinning and all the rest. Maybe the floor should drop” (RM, p. 165). What she is describing here is female sexual arousal; it takes an emotional form. Her statement is the precise female equivalent of a man saying: “Men shouldn’t date calmly — they should date only young hotties with fantastic legs, hourglass figures, etc.” What would Wendy Shalit think of that advice?

Now, let me be clear: I do not have any objection per se to every woman being able to marry a stunningly handsome, successful man who makes her swoon in blissful passion eternally, yada, yada; I am merely pointing out that the world does not work this way, and men are not to blame that it doesn’t.

Moreover, there is nothing in the definition of marriage about the man (or woman) being attractive. That is because the marriage vow lays out the duties of the two spouses. Duty implies possibility. A man usually can, with considerable self-control and sacrifice, remain faithful to a single woman and support her and the children; he cannot become a romance novel hero and turn his wife’s life into a perpetual honeymoon.

The traditional answer to the question, “How do I get Mr. Tall-Dark-and-Handsome to commit?” is, “You probably won’t.” Those men go fast, and they usually go to the most attractive females. But that does not, of course, guarantee the contentment of those females either: four women walked out on Cary Grant. Part of the folk wisdom of all ages and peoples has been that sexual attraction is an inadequate basis for matrimony.

Monogamy means that women are not permitted to mate with a man, however attractive, once he has been claimed by another woman. It does not get a more attractive mate for a woman than she would otherwise get; it normally gets her a less attractive one. “Liberated,” hypergamous female mating — i.e., what we have now — is what ensures highly attractive mates for most women. But, of course, those mates “don’t commit” — really, are unable to commit to all the women who desire them. The average woman must decide between having the most attractive “sex partner” possible and having a permanent husband. If she were serious about seeking commitment, in fact, the rational procedure would be to seek out a particularly unattractive man, i.e., one for whom there is the least possible competition. This thought seldom occurs to young women, however.

For an ordinary man to mate with a woman, either (1) he must work himself into her field of erotic vision (e.g., by amassing wealth and achieving status — not by demonstrating that he is “kind” and “respectful of women”); or (2) she must take off the blinders and widen her own field of vision until it includes him. This latter is what I term the “grandmother effect.” Young women used to be routinely advised by their elders not to base their behavior toward men upon sexual attraction, despising ordinary men and immodestly throwing themselves at good-looking, high-status men. Most young women concluded from this that grandma was just too old to understand love. But sometimes the advice may actually have had a slight effect. Consider the words to a popular song from 1963:

I always dreamed the boy I loved would come along
And he’d be tall and handsome, rich and strong.
Now that boy I love has come to me,
But he sure ain’t the way I thought he’d be.
He doesn’t look like a movie star,
He doesn’t drive a Cadillac car,
He sure ain’t the boy I’ve been dreaming of,
But he’s sure the boy I love.

(By the time the song is over, we learn the boyfriend is living off unemployment checks.)

Shalit is no grandma. Besides telling young women that dating is supposed to be tailspinning, she frequently urges them to maintain “high standards” and speaks with fond nostalgia of the days when a suitor was required to “prove his worthiness” to a woman. This sounds delightful, no doubt, but the effect depends on weasel terms. Romantic young men will want to conceive of the “worthiness” they must demonstrate as a moral quality — as being a gentleman, in fact. Young women are more likely to interpret it to mean that they “deserve” a romance-novel hero. To them, “maintaining high standards” will suggest that they should keep their erotic blinders at the narrowest possible setting.

This is not modesty but delusion. The reason men found wives before the sexual revolution was not that they were “worthier” than the date-raping sex-maniacs of today (as many male conservative commentators imply), but because women did not have their expectations formed and their imaginations corrupted by the likes of Cosmo and Gossip Girl. Popular culture’s message of limitless gratification has got ignorant girls so worked up over sex that Casanova himself would not be able to satisfy them. Our author’s vague talk of “worthiness” and “high standards” does nothing to counteract this tendency, and may reinforce it.

In this book as in her last one, Shalit offers no thoughts about what is to be done with the majority of men who are less than tailspinningly attractive. This, however, is a critical question for any society. It is not simply a matter of hurt feelings. Frankly, no one has ever cared very much about the feelings of such men, as they themselves learn early and well. The reason their sexual situation is a legitimate matter for public concern is that “the devil makes work for idle hands.” Poor, low-status bachelors are the most vice-, crime-, and violence-prone group in societies everywhere. No one has ever discovered a better way of employing their time and energies than by making fathers of them. Doing so will, however, involve the immeasurable calamity that certain women will just have to date calmly.

The women the author describes as struggling to get their “sex partners” to commit would be surprised to learn that the indifference of these men to their needs and feelings is precisely paralleled by their own indifference to the majority of men, who remain outside their field of vision. The chief point of distinction, in fact, is that the women’s unhappiness is largely the result of their own poor judgment and behavior; the men’s often is not.

Shalit, however, speaks as if a man’s failure to find a wife were always his own fault. Thus, she writes in an extremely critical vein of men who use pornography as “regressing to infantile sexuality” and “incapable of sustaining an adult sexual relation with a woman” (RM, p. 53). This is perhaps a reasonable position to take for one who believes men can get wives simply by holding doors open for women. But when women are occupied providing harems to a few highly attractive men, many men will perforce find themselves “incapable of sustaining an adult sexual relation with a woman.” It does not follow that there is anything wrong with these men. The fault lies with the women who have abandoned their traditional role of enforcing monogamy. Perhaps one should consider instead whether hypergamous mating and careerist deferral of marriage by young women might not be the principal driving force behind the explosive growth of the pornography industry.

Since the sexual revolution began, plenty of “beta males” have been tearing their hair out trying to discover what on Earth they have to do to make themselves acceptable to the Cosmo girl next door. They hear it said that women do not want to be rushed into sex and are looking for a man to commit. So when a woman does not respond favorably to his first advances, Mr. Beta reasons that he has to demonstrate his commitment. He will “prove his worthiness” to the angelic creature by being patient, kind, attentive, and respectful — exactly what women claim to want from men. He then gets slapped with a harassment accusation. If the woman is a co-worker he will probably lose his job. (Many — perhaps most — employers will fire a man without a hearing upon a woman’s complaint.) The loss of income, of course, does nothing to improve his success with other women.

This pattern may be repeated for many years until, well into his thirties, he unexpectedly finds himself starting to receive come-hither looks from desperate, frustrated, menopausal shrews cast off by more attractive men (or who have divorced such men). Sadly, many men are so lonely that they try to accommodate such women. Then they find themselves on the receiving end of all the resentment against “men” that has been building up in the women’s minds all these years. (Female anger tends to be less focused on the particular person who has caused it.)

There is reason to think such accommodation of women is already becoming less common: ordinary men are understandably growing disgusted with cleaning up other people’s messes. They are starting to reason as follows:

We cannot keep resentful, Cosmo-addled, STD-infected harridans out of our schools, workplaces, or government, but at least we can keep them out of our beds. Let them have the glamorous careers the feminist sisterhood fought so hard to obtain for them. They do not need our paychecks to keep them supplied for a lifetime with pulp romance fiction and magazine articles on “Reversing the Aging Process” or “Seven Kinds of Orgasm and How to Have Them All at Once.” Everyone makes choices in life and must accept the consequences; they long ago made theirs.

This male sexual counterrevolution — “revenge of the nerds,” you might call it — is likely to end up being more important and effective than Shalit’s exclusively feminine strategy of keeping the knickers up until after the wedding. What good will that do when there is not going to be a wedding?

Men do not have to prove their worthiness to anybody. They are the ones who bear the primary costs of marriage. It is a woman’s responsibility to prove she is worthy of the privilege of becoming a man’s helpmeet and bearing his children. It takes a strict upbringing to form a tiny female savage into such a lady. Today, that form of upbringing is mostly a thing of the past: marriageable women are becoming difficult to find, and the costs of searching for them are getting too high.

A man should never base his self-image on what women think of him in any case, because women’s concerns are too materialistic and self-centered. (“He that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,” as St. Paul put it.) The men who have accomplished the greatest things for our civilization have not, by and large, resembled the heroes of women’s romance fiction; indeed, they have been disproportionately celibate. Once a man realizes what triggers female attraction, and understands that women’s judgments of men are largely rationalizations of this attraction (or its absence), he will not be inclined to overvalue their opinion of him.

I mentioned above that Shalit’s writing is strongly marked by feminine narcissism; passivity is a second feminine trait that heavily colors her account of women’s experiences.

Men, by and large, are doers. They are expected to go out into the world and accomplish something, to strive for success but accept defeat if they must, and always to be strictly accountable for their actions. Women are different. Consider popular romance fiction, that most feminine of literary genres: its key term is “passion,” which implies passivity. A hero simply appears on the scene; the helplessness of the heroine to resist him is strongly emphasized. He sweeps her up in his big, strong arms and carries her off to a realm of endless, blissful feelings. He does, while she merely is.

Romance fiction is, to put it mildly, inconsistent with the traditional Christian view of marriage, in which a woman freely enters into a covenant and is subsequently held strictly responsible for living in accordance with its terms. The contrast might be expressed thus: the Christian view of womanhood is ethical, while the romance-novel heroine is a merely natural being.

The women in Wendy Shalit’s anecdotes are of the latter sort: they never seem to do anything. They are like romance heroines in passively submitting to whatever some man does to them, except that they always seem to end up miserable.

In A Return to Modesty, for a first example, the author describes T-shirts designed by the campus feminists at Williams College bearing such charming messages as “I HATE YOU!” and “Don’t touch me again!” One of the shirts read, “Why does this keep happening to me? When will this end?” (RM, p. 9). The woman appealing for our attention and sympathy with this message apparently does not perceive herself as an agent at all; bad things (presumably involving men) simply “keep happening” to her.

Or again, Shalit recounts an incautious 1 a.m. visit of hers to a summer camp counselor’s bedroom when she was a tender 15: “One evening, I suddenly found myself [my emphasis] one floor above the room in which I usually slept. This room, as it happens, was the bedroom of my instructor. I don’t recall exactly the circumstances under which I had alighted there . . .” (RM, pp. 184–85). A man might be tempted to point out that it probably involved putting one foot in front of the other. I do not wish to be too rough on a girl of 15, but when thousands of adult women complain about “finding themselves” in bed with men who have no interest in marrying them, it is harder to be indulgent.

The problem with a passive mindset is that it involves an abdication of personal responsibility. Shalit wants our sympathy for the way her female interviewees are treated by their boyfriends, but she carefully avoids mentioning how the men got to be their boyfriends. In every case, it happened because the women chose them. The rule of nature is that males display while females choose.

Now let us consider in some detail one of Shalit’s unhappy-woman anecdotes which seems to me particularly instructive:

A friend of mine had an affair with her professor when she was 21. She was in his class at the time and madly in love with him; he had no intention of doing anything other than using and summarily disposing of her. I was struck, not that what had happened to her [my emphasis] had deeply upset her, but that she felt she had to apologize: “this is going to sound really cheesy but, um . . . I mean, for God’s sake, he took my virginity!” (RM, p. 11)

Much as I hate to spoil the effect of the touching melodrama the author conjures up for us here, I believe some comments and questions are in order. First, loss of virginity is not something that simply “happens to” a woman. Both author and interviewee speak as if the man “took” his student’s virginity like a pickpocket depriving an unwitting victim of a wallet. How exactly was this young lady’s attention occupied while the unspeakable defilement of her innocence was taking place?

Second, precisely what is meant by the assertion that the young woman was “madly in love”? Love may be the ultimate weasel term, so for purposes of clarification, let me oppose to the author’s anecdote a short one of my own.

I had occasion recently to make some visits to a nursing home. Most of the residents never receive visitors; they just sit, bound to wheelchairs, waiting for death. Such care as they get is provided by low-wage workers speaking Swahili, Amharic, and a Babel of other tongues. Heaven knows where their children or grandchildren are. But a few cases, I noticed, are different. A man who once navigated bombers past Hitler’s Luftwaffe was there, unable to feed himself. Every day his wife appeared and sat by him, patiently spooning the food into his mouth. Was he an “alpha male”? Did he make her swoon with passion? Did he support her any longer? Did he, for that matter, provide her with any benefit at all? No: yet she continued to appear every day for months on end, never complaining, until the day he died. This behavior cannot be explained in terms of rational self-interest, and I submit that it might reasonably be called “love.”

But love in this sense cannot be demonstrated to exist in a young woman — not even a newly married one; it requires a lifetime to reveal itself. So no one is in a position to say for sure whether Shalit’s “madly in love” friend was really prepared to stand by the professor “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health,” etc. — not even the young woman herself. Even if he had married her en forme, there is a good statistical chance she would have ended up divorcing him after a few years (blaming him, as unfaithful wives invariably do, for the “breakdown” of the marriage). We simply cannot know.

When the author describes this woman as “madly in love,” however, she is not referring to any active service or sacrifice, but to an emotion. This type of love, especially characteristic of the young, might better be termed infatuation. It is a natural occurrence which always wears off over time. It does not merit the respect we pay to a lifetime of proven marital loyalty.

Shalit’s friend probably experienced the podium effect. When a man is addressing an audience, it conveys subrationally to the female mind that he has status: he speaks, while others merely listen. The phenomenon has long been known to Hollywood scriptwriters. Many old Cary Grant romantic comedies contain a scene where the heroine watches him addressing an audience. Shalit could probably tell us plenty about the podium effect herself, if she cared to; she mentions “my admiration for my [future] husband after hearing him speak at a Passover seder” (GGM, p. 103). (Not after his holding a door for her!) In any case, the podium effect is a principal reason for the erroneously termed “lecherous professor” situation.

Third and finally, let us consider the assertion that the professor “had no intention of doing anything other than using and summarily disposing of her.” While I do not wish to approve of professors fornicating with students, it should also be pointed out that most men do not rub their hands like nickelodeon-show villains and cackle: “Heh, heh! I’m going to use this girl to sate my wicked lusts and then abandon her to heartbreak and ruin!” Going into an affair, a man, like a woman, may not even know precisely what he wants or intends.

But experience indicates that whenever a love affair does not work out to a woman’s perfect satisfaction (which in practice means always), she will be inclined to foist a tendentious and self-exculpating interpretation upon the events: she “loved” him, while he was “just using” her. One of the reasons for the institution of marriage, I have come to believe, is to prevent women from doing this, to enforce public recognition of the legitimacy of a man’s taking a mate. Marriage is what lets men say, “It’s okay — she’s my wife.” The sentimental scenario of the heartless cad’s “preying upon” the wide-eyed girl is dangerous because it appeals so powerfully both to female passivity and irresponsibility, and to the male protective instinct. Without some socially sanctioned form of sexual union, men’s protective urges might go into overdrive and we would see them shooting up the town trying to “protect” young women from becoming mothers.

I have come across male commentators, for example, maintaining that professors who “prey upon” female students should (in certain cases) be treated as rapists. This is a radical departure from the Christian view of women as moral agents, and the high status of women in Western society is essentially bound up with such a view.

As far as I can see, if we are unwilling to hold women strictly accountable for their actions, we have only one logical recourse available: a return to the ancient Roman legal doctrine that a woman is a perpetual minor. This would involve an end not merely to contemporary “women’s liberation” but to an entire legal tradition that has developed within Christendom over centuries. For starters, it means women could no longer be permitted to hold property or enter into contracts. Although demeaning to women and inconvenient even for men, such a system is at least internally consistent.

What is both inconsistent and morally indefensible is what feminism and the misguided gallantry of certain male conservatives are now combining to promote: freedom for women to do as they damned well please, with blame and punishment for men if the women are not happy with the results of their own behavior.

In sum, I would advise men not to let their tears be jerked too easily by stories of women falling helplessly prey to seduction and abandonment. Ever since the day, well before the dawn of history, when human beings first grasped the connection between coitus and childbirth, all societies have demanded sexual self-restraint from their women as a matter of course. It is a highly suspicious circumstance that the most politically “empowered” women in the history of the world have suddenly turned sexually helpless.

Another expression of Shalit’s feminine-passive pattern of thinking is that, in emphasizing the reservation of sex for marriage, she says almost nothing about getting girls married. Her strategy for them amounts to “some day your prince will come.” Since she focuses exclusively upon young women, it is not clear what she would say to the millions of lonely career women who have followed this advice to the letter and “find themselves” being overtaken by menopause still waiting for the tailspinning man of their dreams to appear.

The author quotes with approval a number of allegedly modest young women for saying “I haven’t found anyone worth marrying yet.” This is not self-respect but self-conceit, and I do not buy it. A man picked randomly off the street today would often be as good as whatever bloke such a girl eventually settles for, assuming she manages to settle in time at all.

Another of Shalit’s allegedly modest women says: “I’m abstinent because I have a goal in life. I want to be a doctor or a registered nurse. If I have a baby or something that blocks my goal, I’m not going to be able to achieve that. So being focused and staying in school is my main goal right now.” For young women like this, notes Shalit, “having a baby symbolizes being ‘stuck'” (GGM, pp. 65–66). The author does not seem to perceive that this is merely feminist careerism and antinatalism as usual, and has nothing to do with modesty.

Women are at the peak of their sexual attractiveness to men in their early twenties for a good reason: this is also the peak of their fertility, which begins a steep, irreversible decline around age 26. Shalit herself apparently delayed marriage until about 28. In parts of Scandinavia — that vanguard of Western decadence — the average age for women at first marriage has now passed 30. One of Shalit’s modesty activists had her first child at 37, and she pooh-poohs the woman’s friends who had warned of the dangers by simply noting that the baby in this particular case was born healthy. Some years ago, a survey discovered that 89 percent of younger, high-achieving women believe they can safely postpone pregnancy until their forties. In 2002, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine attempted to correct such misconceptions with a campaign of public-service ads; the project was abandoned because of opposition from feminist groups.

In the America of the 1950s — the baby boom — the average age for women at first marriage sank as low as 20. I emphasize the word “average”: plenty of girls were younger, marrying right out of high school or even before. To this day, marriage at 16 is legal for girls in all 50 states (with parental consent). During the Christian Middle Ages, a bride was often a bit younger still. Most Americans today have no idea how bizarre their horror at “teenage pregnancy” would have seemed in other times and places.

On a final note, and as a service to The Last Ditch’s female readers, I would like to reveal what makes a man commit. It is in fact an extremely simple matter, although carefully unmentioned in women’s magazines: children. A normal man feels morally committed to a woman who is bearing him children he can feel certain are his. The survival of our civilization may depend upon women’s speedily reacquainting themselves with this ancient and timeless reality.

Source: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/

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.

41 Comments

  1. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Once a man realizes what triggers female attraction, and understands that women’s judgments of men are largely rationalizations of this attraction (or its absence), he will not be inclined to overvalue their opinion of him.

    This should be tattooed on the inside of the skulls of all young men. The key to success with women? Make Something Of Yourself. Then, as if by magic, suddenly, women who want you to notice them will notice you. Your married friend’s wives will insure this, I assure you. Cinderella, their Ideal, married UP.

    Now, juxtapose this with George Soldini. George got everything right but the one thing that mattered; perfect ticket puncher, with the wrong ticket. Rational to a fault with the irrational, George, like Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball, went made. Soldini, the perfect Beta Male, blamed the women. Ball, the wiser Alpha, blamed the System.

    This has profound implications for us. With the State replacing the Beta Male functions for the formerly middle class and below, women can choose Alphas solely for purposes of distraction. Betas, like Soldini, like the lower 85% of the Bell Curve, are eminently expendable. They have “choices,” but who do they resemble in their choices? Good Ol’ Charlie Brown. Damn, but Lucy even wrote the Rules he failed by!

    I leave the metaphor of Charlie Brown, inept Beta Male, and his relevance to the last FIFTY years of “White Nationalism” as an exercise for the student.

    The importance of the METApolitical project has never been greater. Contributions to counter-currents are the best place for the money you waste becoming a “Better Beta.” This is a Kali Yuga society; as Devlin noted in his best piece on this topic, Civilization requires (Better) Betas, whom women hate. Hence, the absolute necessity for a much greater focus of their efforts, and their lives; a metapolitical focus.

    What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  2. Mark Hess
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    Reading “The Feminine Sexual Counter-Revolution & its Limitations (Parts 1 & 2)” is baffling. It moves from what seems like legitimate and challenging critique, and enters a realm of unreason, contempt and loathing. How else does one explain a piece that is so devoid of empathy, even when it seems to acknowledge the disgusting reality that females are purposefully bombarded with cultural poison from before the time they enter kindergarten?

    It is understandable to want to rally in defense of males. One of the most destructive, dishonest and nauseating aspects of “feminism” is the demonetization of men, especially those of European heritage. However, this piece often appears to bend over backwards to excuse the selfish, destructive and irresponsible behaviors of males, as if females are responsible for all of that.

    Really, if one believes that a little over half of his race is inherently abhorrent, stupid and untrustworthy, why care about the continuation of that race? And where does such a belief come from?

    • Lew
      Posted June 29, 2011 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      What selfish behavior are you referring to?

      • maaldweb
        Posted July 16, 2011 at 3:46 am | Permalink

        Don’t bother with Mark Hess. Fathers with daughters are all like that. They can’t believe their little princesses are nothing more than angels. People like Hess install that mentality to all these spoiled young women you meet everyday. He is part of the problem

  3. White Republican
    Posted June 29, 2011 at 4:28 am | Permalink

    Regarding feminist narcissism, the Australian philosopher David Stove wrote:

    “If one looked just at ‘the women’s movement’ itself, who could possibly resist the conclusion that women are intellectually inferior to men? The feminists have yet to produce a single piece of writing, devoted to their cause, which any rational creature could attach importance to. Their writings only serve to show that the authors, after having enjoyed for most of a century advantages which no women ever enjoyed before, and which few or no men have ever enjoyed in any greater degree — advantages of freedom, education, wealth, and health — still have nothing more to draw upon than a boundless conviction of their own brilliant merits, merits which the world, by some equally boundless wickedness, has failed to appreciate. Their only theme is still the old everlasting one: we was robbed! One is apt to think, ‘Jesus, why don’t they do something that would command intellectual respect, instead of forever whining about how they are prevented from doing it?’ But this is a foolish thought . . . to look to feminism to bear intellectual fruit is looking for figs from thistles.”

  4. F. Roger Devlin
    Posted June 29, 2011 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Mark: Where, exactly, does this essay “bend over backwards to excuse the selfish, destructive and irresponsible behaviors of males?”

  5. Mark Hess
    Posted June 29, 2011 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    With respect, I think you know what I am getting at, as the whole essay implicitly lets us males off the hook, and encourages us to believe that there is no need to prove our worthiness to our women, because they are inherently defective.

    — “A man should never base his self-image on what women think of him in any case, because women’s concerns are too materialistic and self-centered.”

    — “The chief point of distinction, in fact, is that women’s unhappiness is largely a result of their own poor judgement and behavior; the men’s often is not.”

    — “Going into an affair, a man, like a woman, may not even know precisely what he wants.”
    — in regard to a professor who had sexual relations with a twenty one year old
    female student… apparently, she is more worthy of our scorn than the
    professor

    — “It does not follow that there is anything wrong with these men. The fault lies with women who have abandoned their traditional role of enforcing monogomy.”

    — “Men do not need to prove their worthiness to anybody. They are the ones who bear the primary cost of marriage. It is a woman’s responsibility to prove she is worthy of the privilege of becoming a man’s helpmeet and bearing his children. It takes a strict upbringing to form a tiny female savage into such a lady.”

    • F. Roger Devlin
      Posted June 29, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      Since women are the primary mate-choosers (having fewer gametes), I believe they bear primary responsibility for overall mating behavior, including the enforcement of monogamy. The sex that must wait to be chosen has less control over this aspect of life. This is why sexual misbehavior has traditionally been regarded as a more serious offense in women than in men.
      But I also believe that sex is (along with childcare) just about the only domain in which females have primary responsibility. On the whole, being a man means taking responsibility – including for supporting one’s wife and children (assuming one lives in a normal society where men are allowed to carry out this task without interference).
      Today, of course, things are hardly normal, and some people try to hold men responsible for things which we cannot possibly control. ‘Some people’ includes family court judges and conservative commentators of the type who write for Chronicles.
      Of course, turning the tables on women by inquiring into their worthiness for marriage doesn’t mean that men have no standards to meet. It only means that those standards should be determined by what is truly best for ourselves and our families – rather than on a woman’s romance-novel notion of the most exciting possible mate.

      • Michael
        Posted July 2, 2011 at 2:05 am | Permalink

        Please also note advances in evolutionary anthropology. Jared Diamond explains quite impressively, why women dominate human mating behaviour, and how that is physiologically achieved. A hidden estrus is one of the decisive elements of the female strategy to bind men to her (men can never be sure, that they are around, when their wives are in estrus, to prevent other men from fertilizing them) , yet gives her a unique ability to select the biological fathers for her children.

        I believe, this theory of the human sexual evolutionary arms race supports your views.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted June 29, 2011 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

      Mark:

      You write in a very feminine style. Now, more than ever, you need Masculine Correction, the intellectual and spiritual equivalent of testosterone. After the-spearhead.com, you’ve come to the right place. After all, you seem remarkably silent on the Insight of the piece.

      You wrote: “One of the most destructive, dishonest and nauseating aspects of “feminism” is the demonetization of men, especially those of European heritage.”

      You missed the point entirely. “Feminism” – your term, I prefer the more correct Marxist-Feminism, or Judeo-Feminism, simply took tendencies THAT WERE ALREADY THERE, amplified and distorted the ones that suited their purpose, while marginalizing and minimizing the rest. Fifty years ago, young girls were groomed to be young women, who wanted to be ladies of a certain age, with timeless elegance, and a focus on Eternity, through Family and Children. Now, young girls are groomed to be old whores, at a very young age, indeed.

      Tom Leykis spoke of this. “Sex and the City” did more for us than the Pill ever did, by conditioning an entire generation of girls that being a whore was glorious. From a materialistic perspective, it is, for a (short) season. Miley Cyrus took care of the Next Generation for good. The need for the Beta Male is less obvious to them, and they hold them in open scorn and contempt. Ask George Soldini how THAT worked out for him.

      Thus, they “love” the Alpha Males – “Mr. Big,” et. al., ever more desirable, and ever less attainable. Think George Clooney will have ANY trouble whatsoever pulling ANY woman he wants? Robert Downey, Jr.? Their war on marriage – the REAL purpose for all of this – has, tragically, morphed into a War on Men. Even the Alphas are only useful as diversions, because, to her, it is all about HER.

      After ten thousand years, we are finally beginning to catch on. Being Men, when we shut down the circuit breakers called the Consensus Trance (HT: Horus the Avenger), and accept our Talents and Gifts, we use them to conquer, one way or another. Hence, the decline in marriage, which is really just getting started. Good!

      Civilization grew by women grooming their daughters into being young ladies, and, in time, Matriarchs supporting Patriarchs. Those days are over, For A Season (HT: Anita Stansfield). We realize that women drive you crazy – crazy-making behavior – because you LET them use you for THEIR purposes.

      Hence, Tom Leykis and his famous Observations:

      (1) Women want to GET married.

      Women do not want to BE married. If you try to make a marriage “work,” you are a Fool, and will suffer a Fool’s Price.

      (2) Women Are Dream Killers.

      They want to play Cuckoo’s Nest, taking your Dreams and replacing them with their Plans For You. In turn, this requires men consider a phrase Women use constantly, where they refer to you “Potential.” What THEY mean by this word is not what YOU mean. THEY mean, “Your POTENTIAL” to make THEIR Dreams a reality. Your Vision for manifesting your Potential, and fulfilling a Destiny, has very little to do with THEIR Vision of your Potential, because they have Plans for you. This, if you allow it, becomes a DUTY – your Duty – “to the Relationship.” “Relationship” is a code word for you making her happy, in all possible ways, particularly at the expense of YOUR Dreams.

      And now, Children, you know where Nagging comes from. You simply aren’t meeting your “Duty to the Relationship” – your “Potential” is being squandered by fulfilling your conception of your Dreams, and your Destiny. What a waste you are! Shame on you! Shame! (Usually, and tragically, your Mother usually supports her.)

      Harden your hearts, guys, and Dump That Bitch. It’ll put all of the cards on the table, and, if you have the courage to read the above paragraph, you will review your life with a sense of horror, at how easily you have been played for a Fool, and anger to Do Something about it. An easy, and very cost-effective way to start, is to send money to counter-currents, regularly.

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Posted June 29, 2011 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

        Fourmyle of Ceres,

        I have always liked your comments, and this comment of yours is great. But I would advice not using bold type: it’s a real pain for our eyes.

        Cheers!

        • Fourmyle of Ceres
          Posted June 30, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

          Chechyar:

          Thanks for the heads-up.

          The “Women Are Dream Killers” paragraph hurts the eyes (sorry!) because the idea it encapsulates is so alien to the Consensus Trance (HT: Horus the Avenger), and all we have been taught from pretty much birth.

          That’s because we have been lied to, profoundly, on a scale that simply boggles the Mind. In such cases, you have two choices – (a) retreat to the Blue Pill world you are outgrowing, or (b) keep going, and abandon the Childish Illusions you have built much of your life, and your persona, around. (a) gets you Charlie Brown – planned, designed, manufactured, and easily manipulated. Ever meet an alcoholic? All fighting the realization that Charlie Brown never grows up, all angry as Hell over something that laughs at their choices of ineffectiveness, and impotence.

          That’s the metaproblem the Race faces: how do we grow beyond the limits selected for us by our Racial Enemy, who controls most of the words we hear, and the pictures we see? How do we escape The Matrix, the world created by control of color television, with the visual messages reinforced for us, allowing Them to substitute Their Plans, Their Values, for Our Dreams?

          Taking control of your own life is challenging enough. Start by getting into physical shape, and not watching television. Then, shift from Charlie Brown, and be proactive. This is why I tell one and all to write a daily diary of one or two lines describing the world outside their bedroom window in 2050, and what they did to make it better than their passive indifference, their learned helplessness, would have made it. NOT ONE PERSON took me up on this, in large part because they are simply overwhelmed, and take the Blue Pill.

          Who wants to admit he has been played for a Fool for decades? Who wants to admit such illusions as he subscribes to are simply that? THAT is the seminal importance of the Insight of Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball, the realization that Civilization hates what it needs most – solid, reliable, Beta Males – and works with an open hidden agenda, seen in the Second Set of Books, to harness their Masculine Energy, and destroy them.

          Reread that last sentence. It is, to use the phrase of Wells, an Open Conspiracy. I played the mp3 of Leykis reciting the “Women Are Dream Killers” paragraph in a car with some friends, and they ALL just stared ahead with eyes locked straight forward. It literally evoked the full range of Hypnotic Conditioning they have accepted, all but forcing them to shut down – literally. ONE of them didn’t, and, made me replay it. He then SHOUTED at the mp3 player, “You son of a bitch! Where were you twenty years ago? Where were you when I needed you?” He then started hitting the dashboard, screaming obscenities. EVERYONE else in the car pretended they weren’t hearing him… now, THAT is the power of the Consensus Trance, THAT is the power of decades of incessant conditioning, of Training them into allowing them to act repeat ACT like “Men” for a few minutes – football on television, for instance – while insuring the Deep Conditioning went ever deeper.

          We’ve been in a War of the Sexes for most of the last century; softly, for the first fifty years, and then, with widespread color television, with ruthless animosity. We just didn’t realize the War was on. Lucy certainly did, Charlie Brown. Your mother did, too.

          The Soft Totalitarians never let us read 1984 in school, much less discuss it. We never read Hamlet, much less discussed it. The intellectual gelding, and the self-gelding of boys who fail to perform the acts of Individuation needed to become Men, were never discussed, because they hit too close to home for the Controllers. We might read a bit too deeply between the lines, and ask why can’t we think clearly, deeply, and abstractly, Charlie Brown, or generate enough Masculine Power to walk away from the rigged Games, Charlie Brown.

          This Is Not By Accident.

          The State, and Controllers, and Women, all want you soft, safe, and neutered, always doing Approval Dances for approval which is limited, at best, and conditioned, at all times. We face long odds, gentlemen, and glorious opportunities.

          Their problem is this:

          WE are the batteries of The Matrix, WE are the batteries and governors of the process of Civilization.

          The Alpha Males jump start them once, but only as Tonight’s Entertainment. They build nothing, they create nothing, and the sustain less than nothing. Women choose Oprah for intellectual stimulation and cultural reinforcement! Then, women choose the Bad Boys, the Exciting Boys, over us, because they take the Batteries for granted. What is MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and the Marriage Strike, but John Galt’s Strike being slowly fulfilled – that which makes the world GO is stopping, shutting down, leaving, disengaging from the Matrix, one at a time.

          The First Key To Peace and Freedom was given to us by Tom Leykis:

          Dump That Bitch!

          What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  6. Lew
    Posted June 29, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Another unbelievable article by F. Rodger Devlin. Every paragraph resonates with truth. I have also never read a writer who is able to maintain such a high scholarly tone and level of thought while also being so funny. All of Devlin’s articles should be required reading.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted June 29, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

      Lew:

      When you read Devlin’s article on why Beta Males are critical to Civilization, and juxtapose it with the now universally acknowledged contempt women have for them, you will see the need for a metapolitical project with crystal clarity.

      Devlin’s article provided the missing linkages needed to explain why the second part of Tom Leykis’s philosophy – Leykis 101 is part 1, What To Do is part 2 – moves from “What Is Wrong?” to “What Can I DO, And Why?”

      For the first question, understanding Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball’s Second Set of Books analysis is of preeminent importance to understanding how Lucy rules Charlie Brown.

      Sending money to counter-currents is an excellent place to start answering the second question.

      The Key to the Second Question comes from Father Himself, Tom Leykis, Of Blessed Name:

      “The key to happiness and prosperity, boys? Three little words. DUMP THAT BITCH!”

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  7. realVercingetorix
    Posted June 30, 2011 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    The situation described in this outstanding essay is, in essence, an evolutionary bottleneck. Male attractiveness will evolve, over the coming generations, until it is consistent with reproductive success.

    Also consider that we’ve had minimal selection pressure since about 1850-1900, which marked the onset of the industrial revolution and the oil boom. Once the era of scarce energy begins, the passive, gullable and narcissistic “children of the oil boom” will generationally die out and be replaced by hardier stock, resembling the remarkable people who founded and settled North America.

  8. Alaskan
    Posted June 30, 2011 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps someone here can write a piece on Otto Weininger’s “Sex and Character”. Essential reading if one wants to explore another perspective on the vacuous nature of Woman. As Devlin has aptly pointed out, the majority of women are by nature materialistic and thus are attracted to the most affluent men (here, often the most appetitive and avaricious-men of inferior quality in every other way), they endlessly demonstrate that they care very little for men of high quality in terms of moral uprightness, inner character, devotion to certain ideals, or superior intellect focused on goals other than mere acquisition of money, social ladder climbing and meaningless titles. Therefore, many men abandon the pursuit of the lofty in order to chase Mammon, transitory markers of “success” etc. in order to obtain “high value” women who will just as easily leave them for another male who manages to imposes his frame and will upon her, making her suddenly forget everything in the hopes of being taken to greener pastures elsewhere. Of course, this same man will torture himself by trying to understand this phenomenon by employing logic! This is the fate of our age, sadly. It is also for this reason that I am planning a trip to India, after I complete my university work this winter, to seriously study in an ashram, focusing on developing my own mind, spiritual side and making a conscious choice to leave women to their foolishness. I, for one, have wasted enough time with them. Fortunately, I have two capable brothers to carry on our genetic line.

    Good luck gentlemen!

    • Posted June 30, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      @ “It is also for this reason that I am planning a trip to India, after I complete my university work this winter, to seriously study in an ashram, focusing on developing my own mind”

      Ashrams won’t develop your mind. The whole eastern approach to problems of the living is an escape from reality, as Will Durant noted. If you want to make a difference, help us in our fight for an ethno-state. Once created, sexual mores will be reverted and every working man will have his own beautiful nymph to contemplate at his home.

      As Fourmyle has said countless times, focus Northwest.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted June 30, 2011 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

      Alaskan:

      Sathya Sai Baba, the Yuga Avatar, said, “Why fear, when I am here?” His Feminine counterpart, Divine Mother Ammachi Mata Amritanandamaya said, “Don’t look for me here, or there. My dwelling place is in your heart.”

      Why not start where you are, and move to where your life can be spent in the fulfillment of a much greater purpose, a true Racial Purpose? Why not do something called the Self-Directed Search, available at most Employment Service places and community colleges, and various tests to discover your true Talents. Hell, see a good astrologer! Then, develop a plan to transform those Talents into Capacities. Do this in the greatest concentration of resources on Earth, America. Do this in any of several locations in the Northwest Republic. Become a preacher in a local church, for help form home churches, and use them as the foundation for organizing home schooling, and home school cooperatives. This gains you political legitimacy, and great personal effectiveness.

      Chechar’s citation of Durant is perfect. If you were an Eastern soul, you would have been born in the East. The active, dynamic outworking of your karma in the dharma of the West was Chosen for you before you were born. Take full advantage of that Responsibility, and those Gifts.

      Follow the example of, say, Jack London, who made a fortune, lost a fortune, but never stopped bettering himself, and making the world a better place for those around him. Why go East?

      “Wherever you go, there you are!” The old, pathetic, failed, White Nationalist “Movement” needs to be reborn, and the Key is to define a Cause, and then a tangible Plan that a Movement can be developed around, organically. The Fourteen Words can be seen in a more acceptable phrase, like “Families First!” We can accomplish all we want to accomplish, and much more, if we define our political issues around the Constitution, and our personal organizing around Christian social structures and systems. Many people will need someone with deep spiritual courage to face the Darkness that is to come, a time defined, accurately, by Jim Giles in one word: “Lime.”

      Help them have something worth living for, and fighting for. Start with, say, local Salvation Army food programs, and move forward to help them deal with getting jobs, and getting better jobs, and building better lives, after that.

      I am all for giving up what can not work, to make a way for what could work. Don’t look to the past blindly, but look to the past for Ideas that can be usefully applied today. Rebuild your life, forsaking the dross of the Enemy-manufactured Illusions of who you were, and transforming the rest of your life into being who you were SUPPOSED to be, in the fulfillment of your incarnational duties, transforming (once again!) your Talents into Capacities. This is a subtle theme of Harold Covington, particularly in his Radio Free Northwest podcasts. I listen to them, nightly, as do my Nephews, for Inspiration.

      Sending money, no matter how little, regularly, to counter-currents, will help, as well – and you don’t have to cross continents, and cultures, to do so!

      Let’s keep this useful conversation going, shall we? I appreciate someone who does not choose the path of impotent victimhood that is the hallmark of so many self-identified “White Nationalists.” By the way, notice my sig line:

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted July 1, 2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      In further reply to Alaska:

      I’ve had a chance to reconsider what I wrote to you.

      At the-spearhead.com we have a great piece, “Stop Looking For A Wife: You Won’t Find One.” It’s well worth your while, as you will realize it is not your fault that women have become the way they are. You won’t waste energy doing approval dances for worthless whores, who gape in Alpha-state servitude at Oprah’s revelations – that THEY are wonderful, THEY are Perfect Princesses, and we are simply, at best, Alpha Males (Tonight’s Entertainment), and at usual, eminently expendable Beta Males, a source of money and capital (false rape charges, alimony, maintainence, child support). There is no “at worst,” as being anything other than an Alpha Male is worst. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

      My proposals for how to invest the rest of your life are as serious as anything I have ever written. Without the deadweight of a hate-filled Bitch, and, worse, thoroughly ungrateful Children who have been raised from birth to hold you in contempt, you can live on little money (less than your grandfather made, probably), and have a high quality standard of living.

      See a good astrologer, take the Self-Directed Search, and find a job that pays enough to keep you warm and fed that fulfills the Purpose for which you were placed on the Earth. If you ever think of buying a car, don’t. If I was starting out, I would buy a Ford E-250 panel van, and make it my mobile home. It would be very well maintained, but that is where I would start. More money? Get a RV based on that chassis, which looks like a plain Jane E-250. In the times to come, conspicuous consumption marks you as a target. Low key is the key to effectiveness.

      Then, scout out an area that looks good, and find some small local churches. Dress nicely for the services (DRESS NICELY ALL THE TIME!), and visit several until one feels right. Then, tell the pastor you would be looking for a family – an elderly couple – that would be willing to rent you a sleeping room. He’ll know someone. Go to annualcreditreport.com, the government’s site, and get your FREE annual credit report. Review it, and make sure it is accurate. It will be used by people who want to know a little bit about you.

      You can get whatever schooling you need online, or at a local adult ed high school, or tech school, or community college. Again, build that network as you be what you are – a quiet, man of God who does not gossip, and is Starting Over, as he answers The Call.

      As you become more effective, you will discover women *suddenly* finding you attractive. Just say “No.” Treat them like mercury fulminate, and NEVER be alone with one of them. Never. Just as you get started on The Path, the Adversary Forces will hit you with their best destructive diversions. Whores are a classic.

      To one day start your own church, start Bible studies, based on the Gospel of John. Hold them in open places, and perhaps get the reputation as a Preacher who does home Bible studies, while not contradicting the opinions of the homeowners. Be THE Authority of the Gospel of John. In time, use the ideas from the kinists website, Spirit Water Blood and Cumbria SHall Not Yield sites, as well as the christianseparatist site.

      You have been granted a rare chance to Start Over. This time, simplify, and focus with ruthless discipline. Remember the three words: “Dump That Bitch!” In time, the Five Words, and the Fourteen Words. For today, Three Words are what you need.

      Covington offers us all SOMETHING to run to, and SOMETHING GREATER to live for. This is the last chance for us. All of us.

      More to follow.

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Alaskan
        Posted July 1, 2011 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

        Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The Eastern approach is not, as I see it, an “escape” from life, but in many ways the proper deconstruction of it, and its various illusions-one being the nature of romantic “love”. Vedic philosophy is actually quite similar to Platonism, for instance, and Buddhism is purely existential, focusing on the reality of suffering and attachment. The only aspect of Christianity that I still have respect for is the asceticism of Eastern Orthodoxy. I could easily spend some time studying at Mt. Athos, however I am more intrigued by Vedic ideas. Put another way, I will not be stepping into a church anytime soon, especially in an attempt to meet some woman. This kind of study does have value, and is worth far more than being “successful” in modernity, thus becoming temporarily attractive to women, who by nature lose interest as quickly as they grow fond of a particular object of affection, which are in endless supply in the vast marketplace. Moreover, they rarely appreciate someone who is serious about idealism, etc. This we know. Why pretend it can be different? My own beliefs and convictions have scared numerous women away. They are either “too archaic”, “too intolerant”, “too unrealistic”, “too lofty”, too “elitist” and my own interests in school (philosophy, literature) will never offer a large payout in the end. I will never be rich, but I don’t care about money. I was fortunate enough to grow up with plenty of it. Therefore, I grew contemptuous of it, and what it does to people I know (family), society, culture. Of course, this is not attractive to women, and is the number one sign of “failure” today. I have personally experienced this, having one woman end things because “I would never be able to match her income” (thus living the upper class life she was accustomed to). At any rate, this is not saying much, it is what it is. I’m just not interested in the grand facade anymore. I’m not a masochist. I want something better than the cheap “love” of a woman and the accolades of “successful” half-men.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted July 1, 2011 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

          Here is my suggestion: Stop worrying about happiness and start thinking in terms of duty. Work to make the world a better place. That makes you worthy of happiness, even though you might not have the external conditions to actually be happy.

          But — and here we verge on something that tempts us to “metaphysical” explanations — when I stopped worrying about happiness and started focusing on duty, I found that I ended up being happier anyway, while I was unhappier when I was more worried about being happy.

          One explanation for this is the fact that happiness requires external conditions that are not under our control, including the cooperation of others, whereas doing the right thing is more under our control. Thus people who focus on happiness tend to be stressed out trying to control people and contingencies that are outside their control, and they usually do it at the expense of their own worthiness to be happy, because results oriented people tend to be unscrupulous, which corrupts their characters.

          People who focus more on their character make themselves worthy of happiness and also more capable of seizing it when events align in their favor, because good character, virtue, is a form of strength, of capacity to act.

          Here is another consideration: What Evola calls Uranian masculinity, true spiritual virility, is a matter of commitment to higher ideals, including the perfection of one’s character. Being concerned with happiness all the time — one’s feelings — is self-defeating and unmanly.

          Now, there are women who respond to true Uranian masculinity. Men who do not seem to need women, who think there is something higher and more important in life, are actually more attractive to women than men who are womanizers. Most women despise other women (sexual competition). And they despise any man who puts too great a store in other women.

          Savitri Devi said she could not love a man who loved her more than he loved his ideals. And I know other women like this in the WN world today — women who are also young, attractive, and unmarried — and committed to the same goals they would like their men to pursue.

          In my piece about the Woman Question, my recommendation is that the movement as a whole (which is now predominantly male) should focus on our ideals and goals, and when the movement begins to make progress, women will join it.

          The same goes for individual men: focus on your higher goals and ideals first, and the right kind of woman might very well take an interest. And if she does not come along, well, in the sex department you would be no worse off than if you swore off dating simply out of the frustrated pursuit of happiness.

          And morally speaking, you would be far better off, because you would have acted to assure your worthiness of being happy and to fulfill the highest masculine duty, which is to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, even if none of them are actually your children.

          • Alaskan
            Posted July 3, 2011 at 1:56 am | Permalink

            Greg, Fourmyle,

            Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Please forgive my emotional (ironically feminine) outbursts. I am obviously waxing bitter at the moment. I feel as if I have hit a dead end in this regard, wasting precious time chasing a dream of some kind of fulfillment or happiness that does not actually exist. Romantic love, like every other fleeting pleasure of life, does not and ultimately cannot fill the void inside, something that I have become more acutely aware of the last few years. Greg, I’m not running away to hide in some spiritual, fantasy land and use it as a crutch to cope with the anguish of existence. I’m not that naive and weak. Clearly, I have looked for happiness where it cannot be found. Of course, I also realize that life is not about “being happy”. Truth, as we all know, does not make anyone happy. Quite the opposite. And yet, here we are. Indeed, Evola, Schopenhauer and company are correct in pointing out that a desire to simply be happy is both unmanly and childish (feminine!).

            Gentlemen, I understand the concept of duty, and higher principles taking precedence over such things as love and sex. That has never been an issue for me. I think that for myself, my ideals, lifestyle, being “involved” in the WN movement for years (clearly in relative isolation, like many of us) and my approach to life have, if anything, compounded my own sense of alienation and loneliness. Yes, loneliness. It’s real and palpable and it takes a toll on a person over time. Naturally, we attempt to rid ourselves of this feeling by entering into relationships with others, particularly romantic ones where we can become more physically intimate in the vain attempt to create a sense of total union. This, however, fails to deliver-every time.

            Living here, I have never met anyone (male or female) who is actually serious about WN. Virtual communities (the bulk of the WN movement) are also poor substitute for real ones. Surely I am not the only one here who is dissatisfied with this. Although I am all for a Northwest Imperative, the reality is that most of us will probably never meet one another outside of cyberspace. We are not only alienated from our immediate neighbors, coworkers and communities, but also from each other. Thankfully, CC offers superior writing and attracts above-average people who can discuss serious topics, thus making for an online WN community with more potential than most. Concerning my contributions to CC, Fourmyle, I have been an automatic donator for quite some time now. That’s not going to change.

            I’m not going to abandon this cause simply because I’m having some kind of existential crisis. I am interested in Truth, and this is where I have ended up. I’m not interested in shirking any kind of duty here. I wish it were as simple as being able to leave everything behind to join something akin to the Iron Guard, but that’s not going to happen. I’m not sure what it is exactly that I’m “destined” to do here, simply that I am here and I’m committed, like most of you. Meantime, the world is burning and things look bleaker every day for our race and culture. Our numbers remain abysmally low whether we like it or not. Still, we remain steady in our shared vision. As far as women finding this commitment to the WN ideal attractive, I’m not holding my breath. There are only so many Savitri Devi’s, Lasha Darkmoon’s and other WN females who really seem to “get it”. I suppose that is not the point, however. I see the idea of a reverse cultural hegemony and how a new, dominant metapolitical paradigm might attract more quality women, but when and if this will actually happen is anyone’s guess.

          • Fourmyle of Ceres
            Posted July 3, 2011 at 10:05 am | Permalink

            Alaskan:

            Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Note that all of my ideas for you to consider still remain available; don’t foreclose any opportunity to be effective.

            On a larger point, you wrote:

            I see the idea of a reverse cultural hegemony and how a new, dominant metapolitical paradigm might attract more quality women, but when and if this will actually happen is anyone’s guess.

            In reply, it happens one person at a time, one relationship at a time, one Family at a time, and one Tribe, one Nation, at a time. The moment where the supersaturated solution crystallizes out can not be timed. Yet, consider the state of affairs in Germany in 1933, and the transformation that began in 1934. By 1936, the Berlin Olympics showed how the adoption of an Idea – that it WAS POSSIBLE to recover, and more than make up for lost time, with New Ideas, and a sense of Confidence that led to strength through the joyous fulfillment of a Transcendent Purpose.

            New studies of the American Revolution show an Elite took control of a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation, and formed the Articles of Incorporation of a new nation, with an organic Bill of Rights. Many of the extant Elite fled to Canada. Even so, from 1776 to 1791 was a tumultuous time, until a new cultural and political consensus was forged, with issues still unaddressed until 1865.

            So it will be in our case. All we can do is prepare, intelligently, diligently, to Be Prepared for the moment Something happens, and the key to that is to practice, practice, practice.

            VNN/F’s “Hugh’s” thread, “A Better World,” calls for us to develop the talents we will need to actually make the Transformation take place, one deed at a time. Good advice.

            What I like in your posts is this; you are not seeing yourself as a Victim, but as someone who can make choices, and will choose to do so with an eye of the Future. Our Enemies rejoice at demoralization, for then, for them, the Victory is all but won.

            Great!

            What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

        • Fourmyle of Ceres
          Posted July 1, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

          Alaskan:

          You addressed two issues. Cursorily, you dealt with Vedic teachings, and at much greater length, you dealt with why you won’t have anything to do with women. Respectfully, you missed the Larger Issue, which is WHY do either, at the expense of doing BETTER.

          To deal with the Vedic issues, you must ask, “Why am I here?” You were not created from Oblivion, to return to Oblivion. You were here to Do Something, and I have made suggestions that were appropriate to the Western Soul, about which you were silent.

          I did not say “go to Church to meet women.” I said develop the spiritual qualities in your Soul that would allow you to lead, by quite example, and softly Inspire, by the vehicle of home Bible studies, becoming home churches, and linking out from there. Nothing stops you from doing this.

          You state you want “something better than the cheap “love” of a woman and the accolades of “successful” half-men.” Every idea I have put before you puts you solidly on the path to such things, in the service of the greatest of Causes.

          I offer you Solutions, and show you the Open Door. What stops you from walking through? That is your Choice, as well. What stops you from consciously doing what the founders of the Brahmini caste did, in a Western spiritual framework, the Reformation of Christianity as it SHOULD be? What stops you from being, say, the next Loyola, for Western Man?

          Oblivion is the Path of Retreat, from a responsibility that can no longer be avoided. Choose, as is your Duty, and Choose Wisely. Reuniting the Core of Christianity with the Masculine Power of the Northern Mysteries would challenge Loyola, and be a worthy challenge, for you.

          Dealing with women – the vast bulk of your response – is an issue best addressed by others, notably Father Himself, Tom Leykis. I do have one word of advice, a painfully gained tool of effectiveness. When I mentioned Roy Masters, and the constant battle to deal with the Darkness (State-sanctioned, supported, and favored!) in the Souls of Women, I mentioned the world has changed since he first wrote those words. My Technique is very, very simple.

          One, I use Doc Love’s Ten Date Protocol, tempering my observations with comments from his Dating Dictionary. The best money I ever spent, before counter-currents.

          Two, I have ONE RULE that I enforce with absolute fairness, and absolute ruthlessness, and I tell them all at the begining:

          If you EVER lie to me, no matter how small it may seem to you, from that moment on, you are gone from my life, for good.

          This works, and that sums it up for women. By putting them first, they will put you last. Every time. Every single time.

          Lead by your quietly effective example. Take Greg Johnson’s advice to heart. Lead the New Reformation of Christianity, in a Northwest Republic. In the meantime, send some money, regularly, to counter-currents. If you can’t develop the discipline to do that, then there is no better place to start developing the discipline you will need to be the Leader you SHOULD become.

          Feel like doing the 2050 Diary thing I keep talking about? You can write it your way, and, if it’s alright with you, I’ll do the Northwest Counterpoint to it.

          What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  9. Mark Hess
    Posted June 30, 2011 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    It has been a very interesting experience for me to study the propaganda of the National Socialists. Here, I refer to that which was made to address the very real concerns over the low birthrate of Germans, and the extreme moral degeneracy promoted, overwhelmingly, by Jews.

    The bulk of that propaganda tended to be very positive in nature, often using beautiful pictures of mothers and their children. In many of those images, the husband/father is present, looking attentive, loving, strong and proud.

    It is also revealing that the depiction of women in general (not just mothers) was truly remarkable. Women were shown as healthy, athletic, strong and active. They were presented working, learning a skill, going to school, tending to their homes, exercising, marching, mothering, etc.

    We know, beyond all doubt, that this propaganda, combined with the actual fruits of National Socialism (for instance: a strong, prosperous and stable economy that was conducive to a happy family life), were highly effective. We also know that the great majority of women enthusiastically supported Hitler, a man who has often been unfairly depicted as a hyper-
    masculine brute.

    What I am getting at is this: The National Socialists did not confuse strength, bravery and masculinity with being a bully; people were not encouraged to view women as weak and fundamentally flawed and immoral. It worked, and, if it were not for scum like Churchill, FDR, Truman and Stalin, and all of their lies and warmongering, it would have continued to work.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted June 30, 2011 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

      Mark:

      Granting all you say in that post to be true, what does it mean for us, today, and our Posterity? It pretty much skips all of Devlin’s masterful analysis, and leavs us looking to the past, like an Anita Stansfield novel, without much hope for the future.

      I key off Covington’s Northwest Republic as an Analytical Model. Only Covington answers the chain question of philosophy, “And THEN What?” Eventually, you realize the staus quo is designed to kill of the social governors of marriage, and destroy the batteries of Civilization. “And THEN What?”

      My respect for the NSDAP Cultural Moment is measured, and, even then, pretty much second to none. What lessons can be usefully applied to our situation? Women who key their values, their lives, off Sex and the City, and derive their intellectual models from Oprah, as well as their daughters who key off Miley Cyrus, offer little incentive indeed for hopes of the NSDAP Cultural Moment being reborn in America as we know it.

      Thus, you seem to dance around substantive criticism, and meaningful analysis. I think I know why. Why don’t you project to the future, and write a paragraph about the world outside your bedroom window in 2050, and how things would be different, versus what we are likely to see?

      Alternatively, address Devlin’s response to your post, particularly where he addresses the responsibility of Men:

      Of course, turning the tables on women by inquiring into their worthiness for marriage doesn’t mean that men have no standards to meet. It only means that those standards should be determined by what is truly best for ourselves and our families – rather than on a woman’s romance-novel notion of the most exciting possible mate.

      Devlin makes an excellent point. The NSDAP had a “self-help” type group for girls like the Girl Scouts, the German Young Maiden’s League, or something like that. That’s called raising standards, and is the sort of social eugenics that are mocked and scorned by, say, Oprah watchers, and Miley Cyrus followers. Fine.

      No Men, No Batteries; No Batteries, No Civilization

      You think young women are old whores now? Wait until men outgrow this whole chivalry and white knight sort of thing. They wanted “equality,” and the right to openly scorn, mock, and hate the George Soldinis, the white knights, the chivalrous little fools? Fine. Can we return the favor? You bet.

      By the way, as Tom Leykis says, “You can not turn a whore into a housewife.” Just a reminder not to approval dance for worthless women, and all the more reason to Dump That BITCH!

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Mark Hess
        Posted July 1, 2011 at 1:59 am | Permalink

        “Dump That Bitch!”

        How many times have you written and said that? How many times have you expressed admiration for statements, like “You cannot turn a whore into a housewife”?

        Bitch. Whore. Bitch. Whore….

        You are letting the poison of the Jewmerican ghetto win.

        Again: If you believe that a little more than half of your people are fundamentally flawed and, thus, irredeemable, why even care about the continuation of your race?

        And why would you wish upon your people such a joyless and ugly vision, anyway?

        It makes no sense.

        • Fourmyle of Ceres
          Posted July 1, 2011 at 11:26 am | Permalink

          Mark:

          Would you want to marry Miley Cyrus – whose prenup insures you will be Tonight’s Entertainment, until the night you aren’t? ANY of the women from Sex and the City? ANY of the women who watch Oprah with blind adulation? Would you want to waste five minutes of your time with them? No, of course not. Is it their fault? Yes. They CHOSE to reflect and manifest the Zeitgeist.

          Can it be changed? Bluntly, these are the choices of other people. You can not change other people. You can only lead by your example. The example you offer is held in open contempt by the vast majority of women, their daughters, the System, and the authors and interpreters of Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball’s Second Set of Books. When I refer to them as “bitches and whores,” it’s because they broke Girl Code, and OPENLY refer to each others as Bitches and Whores, the latter with a big smile and (softly mocking) laughter.

          Why fight for what belongs in the trash bin? Anita Stansfield wrote of what was possible, if we were at our best, and there are precious few of us who seek to be such. Paternity bound us to the land, to the Family, to the Culture, and the Future of the Race. Paternity can now be stripped from us in the blink of an eye, with the signing of a court order (Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball’s Second Set of Books Courts of EQUITY, not Courts of Law – no trial by jury, no Constitution, no checks and balances, simply raw political power in black robes). Worse, we have to pay child support for children we never get to see, and who can be removed from our lives entirely at a whim, in a moment’s notice, and made to call another man “Father.”

          As George Carlin so sadly put it, “The Game Is Rigged. It’s not going to get any better, don’t try to do anything about it.” He was very somber when he said this – it’s on YouTube, and it’s the best thing he ever did. He was part of the Sixties “We Can Change The World” mindset. He discovered you can’t, and that the Children of the Sixties were played for fools by the men who Owned the country. You can only change your Self, and even then, you have your hands full.

          I’m not letting the poison win, because I am not letting the poison in my life. We over at the-spearhead have realized something Unspoken, something at the core of Girl Code, which Devlin addresses; it is like we see to a place in your Soul where you can not go, sort of like the Kwisatch Haderach in “Dune.” It’s this:

          All of your comments about what you want in a Man ASSUME he is on the radar at all; to be this, he must be the Alpha Male, Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark, billionaire ruler of Stark Enterprises and creator of Iron Man, of George Clooney, handsome and well-off Leader Type.

          That He Is Alpha is all-important to you. Only they make your radar, only they make the first cut. He could be a biker who deals meth; doesn’t matter. He is exciting, first among Men, and desired by women who sacrifices forty good years with a Beta Male, for forty wild minutes with an Alpha Man Among Men.

          The profound irony, of course, is that Betas make themselves into what women should want, but openly scorn. So, remove women from the equation, save as sporting companions, and make your life into what it was meant to Become, the fulfillment of your role in a Racial Destiny. Or, waste it, chasing meaningless “relationships” with worthless whores, who are only using you as Tonight’s Entertainment until a REAL MAN walks through the door. To them, you are like training wheels on a bicycle; useful until they are not needed.

          Again, you are silent on Devlin’s most salient point, and I think we all know why. Let’s try it again:

          Of course, turning the tables on women by inquiring into their worthiness for marriage doesn’t mean that men have no standards to meet. It only means that those standards should be determined by what is truly best for ourselves and our families – rather than on a woman’s romance-novel notion of the most exciting possible mate.

          Roger’s framing on what you are looking for, “a woman’s romance-novel notion of the most exciting possible mate,” is much kinder and gentler than mine. I imagine it’s because he is a better man then I, as well; or at least, kinder and gentler.

          See my advice for Alaskan above? Care to comment on it? Again, I missed your diary entry for 2050. It might be useful to help clarify your thinking, and your values. I would ask and say “Please,” but that would be too Beta!

          What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted July 1, 2011 at 11:51 am | Permalink

          I think that H. L. Mencken defined a misogynist as a man who hates women almost as much as women hate one another. Bear that in mind. Why do women hate each other? Because women compete with one another for men.

          Sexual competition breeds envy, hatred, and strife. Old fashioned sexual virtues like monogamy and modesty in dress were not necessarily expressions of hatred of sex. They are social mechanisms to dampen sexual competition and its attendant pathologies for the greater good of society.

          Feminism, the pill, the welfare state, and careers for women mean that women do not have to find men and settle down to have lives. They can keep their options open. And this has intensified sexual competition among men. This inevitably leads men to increased misery and increased hatred — hatred of other men, and hatred of the fickle, hypergamous women who keep trading up or keeping their options open.

          Feminism cannot help but make women unhappy. It urges them to seek power in relationships. But if they succeed, their own nature leads them to hold their men in contempt, so they “dump that wimp” and seek out someone who seems manlier. Then their feminist conscience kicks in and leads her to test his boundaries, and so the cycle continues.

          Men who enable feminists make themselves and their women unhappy. But they also undermine the ability of other men to form stable and healthy relationships. What would happen if every man issued an ultimatum as soon as his girlfriend or wife made a power-play in the relationship? Not all men would be forced to settle for internet porn or Asian fembots. Not all women would take up with bulldykes or vibrators. Women’s behavior would have to change. And all the Cosmo and Sex in the City and Womyn’s Studies classes in the world would not prevent that. Eventually, men who hold out would be able to form healthy relationships and start families.

          But if men are to strike, there has to be solidarity. And for there to be solidarity, there has to be a way of punishing the scabs. But there isn’t. And there is a simple reason for that: men who enable feminists usually get to use and discard them, and that makes them highly successful by crude numerical standards, even though they are failures by Darwinian standards if all their sex does not lead to the propagation of their genes.

        • Fourmyle of Ceres
          Posted July 1, 2011 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

          Mark (2):

          You wrote:

          Again: If you believe that a little more than half of your people are fundamentally flawed and, thus, irredeemable, why even care about the continuation of your race?

          In reply, redemption is a continual process, as the Soul seeks to transform the Persona, the Mind, the Culture and the World around them, transforming what was meant for evil, into a tool for Good, if only as object lessons on continual display. Roy Masters wrote an excellent little book called “The Secret of Man-Woman Relations.” He dealt with the duty of men to help redeem the Darkness in the Souls of women. He says, essentially, that the minute she reaches for the whip hand, you must deal with her, firmly and effectively. That was possible, in an earlier time. Not now. Fortunately, this duty has limits, as all of the Power has gone to those least constitutionally prepared to deal with it, with all Constitutional checks and balances removed.

          You can not put pearls before swine, as they will truly rend you, falsely incarcerate you, strip you of all of your assets and income, take your Children to another State, change their names, get court orders for you to not contact them AND have them call another man “Father.” Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball, “Second Set of Books,” Courts of EQUITY, not Law (as Charlie Brown was told). No Constitution, either. So, to again quote Carlin, “The Game Is Rigged.” It is, and it has been rigged by the Owners. Slightly repetitive, but worth restating, in the context of redemption, while defining redemption from WHAT.

          You wrote:

          And why would you wish upon your people such a joyless and ugly vision, anyway?

          In reply, that Vision, the one I would never wish upon my people, is up and running, and it is the blind acceptance, and enthusiastic support of, THAT Vision, that requires Redemption.

          This Redemption MUST start personally; there is too much sociological inertia on the other side. By dealing with the Darkness and Transforming it personally, we can learn to Transform the substance of our Lives into becoming effective tools for the slow, gradual Transformation of the World.

          That takes us to Harold Covington. We have wasted half a century being rational with the irrational, as if better ideas would inspire people to turn away from the Values offered them by the Adversary, using color television, and the mass indoctrination system of the public schools. Time to move forward, and bury the dead, with the dead, before they come for us, as well.

          And Mark? Your diary entries for 2050 would be very helpful, for all of us. Thank you!

          What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

          • Mark Hess
            Posted July 1, 2011 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

            “… It only means that those standards should be determined by what is truly best for ourselves and our families– rather than on a woman’s romance-novel notion of the most exciting mate.”

            I would not want to be with a woman if I thought that she was even partly driven by what is found in romance-novels. Most women I have known in my life are not.

            Our standards should also be defined by having real concern for the welfare and happiness of our wives. This, of course, does not mean that any decent, considerate and hardworking man should allow himself to be unappreciated and abused.

            About what will be outside of my window in 2050…

            I would like to see a country that has many characteristics of National Socialist Germany. For that matter, if it resembled any Germanic country before the onslaught of Third World immigration and the imposition of Globalist/Jewmerican ways of doing business and running a country, it would be a nation for which I would feel much pride. In my opinion, if it is not that, it will either look like Brazil, or there will be a reign of terror similar to that of Bolshevik /Stalinist Russia.

            I do not believe that it is a fruitless exercise to study the past to see what worked, what did not, and why. Also, I do not believe that we have become an entirely different species during the last few decades. Therefore, what we can learn from the past can be applied to the world today.

            “As you become more effective, you will discover women *suddenly* finding you attractive. Just say “No.” Treat them like mercury fulmate, and NEVER be alone with one of them. Never. Just as you get started on The Path, the Adversary Forces will hit you with their best destructive diversions. Whores are classics.”

            This is repellent. You may as well give it the title, “How to Attract a Member of the Sex You Loathe, Treat Her Like Trash, and Convince Yourself That That’s Okay.” How could anyone, who does not suffer from a severe neurological problem, read such a thing, and not conclude that the writer believes that women are inherently deserving of contempt and mistreatment?

            I do not know whether you write like this to be provocative, or if you truly mean it. I hope it is the former, but, even if it is, I do not think it helps.

          • Fourmyle of Ceres
            Posted July 1, 2011 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

            Mark:

            Thanks for your reply, which incorporates several posts in this thread.

            One, as for your reply to Roger Devlin’s point of setting standards for our women, and family, I think his larger point is women remain unalterably opposed to our making disciplined, intelligent choices. WOMEN get to do the choosing. Your friends, most of whose values are not driven by romance novels, are in the minority; compared to those whose values are driven by Cosmo, Sex and the City, and Oprah, they are truly statistical outliers. Are they Amish?

            Two, seeing a Brazil and a Reign of Terror, simultaneously, as an alternative to a Latter-Day NSDAP Germany is horrific, and accurate. Covington has written extensively about the application of the NSDAP Cultural Dynamic to the best of our future. Glad to see you respond to that issue! ALL others seem to run in horror at this.

            Three, as to my advice you entitled “How to Attract a Member of the Sex You Loathe, Treat Her Like Trash, and Convince Yourself That That’s Okay,” that was advice for one person, who was considering a Path of Spiritual Development, and is based on painfully gained observations from young men who committed to a Path of spiritual leadership, generally among churches. Their universal comment is that the women who did not give them the time of day BEFORE they answered The Call suddenly found them quite attractive, especially if they were engaged to be married, or married.

            You give your statistically ficticious sisters more credit than they deserve. The Pick-Up Artist Community, Masters of Game, discovered women consider another woman’s husband Fair Game. If you have a wedding ring on your hand as you go shopping, and a small infant in your arms as well, the little hussies will attack you like lionesses attacking prey. PUA’s get a cheap wedding band from Wal-Mart or the pawn shop, and borrow their little nieces and nephews for just this purpose! Try it some time, just to see how many attractive women suddenly make opportunities to talk with you. You will be surprised, and disheartened. Again, Alpha Male equals No Holds Barred! Beta Male equals Total Loser. All, or nothing at all. Simple as that. The only defense our guys have comes from Father Himself, Tom Leykis, and his Three Words:

            Dump That Bitch!

            Fortunately, the women YOU know aren’t like that at all, are they? Wake up. They are. They simply are. You just haven’t seen it yet. One day, all too soon, you will. Remember, you speak of the statistical outliers, statistically ficticious women the fiction writer Anita Stansfield would be comfortable describing with admiration. Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball noted that it was not the people, per se, that were the problem; it was The System Itself, ruled by the Second Set of Books, that was so deeply hostile to us. Not being Racially Aware, he did not know the half of it.

            But we will, and soon.

            What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted July 1, 2011 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

          Mark,

          Women today are being bombarded with propaganda to make them into proud, unapologetic bitches and whores. Just read one issue of Cosmo. Just look at one episode of Sex in the City.

          Does that mean that women are “fundamentally flawed and, thus, irredeemable”? No. The only fundamental “flaw” in women is the same “flaw” as we find in men: men and women are not “naturally” good and decent. Decency needs to be cultivated. Goodness needs to be cultivated. And instead of that, the most powerful institutions of our society are conspiring to make women vicious and evil.

          How do we stop that? Well, it is a daunting task, and in the end it will require collective action on the part of men that seems scarcely conceivable now. But in the meantime, men can at least (1) understand the nature of women, (2) understand the social forces conspiring to corrupt women, (3) refuse to accept unearned guilt for the breakdown of bad relationships, and (4) refuse to be victims, if necessary by issuing ultimatums and if necessary dumping women who misbehave. Unfortunately, this last is a hard thing to do for a lot of men, because they fear loneliness more than staying in a bad relationship. However, if more men follow that path — and we are already hearing talk of a marriage strike — then the behavior of women will begin to change.

          • Mark Hess
            Posted July 1, 2011 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

            Mr. Johnson,

            “Women today are bombarded with propaganda that makes them into proud, unapologetic bitches and whores. Just read one issue of Cosmo. Just look at one episode of Sex and the City.

            Does that mean women are ‘fundamentally flawed and, thus, irredeemable’? No.”

            I am also disgusted by the filth that is directed at women. I am glad that you acknowledge it. However, you soon undercut the very real impact of this trash by encouraging men to “understand the nature of women.” After reading many of the posts at this site and the comments to them, it would not be unreasonable for someone to infer that that definition would come very close to that held by Talmud-loving, female-loathing Rabbis and retrograde, misanthropic Catholic Priests.

            “Decency needs to be cultivated. Goodness needs to be cultivated…”

            Beautifully written, and I could not agree more.

            “…And instead of that, the most powerful institutions of our society are conspiring to make women vicious and evil.”

            Agreed. But those intitutions are doing the same kind of things to men.

            I live in a region that is still overwhelmingly white. I am far from being a moral and physical exemplar, but my sympathy for females only increases when I see the smorgasbord of specimens that they have to chose from for mates. A huge percentage of these males are fat, lazy, rap music-loving, pierced, tattooed and rude, and they seem to think that it is an impressive thing to be discourteous, vulgar and outright mean. So, yes, I think there is much about female behavior today that should be seriously critiqued, but that does not let males off the hook. Our decency and goodness needs to be cultivated, too.

            Lastly, as I have indicated elsewhere, I believe it is a good thing for men to protect themselves. A hardworking, decent and considerate man who, somehow, finds himself in a bad relationship, should not feel like he has to tolerate being unappreciated, neglected and abused. That is not chivalry. That is stupidity, however well-meaning. Rather than encouraging such a man to distrust all women, I would hope that he could say, “This is not going to work. My boundaries, needs and efforts are not being respected. There are more fish in the sea. Goodbye, and good luck.”

            Post Script:

            For whatever it is worth, Mr. Johnson, I very much enjoyed listening to you being interviewed by Mr. Parrott. I appreciated and respected a lot of what you said. I mean that sincerely.

            Take care.

  10. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted July 2, 2011 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Also how do men treat other men under this regime? Deprived of the honor he needs, men compensate by trying to humiliate other men. Brotherhood is almost totally lost. The Men’s movement tries to pick up the slack but it is hopelessly compromised and “gay” in both sense of the word.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted July 3, 2011 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      Jaego:

      Great question! Under the Marxist-Feminist Regime – a subsidiary of Judeo-Feminism, Inc. – men must redefine honor in higher terms than relationships with others, and those terms must be defined in DUTY to a Higher Calling.

      Look around you, and understand most people choose the Blue Pill, and various anaesthetic distractions, over the duty to See Clearly. We are like Roddy Piper in “They Live”: we have the sunglasses with Hoffman Lenses, and are trying to convince others to look and SEE. They won’t. Just as the people who left Norway and England to found America were considered losers and failures, so, too, are we, who choose to build on the firmest soil of all, the Truth, and with one eye of Eternity.

      We face seemingly insurmountable opportunities, and the people we are trying to Awaken will destroy us, and our Dreams, given half a chance. Hence, the necessity of demonstrating better Ideas, by living better lives. They can only be Awoken when they are ready. We use the Soft Power of our Better Example, and wait. The ideas I offered to Alaskan apply to all. That is the singular importance of Harold Covington; for the first time, we are choosing to define on OUR terms, and I assure you, this window of opportunity will seem to close in our lifetimes. You can’t have the batteries leave The Matrix, as the most casual perusal of any Whites Out area – Detroit, for example – will demonstrate.

      Choose this day…

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  11. realVercingetorix
    Posted July 3, 2011 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    How many of these “cosmo girls” are “alpha females”? Does Brittany Spears have a 150 IQ?

    Check out some of the female academics at TED.com. Appearing on TED isn’t a guarantee of high IQ, but I’d bet an association exists. I work in a high-IQ occupation, and few if any of the women that I’ve worked with are “cosmo girls.”

    I’d even bet that female “alpha quality” beauty is an evolutionary advertisment for genetic “averageness.” These women are probably of average to slightly above average intelligence, with neglected intellects. Intelligence isn’t everything, of course, and they may be fine human beings, but if you want smart kids, let the alpha males (Kennedy had an IQ of around 125) keep the cosmo girls as trophies, and go with an intelligent woman.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted July 4, 2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink

      realVercingetorix:

      A good point, which misses the greater points made by Devlin.

      These women want nothing to do with you; they don’t need you for income, and they don’t need for you sex. Uh-oh! They only look for ALPHA Males, period, and even then, only for as long as convenient. Incidentally, the Alpha Male at that level is probably a senior level guy with more opportunities than he can handle; worse. if he married young, his entire lifetime earnings, and future income, are at the mercy of the Second Set of Books that rule the Courts of EQUITY – not Law, no Constitution allowed, as Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball realized. Cosmopolitan remains the number one magazine among women in all demographics, and there are excellent reasons for that, reasons we are fools to fight directly.

      The Adversary intended to destroy marriage, in general, and the Warrior Caste, in particular. They will never stop, until they are stopped, by us, one at a time, by fighting indirectly, by not getting married, not having children, and remembering to Dump That Bitch when she decides all of this talk about Race is well and good, and this funny-dressed woman Savitri Devi is nice to read about, but you’ve got to meet your unspoken Duty As A Slave to Her Whims RESPONSIBILITY to the Relationship, and get a job where you can make some real money…

      For her.

      And, when she decides you aren’t “exciting” enough, well, off she goes to the Stark Industries Expo, where she might even meet “Iron Man” Tony Stark himself (or one his Alpha associates), and dump you like Lucy dumping Charlie Brown on his fat, stupid ass. After all, Charlie Brown follows Lucy’s Rules. Second Set of Books, and all that.

      Don’t be a victim. Dump That Bitch. Kick that Dream Stealing Whore to the Curb! Don’t Look Back!

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  12. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted July 5, 2011 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    It’s GOOD to be right. The founder of eharmony says don’t get married! Yeah!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-neil-clark-warren/on-second-thought-dont-ge_b_888874.html

    What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  13. maaldweb
    Posted July 16, 2011 at 3:25 am | Permalink

    “Shalit could probably tell us plenty about the podium effect herself, if she cared to; she mentions “my admiration for my [future] husband after hearing him speak at a Passover seder””

    Shalit is jewish? Ohh who would have thought that!

2 Trackbacks

  • 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

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance