Feminized western males

Earlier this day I wrote in a previous post: “I confess I’ve just re-watched Pride and Prejudice for the Nth time. There’s no question about it. Mores must be forcefully reverted back to the Austen world, where women were kept in their place. Only the feminized western males cannot get it. Women belong to us; not to themselves. They’re Nature’s most precious gift.”

This is a brief exchange between a typical liberal, the atheist Richard Dawkins (doctored photo, above) and a religious conservative, a smart Palestinian Muslim:

Muslim: Fix your women.

Dawkins. Fix your women! That’s not my business; that’s my women’s business.

Muslim: No, no! It is your business. When you take your women and dress them like whores in…

Dawkins: I don’t dress women! They dress themselves!

Muslim: I know but you allow it as a norm to let women on the street dressed like this. What’s wrong on with your society? What’s wrong with the…?

Dawkins could not tolerate more cognitive dissonance and in his video he simply faded out the audio of what the Muslim was trying to tell him.

Fortunately, in an Islamized Europe the Muslims will teach the feminized male how to grow their gonads again…

Why I write

I am not an intellectual. I am a warrior. If I am typing these words instead of firing a gun it’s because today there is not a single sane state left in the Western world. Nobel laureate Octavio Paz, the poet who lived in my neighborhood when he died, once stated that he preferred to be Homer than Alexander. I was fascinated by his words since it’s all too obvious for me that the sword is more powerful than the pen.

Revolution is a state of mind. So I’ll talk as if other people are tuned with my need for immediate action.

There’s a new literary genre that William Pierce started. Harold Covington has published a saga in four novels that tell the story of the creation of an ethno-state. In this futuristic state there’s something that I have previously fantasized in the solitude of my room. They managed to turn the clock back to Victorian fashions (as we have seen in the fashions of, say, Harry Potter’s godfather, Sirius Black, in the films). But what I really love about Covington is that he abhors exactly what I abhor: that there’s almost no face-to-face community in the white nationalist movement. “No revolution will be made by people who are not within driving distance of one another.” Simply joining an organization by mailing a check or merely working in the cyber world, instead of getting one’s hands dirty, won’t do it.

What is exasperating for me is that, while the political dissident of the former Soviet bloc could only escape from his nation to enter the free world, today there’s no place to go. That’s why we write. Blogging is the industry for all those who want serious action in a soft-totalitarian system that wouldn’t allow even a lone voice to express himself in the mainstream media.

Really, I don’t have the temper for much more blogging even though I’ll likely remain stuck in the trenches for a decade or two before civil wars start in the West as they already started in the Middle East.

* * *
The following is an exchange at The Occidental Observer earlier today. The first one is my reply to a commenter who, like me, uses a penname in the blogosphere:

Anglo Saxon:

I agree with much of what you say about Amurrica. Have you read O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic? On page 94 he says: “Our people will survive only if white men learn again, in struggle, to stand […] free from everything associated with the monstrous Leviathan that the United States has become.”

I confess I’ve just re-watched Pride and Prejudice for the Nth time. There’s no question about it. Mores must be forcefully reverted back to the Austen world, where women were kept in their place. As I said above, only the feminized western “males” cannot get it. Women belong to us; not to themselves. They’re Nature’s most precious gift.

And yes: like you I would prefer Europe to lead the West. But first Britain must be punished for Winston Churchill’s astronomical blunder. Perhaps only after she becomes visually like the deracinated UK in the film Children of Men will Britons revive?

As to secession at the other side of the Atlantic, again you are absolutely right. I favor the Northwest idea. But some intuition I’ve never fully understood tells me that revolution in Europe won’t be as nasty as it will be in the Amurrican Leviathan ruled by die Juden. This continent will turn hellish after showtime starts.

I wish I could join the battle on European soil. Unfortunately, with the exception of Covington (in America) I don’t see any other lone voice seriously calling for arms in the Western world. Feel free to contact me thru my blog’s email if you know otherwise.


* * *
Dear Chechar:


I and others like me want Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, one that I have myself stood before, long before I knew of his true history... taken down and smashed. I want all Churchillian symbolism destroyed and a national apology issued to the German People.

Everytime I meet or communicate with a German national I feel an urge to issue a pathetic apology for belonging to such a foolish and easily deceived people. I think, when I die I shall request to have my ashes spread somewhere in Germany. Sounds dramatic, but I am seriously thinking about it. The only issue is overcoming the practicalities of how it could be done.

Meanwhile, thank you for your kind invite to contact you, Chechar. Right now, I am busy working on a manuscript. Sometimes I get annoyed with myself for spending so much time commenting online. I hope and expect to have more free time to exchange on a personal level, later in this year. Stay well. May the air you breath fill you with strength and vitality!

Abraham vs. Casanova’s “Game”

A recent post by Hunter Wallace,
“The Elusive Traditional Woman,”
prompted me to write part of the below
reply. But first I will quote two sentences
of Wallace’s essay. The first sentence is—



About Women:

American women tend to ruin themselves these days. There are fewer incentives than ever before for a man to settle down with one woman. Marriages don’t last. Divorces can cripple a man financially. It is harder than ever before to raise children in this degenerate culture. Here’s reality as it exists: what American man wants to settle down with an American woman who has slept with 15+ other guys, who is going to divorce him in four or five years, who is going to take all his money, who has an insolent, self-centered attitude, who doesn’t have the personality required for marriage and childrearing?

The second sentence is About Men:

Alphas are men who sleep with lots of women, who are naturally attractive to women, and who can have any woman they desire; Betas are men who are less attractive to women, who pick one woman and have children, and who are the stable household providers; Gammas/Omegas are frustrated men who are not attractive to women and who don’t have any sexual partners.

The above vocabulary comes from what is called “Game,” or adapting to the sexual marketplace. I agree with one of the commenters at Occidental Dissent (OD) that from a moral standpoint elevating “degenerate behavior”—what I call Neanderthal behavior—by calling it “Alpha” implies the wrong standard, and that calling men who engage in traditional relationships “betas” is also extremely deceiving.

I have avoided the subject of what is called “Game” because it strikes me as outright degenerate and unworthy of civilized white nationalists (only Judaized WASPs open their veins by playing such a suicidal game).

A few days ago I watched the DVD version of the 1959 film Journey to the Center of the Earth, which I had seen as a child on the silver screen. A deep nostalgia invaded me while seeing how Alec McEwen (Pat Boone) woos Lindenbrook’s niece Jenny (Diane Baker). Paraphrasing Spock [a liberal commenter at OD] I would say just the opposite: for reasonable men the ideal is a woman with no experience, a “clueless virgin” just like the one in the movie I liked so much as a child.

To demonstrate why the traditional marriage is for winners and “sex games” for losers, let’s indulge in the language of science.

In biology, success is measured by the number of descendants that an organism leaves. But since most of all of the descendants of a Don Juan who doesn’t care for his offspring may die prematurely, this definition is tentative and must be modified. Oxford zoologist David Lack argued that, for each species, natural selection favors the size of the offspring that results in the most of them surviving to maturity: a more accurate definition.

But we can further define fitness as the relative (i.e., compared to the other guys, including the so-called “alphas”) ability of a male to survive and leave offspring that themselves survive and leave offspring. This is standard biological theory, and what matters most is not the actual value of a male’s fitness in terms of the number of his progeny that survive to reproduce, but which individuals have higher fitness than others.

Here’s where the critics of “gamers” are right when applying this definition to Homo sapiens. From the fitness viewpoint, what is the quality of living for human bastards (David Lack studied birds)? In our species fitness is a relative measure, with the fittest humans in a population being assigned the value 1. Alas, our enemies, the Jews, are #1 according to this definition. But there’s a positive side to it: Take heed of their lifestyles! Traditional Jews aren’t Casanova-esque alphas!

If the fittest human male in a population is assigned the value 1, I would call that guy Abraham (“I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven”, Exodus 32:13). All other individuals have their fitness expressed as fractions or proportions of 1 compared to the Abraham paradigm, who was everything except a degenerate “alpha” male or a Don Juan. One of the reasons white nationalists must like Hitler and the Nazis is because they tried to turn Nordish people... into Number One.

My comment at OD ends with the above provocative sentence. But in fact we don’t need Nazism. Reverting to the 1950s plus WASPs gaining a solid ethnic consciousness would do it.

In the OD thread, another commenter said that “Game” is just another example of the liberals’ poisonous way of looking at things. However, since adolescents and young men are still fond of so-called “alphas”—as wrongly defined in today’s degenerate culture (the real alpha is the Aryan equivalent to Abraham)—, let’s ponder a little about the life of who is presumably the iconic case of “alpha” male in the West.

When my grandma was born, adolescents envied Casanova. But when later in my life I read a little of him I realized that, like every Don Juan, Casanova was a loser. “He will spend the night with the most pitiful harlot,” writes Stefan Zweig in his psychobiography about Casanova, “rather than sleep alone.”

We can hardly be surprised to find that the quality of his feminine provision is not always of the best… Enough for him, generally speaking, that she should be woman, vagina, his polar opposite in matters of sex, formed by nature to enable him to discharge his libido… Casanova’s collection is anything but a gallery of beauty.

This is the antithesis of what I believe: a monogamous, lasting marriage inspired by Nordish female beauty. Casanova, on the other hand, was never really in love with anyone, and to boot he could not have bought women if we imagine him without his money. In fact, the Don Juan archetype, equipped above all with callousness, is the sworn enemy of women. According to Zweig, it is the person that women loathe and project onto the whole male sex. Like Casanova, the Neanderthals I happen to know don’t discriminate among women. “In wartime,” a Mexican saying goes, “any hole is a trench.” In Casanova’s maximum opus readers can see the same troglodytic view of women, from underage teenagers to shriveled women in their sixties: mere masturbatory objects. Awful…

Despite his countless coitus Casanova didn’t invest in his future in the traditional form of a warm family. We find him, in his old age, with syphilis at the shadow of an Austrian nobleman. Without his money women did not respect him. His last refuge was to write his memoirs, but during his lifespan no one pays attention to his manuscripts. The man wrote folio after folio for twelve hours a day for seven years only as a defense mechanism. “It was the only way in which I could hinder myself from becoming crazy,” confesses the old hermit.

For seven years I have been doing nothing else than write my memoirs… I look forward to being rational enough in my last illness to have all the manuscript burnt before my eyes.

But Casanova didn’t do it and naive people glorified the adventures of this failed man after he died.

On women

In his chapter “On Women” of the very brilliant collection published in English as Essays and Aphorisms, Schopenhauer wrote the most insightful thoughts about women I have ever read, of which I’ll quote some sentences (no ellipsis added between excerpts):

1
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, “man”.

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

2
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and more slowly does it mature. The man attains the maturity of his reasoning powers and spiritual faculties hardly before his twenty-eight year; the woman with her eighteenth. And even then it is only reasoning power of a sort: a very limited sort. Thus women never see anything but what is closest to them. To consult women when you are in difficulties, as the ancient Teutons did, is by no means a bad idea: for their way of looking at things is quite different from ours, especially in their propensity for keeping in view the shortest road to a desired goal and in general what lies closest to hand, which we usually overlook precisely because it is right in front of our noses.

It is for this reason too that women display more pity, and consequently more philanthropy and sympathy with the unfortunate, than men do. Thus, while they possess the first and chief virtue [compassion], they are deficient in the secondary one which is often necessary for achieving the first.

3
Fundamentally, women exist solely for the propagation of the race. Men are by nature indifferent to one another; but women are by nature enemies. Because in our case a hundred different considerations are involved, while in theirs only one is decisive, namely which man they have succeeded in attracting. Another reason may be that, because they are all in the same profession, they all stand much closer to one another than men do.

Man strives for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But women is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e., amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have provided incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value. What there ought to be is housewives and girls who hope to become housewives and who are therefore educated, not in arrogant haughtiness, but in domesticity and submissiveness.

- end of “On Women” excerpts -


Schopenhauer’s chapter boggled my mind when I read it back in 1992. Here we had a 19th century philosopher that, unlike the coward men of my world, told the naked truth about the fair sex; and I would like to expand his crude, albeit realistic views to its ultimate consequences, especially from my present viewpoint of this most darkest hour for what I treasure the most: Nordish women.

The first weapon of mass destruction against our civilization has been the ideology of anti-white racism. Along with it comes feminism: the other fatal weapon for the West and the inexorable dwarfing of the white people.

Let me indulge in a little fantasy for a minute, “If I ran the zoo...”

If I were dictator of the West, I thought in my daily peripatetic walk in my town, I’d reverse feminism back to Victorian and pre-Victorian ages (yes: I’m a fan of Jane Austen). The reversal would be brutal and swift: but the psychological plan in my racial dictatorship would be to gradually “liberate” women not beyond the values of, say, America in the 1940s and 50s. All of this would be pure Machiavellianism of course: to convey angry women the misleading message that the “liberal” wing in my dictatorship overcame an idealized Austen-like world when, in fact, the ultimate goal would have been from the beginning to fix forever Western society’s sex roles in about the 1940s and 50s.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote The City and the Stars in 1956. The Machiavellian psychologists and social engineers who created the mega-city Diaspar discussed the Utopia blueprints for centuries before elaborating a closed society (yes: Popper was wrong!) albeit a rather stable culture for whites, which in the novel lasts a billion years.

Although Arthur Clarke was an incorregible liberal who took feminism for granted, it’s a highly recommended novel along with its almost identical precursor, Clarke’s 1953 Against the Fall of Night. But if the westerners finally make it after the race wars it will be obvious that Clarke was wrong: technology was not the ultimately axis of cultural transformation but psychogenic development with the corresponding reversal of the suicidal “women’s rights” movement. Feminism may not be the subject-matter of Michael O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic, just released this week. But its first chapters are worth reading to grasp how psychogenic emergency about one’s own ethnic group could be the transforming factor in the forthcoming future, a future that I still envision like some of Clarke’s best novels.


Postscript of 20 September 2010



Stags sometimes sustain smashed antlers or broken legs, or are blinded in one eye in their lust to win the female; fatal injuries are not unknown.




The target-audience for this entry are obviously the males. However, in order to understand women, the subject-matter of this post, we must first understand the biological basis of our lust to win the favor of one of these beautiful specimens. Just as Schopenhauer spoke out the naked truth about women, so naked that no woman will ever accept it, in this postscript I will quote zoologist John Sparks, the producer of the 1996 TV series Battle of the Sexes in the Animal World.

Sparks’ brutal honesty shocked me. It turns out that we males are, quite literally, driven by our gonads (cf. “the sperm and its slave” way below). Thanks to the attraction toward young nymphs, what I have called the crown of evolution, our unattainable goal is to fill the world with duplicates of us. In the introduction to his book, Sparks wrote:

* * *

Every living creature has an overwhelming urge to breed. This is not simply a trivial expression of bestial lust, but a fundamental characteristic of life, the fulfilment of which determines whether an animal is a success or a failure. The nature of sex is widely misunderstood, a matter which this book [Battle of the Sexes, BBC Worldwide, 1999] will attempt to rectify.

Animals of every kind strive to ensure the survival of as many of their genes as possible. Sex specifically demands very public behaviour among many species. With an almost unlimited supply of sperm at their disposal, [the males’] best reproductive strategy is to mate with as many females as possible; each of which will provide them with offspring. From the male’s perspective, there are never enough females to go around [My note: this strategy doesn’t work with humans. See, e.g., my entry on Abraham & Casanova]. Competition between the lusty males is therefore intense. However, in species in which males have opted for dedicated monogamy the females are usually the larger sex; in some cases, the males are miniaturized. Charles Darwin was aware of degenerate males.

Suicidal sex

For most kinds of animals, no matter what tactics the males employ to further their sexual aspirations, it is the females which determine the winners. This is because—as we shall see in the next chapter—it is they which do the choosing.

Remarkable strategies have evolved which illustrate the extremes to which males will go to give their own sperm the best chance of reaching the eggs first. In Australia, male red-tailed phascogales—small, squirrel-like carnivores—burn themselves out in an all-or-nothing quest for fatherhood. These endearing little marsupials [are] so intent on finding as many targets as possible for their precious sperm that they have no time to feed during their week of frenzied sexual activity. While the freshly impregnated females retire to their nests, the knackered males rapidly succumb to a combination of infections, failed livers, gut ulcers, extensive hemorrhages and extreme weight loss. Not one adult male survives. But 50 per cent of the females’ babies will be males and by the following spring they will be mature enough to enter the same lethal sexual arena.

One battle over, another looms

The egg is now fertilized—in a split second, a new life has been initiated. This has been achieved against astronomical odds. Both the sperm and its slave, the male body which produced it [my emphasis] and propelled it into the female’s tract, have had to be supreme players in the most rigorous and demanding contest on earth—survival. The male has relied on countless brawling ancestors, themselves winners endowed with the skills needed to overcome both physical dangers and cut-throat competition from rivals. His sperm has passed the female’s demanding tests for quality control. Of the billions that started the race, many were deformed, most simply got lost or died of exhaustion. Of the few that lashed their way to the egg, only one was victorious.

Although it takes place on a microscopic scale, this is the key event over which the sexes have been striving to exert control.

* * *

My comment:

From the zoological viewpoint it is worth noting that, unlike the birds, in our species a male can force a female to copulate. In fact, among the primates rapes are pretty common, especially among orang-utans and chimpanzees.

On the other hand, while it is true that from the fruit fly to the elephants the females choose the male or the males, at least in my case I declined marriage proposals from several Mexican ladies throughout my life. They were honourable ladies, yes: but not “beautiful nymphs.”

What a predicament it is not to live in a little whiter nation...