Counter-Currents
2,457 words
Swedish translation here
A few Sundays ago I was spending the latter part of my evening in my favorite bar. My bar doesn’t play any loud music and the bartender shushes people if they get too boisterous. I usually sit right at the bar so that I can converse with the bartender, but I usually spend most of my time reading. On this particular occasion the book I had with me was The Art of Manliness
I really don’t know why I read at the bar, because inevitably someone horns in and wants to know what I’m reading. This particular evening was no exception. The crowd was not big, but it was mostly male. There was a good deal of laughter over the title of the book, and the bartender, a guy of 25 or so who moonlights as an actor, immediately decided to try and stir up a conversation by asking us all what we thought manliness consists in.
The question took me by surprise. Manliness is a topic that keenly interests me, but I had never thought to try and put what it is into a sentence. I fell silent for awhile, and the other male faces stared at me expectantly. Finally, I came out with: “Manliness is setting a high standard for oneself, and living up that standard.” Admittedly, this was no stroke of genius. What I was really trying to define was the noble man. But I think all attempts at understanding manliness understand it in terms of its excellences. And my words were chosen with a certain amount of care. For example, I didn’t say that manliness means living up to just any high standard — it must be a standard chosen by the man, not one he simply accepts automatically or uncritically.
I regretted my words almost as soon as I had uttered them, though. I actually try to avoid having conversations with people, because it depresses me to be reminded too frequently of how everyone’s headpiece today is filled with straw. The response I got on this occasion was predictable, and predictably depressing.
All of these guys were younger than me. I think the oldest couldn’t have been older than 32. One of them, a tall dark-haired guy pretty enough to be a girl, said “But who determines what a high standard is? I might set a standard for myself that I think is high, but you might not think it’s high.” I patiently explained to him that this was really not a serious problem. Sure, sometimes people set standards that they think are high, but they may be wrong. Sometimes they find this out by meeting people with higher standards.
This wasn’t good enough for him, however. He stared at me blankly and said, “But who decides?” (I found out later on that he had majored in philosophy at UCLA. I thought they weren’t doing any real philosophy there, and I was right.) “Do we need someone to decide for us?” I said. “I mean suppose someone thinks that a high standard means not having a drink before noon, and another person thinks it means not drinking at all. Is there any doubt here as to who has the higher standard?”
More of the blank look. Then he said: “But suppose that not having a drink before noon is a really high standard for them.”
“Then they’re pretty pathetic,” I said. I knew the game he was playing: the “it’s all relative game,” and I have little patience for it. I was relieved when someone else broke in at this point, but my hopes for a better interlocutor were soon dashed. The new guy was also young. Small and wispy, with a buzz cut head and what looked like a couple of day’s stubble which had very deliberately not been shaved off. “But don’t you think masculinity is changing?” he said.
“I think you’ve dated one too many feminists,” I said. This got a laugh.
No I don’t think that masculinity is changing, but men clearly are. C.S. Lewis published a little book many years ago titled The Abolition of Man. The best part of this book is a chapter called “Men Without Chests.” Now, by “men” Lewis clearly meant “men and women,” but what he argues is actually far more relevant to the male of the species. The Abolition of Man begins with a discussion of a book by two relativists in which they argue that judgments of value are merely expressions of one’s “feelings.” If, for example, I say that “The US is evil,” what that really means is “I’m having evil feelings about the US.”
Lewis easily dispenses with this contemptibly silly position. It’s not my feelings that are evil, in fact I may be having no “feelings” at all when I make a judgment. I am saying that something else is evil. Why would anyone put forth such a sophistical position? Lewis conjectures (quite reasonably) that they have a social agenda. Since most conflicts between men are due to conflicts of values, we can eliminate conflict (and war! Hallelujah!) if we teach people that their value judgments are really just expressions of subjective, personal feeling. Since no one’s subjective, personal feelings are anymore valid that anyone else’s, why fight?
It is this doctrine that produces “men without chests” — because if we all sincerely embraced it, we would lose our will to defend that which is really worth defending. Lewis could have said “men without balls,” but he was too polite for that. In speaking of our “chests” he is really drawing on the Platonic teaching about thymos. In The Republic Socrates teaches that thymos (which the Greeks located in the chest) is the part of the soul that responds to challenges to that which we value. Thymos is the essential quality in a soldier, and so Socrates dictates that the “guardians” in his ideal city will be those in whom thymos is the dominant soul component.
Thymos is a human trait and one finds it in both men and women. However, it is the core of masculinity, and is far more prominent in men than it is in women. Like it or not, the essence of manhood is a striving that often becomes fighting. To be a man is to strive for some value that transcends the values of Plato’s “appetitive” types, whose concerns never rise above comfort and security. To be a man, in fact, is to be willing to risk comfort and security for that higher value, whatever it may be.
Essentially, relativism is a thymosectomy. And relativism is the dominant “philosophy” of values in the modern world. Francis Fukuyama in his The End of History and the Last Man, argues that the “desire for recognition,” which is an aspect of thymos, has driven the worldwide movement toward liberal, democratic states. This is usually the only part of Fukuyama that anybody knows.
In the last part of his book, however, he argues that the liberal, democratic world actually results in the undermining of thymos. After all, in order to keep the liberal, democratic peace it is imperative that no one think he is better than anyone else. We must believe that all are equal, all opinions equally valuable, every gimp and retard “special.” Anybody who breaks these rules and starts acting like an Overman is a threat to the new world order. The result is a world of fat and happy appetitive types, and repressed, unsatisfied thymotic types.
If modernity really is, at root, all about the suppression of thymos, and if thymos is the essence of masculinity, it follows that modernity is built upon the suppression of masculinity. And this is what I saw in that bar last Sunday: a roomful of lifelike simulacra of men; men in whom the central male trait had been beaten down by years of miseducation at the hands of relativists.
I suppose someone might object to this by saying “All around us we see alpha male go-getters climbing the corporate mountain. Is there really anything ‘feminine’ about the modern world?” To which I answer: you bet your estrogen-producing soy latte there is! Women do have a thymotic aspect (some women more than others), but they are predominantly “appetitive,” in Plato’s sense: their focus is almost always on comfort and security. The nobility of women consists in the fact that it is the comfort and security of their children, not themselves, on which they are often primarily focused. But the focus is still comfort and security.
Women usually respond to the thymotic idealism of men by regarding it as just a wee bit silly. And this is the attitude of everyone today. Those who strive for something beyond material well-being are seen as deluded. Men have been duped into believing that working for the acquisition of more consumer goods than the next guy is “manly.”
One would think that women would just stay at home and let the goodies flow in thanks to hubby. But they’ve actually duped themselves into believing that living the life of a corporate drone is “liberation.” Well, at least everyone is taught to play nice. In the final analysis, the tyranny of political correctness — the foundation stone of which is relativism — is really like rule by a censorious (female) kindergarten teacher who can’t stand to hear a harsh word. Modernity is really a feminine paradise.
It bears repeating: Modernity is founded upon the suppression of masculinity. Therefore, the only answer to modernity — the only way to destroy the modern world — is the reassertion of masculinity: good, old-fashioned, hot-blooded, bone crushing, thymotic masculinity.
I didn’t see much potential for that in those guys in the bar. But I’m a bit of an optimist: I still think it is there. It has been suppressed and occluded, but it is still there. Here’s an analogy: Human beings are natural carnivores. Vegetarianism is not natural to us (and it’s also really girlie). Imagine a child raised all his life without ever eating meat. He would survive, but he would not thrive — and he probably would not even realize it. He would experience cravings for meat, without being able to understand the nature of those cravings. A natural part of his makeup would simply be suppressed , undeveloped, and unexplored. His first steak would be like a revelation.
Similarly, inside every “nice,” metrosexual, non-judgmental Nancy boy — yes, even inside Justin Bieber – is a real, hot-blooded thymotic he-man screaming to get out. This is the explanation for why Fight Club is such a phenomenon among males (the film, really — the film has eclipsed the book, but it is so closely based on the book that for anyone who has experienced both they are virtually inseparable). Mention Fight Club or “Tyler Durden” in a group of the most gelded of modern males and they will light up — and also “man up,” at least for a minute or two. Fight Club truly touches a chord (and this is certainly true of some of the perceptive gentlemen who have posted comments about my earlier essays). It is, quite simply, a story about the re-discovery of masculinity. It is not “pop culture.” It is a deep and serious modern myth that is so perfect for us (you know who you are) one has to believe that Chuck Palahniuk was divinely inspired (especially given that most of his other stuff sucks). In Fight Club masculinity is re-discovered, the opposition between masculinity and modernity is revealed, and masculinity is mobilized against modernity. This is our Iliad; our epic. (And again: you know who you are. “You’re Mr. Durden.”)
So what happened? What did I say to those kids in the bar? What did I do to try to awaken primal masculinity in them?
Actually, I did nothing. I’ve already told the whole story. The conversation turned to something else, and I was thankful for it. I drank another beer and went home. I suppose it could have turned out differently. I could have pressed the issue. I could have tried to undermine their relativism. But not only was I disgusted by them, I was overcome with a kind of suffocating weariness. They are so, so contemptibly, wrong — so defective. And there are so many of them. I have this feeling a lot, in the face of many “modern problems.” We all feel this. It’s one of the reasons why what we optimistically call “the movement” doesn’t seem to be in motion. It’s like we’ve reached a point in history where everything is winding down and we’re all out of wind. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” When I’m in my darkest of dark moods I begin to entertain the thought that perhaps we have just run our course.
But we can’t think that way, for to give in to that is to voluntarily offer oneself up for emasculation. How do we grow back our chests, then? Well, one reason I gave up talking to those guys is that I had already given them a decent answer to the question “what is manliness?” It means setting a high standard for oneself, and living up to that standard. I should also have added what I said above: it means being willing to risk comfort and security in order to defend that standard.
I wrote this essay under a pen name. When we stop hiding and openly proclaim our opposition to this world that degrades, corrupts, and humiliates us, then we will have gotten our chests back. But only then. It matters little if one or two people do this. They will simply be flattened by the great, modern Juggernaut, festooned with smiley faces and Mardi Gras beads. As old Friedrich Engels taught us, at a certain point a cumulative quantitative change effects a qualitative change. As more of us come together via sites like this, as more of us open up to our friends about our hatred for all the modern nonsense, as more of us buy books by thought-criminals, as more and more of us risk it all by committing thought crime, we will sense the ground begin to shift, the Zeitgeist begin to change shape. We will sense that our time has come.
This is how things work. And when our time has come, it will be surprisingly easy to take it all back. It will be easy because we are real, and the evil that we oppose merely a negation that sets itself against life. We have the life-force on our side. It is just a matter of connecting with it.
“Surely some revelation is at hand . . .”
21 comments
This is precisely why I only argue on the internet. I can pontificate belligerently about race and the Khazars without getting into much trouble.
Trying to abide by the rules of civilized discourse in a sea of dummies leaves me very agitated. There is nothing to talk about.
I live in a place even more vapid than LA. I feel your pain.
I loathe feminism as much as you loathe the “continued pussification of the modern male.” Everything is backwards and upside down. I just want to live according to my biology.
BTW I think Facebook, blogs etc have awoken the thymotic urge in women. Or perhaps it is narcissism? I do think women’s thymotic urge has more to do with validation of beauty than accomplishment.
Bravo! Best article on the problems with the modern world that I have read in a long time. Hope to read more.
Very inspiring words! I hope we can meet some day.
Reading in a bar? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone doing that before.
I don’t know if that’s true or if it ever has been. I think the overwhelming majority of conflicts are simply conflicts of interest.
I also don’t know if men in the past had the intense commitment to abstract values that you claim they did. I think they were tougher, because life was harder, and they were more culturally conservative because they had to be. Maybe you could give some examples of the “values” you’re talking about because I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at.
I don’t see how the stuff about women relates to the part about alpha male go-getters.
I’m also not sure that there’s such a strong relationship between the lack of manliness in modern society and the fact that Whites do not defend their racial interests. For instance, I don’t think American Jews are any more “manly” than American Whites but Jews obviously have no problem sticking up for themselves. The problem is that Whites are overpowered by Jews and have gone into the collective equivalent of a submission response.
Great stuff! You have become one of my favourite writers.
Corneliu Codreanu said something about that what the movement needs is not party ideology and theories, it needs men. And that is the truth.
“You know who you are. ‘You’re Mr. Durden.’ ”
Well the narrator of FC didn’t, and he wasn’t “Mr. Durden” either. Didn’t you realize that FC was basically a psychotic’s fantasy that ended in drastic self-destruction? In fact it shows how the re-awakening of masculinity FAILS dramatically. It gets out of control quickly and takes a very, very bad ending. The project FC was seriously flawed from the beginning. You want to defeat the disease but do not realize you are still part of it. Tyler Durden was an offspring of the same system he aimed to despise and destroy, and casting him with Brad Pitt was a highly ironic choice. Now the book and film are great and intelligent and certainly were very important for men of the Gen X generation (like myself) and those to follow, but given its deeply ambivalent and darkly ironic character it can hardly be called an “Iliad”. The characters of Homer had their share of flaws but they were not postmodernist, postfeminist borderline psychos.
In reply to Petronius:
Normally, I would not rise to take the equivalent of troll bait, but, given your sincerity, I can only say, most sincerely, that your understanding of Fight Club is sincerely wrong.
This is understandable. After a century of gelding the American Man (look up the Marlboro MAN) into the American Male, by trimming the ends off the Bell Curve, the Progressives have made stronger inroads than Beznenov dared to imagine. He was in a position to KNOW.
Note, incidentally, that Russia, defined by many as the Third Rome, and home of the New Civilization, is led by a warrior-priest – the embodiment of the best of the Masculine in Tradition, and the foundation of Patriarchy.
That is an important observation for the metapolitical project.
You wrote:
In reply:
No.
He became the integrated whole, by accepting the power of the Dark Masculine, and transforming it, so he ended up with Marla Singer (yes!), and an unquestionably successful life on the other side of the destruction of the symbols of a failed, parasitic, nation-state.
“Operation Mayhem” is about the destruction of the choices, made for us by Others, to enslave us, for the benefit of Others – the handmaidens of The Destroyer who keep us trapped in THEIR Game, because we, quite unwittingly, play THEIR Game by THEIR Rules.
Our anger is formed by our impotence; our impotence, from a blind acceptance of the functional equivalent of indentured servitude, going into debt to support Illusions that are, at best, counterproductive and detrimental to us, as well as being unsustainable.
We are going deeper into debt – the Illusion you can afford something you can’t afford – to impress – what? IKEA? Women? “Friends?” Family?
Is the real You so unworthy in their eyes that you sell your future to seek their approval, which is worth less than the paper it is printed on?
Want to Do Something about that?
The Landmark Forum worked wonders for the author of Fight Club.
If you have something better, then, by all means, go with it.
Further, deponent sayeth not.
You wrote:
In reply:
Damn it, I’ll have to write a User’s Guide to the movie before this is over.
One, “psychotic” is the active support of that which is trying to destroy you, which is what the life of so many of us is, to a much larger degree than we feel comfortable with.
Two, the only “self” that was “destroyed” was the one bound to the illusions of that which did not work; he spent so much energy trying to MAKE them work that his soul was drained.
As he was failing to the point that he was committing Soft Suicide, and became a non-Entity, at the last minute, enter the life-saver, Mr. Durden.
You wrote:
In reply:
See above.
If getting Marla Singer – the young, hot, Helena Bonham Carter, who is willing to live in an urban wasteland with you, so strong is herlove with who you really are – SHE fell in love with the integration of the narrator, AND Tyler Durden – and living a life with the acceptance of the integration of the Dark Masculine – having the effectiveness of Tyler Durden on call (“Sir! Brad Pitt is on line one. He says he’s here if you need him. Would you like to answer the call?”).
Now, THAT is not an “ending.”
THAT is a “New Beginning.”
You wrote:
In reply:
You only realize it when you gain, if only for a moment, the Eagle’s Perspective, an Initiation event, a timeless moment where, as we like to say, Lord Horus comes to pay a call. (Just in time, too!)
You CAN ignore the Red Pill, take the Blue Pill, and identify with the system of genteel enslavement.
It’s YOUR energy that drives it, you know.
You wrote:
In reply:
No, he was exactly what The System was trying to crush out of existence.
ALthough, having Brad Pitt – didn’t he play Achilles? – as Tyler Durden is an ironic choice, indeed.
“Sir! Tyler Durden is on line one. He says if you need help, he can put on the ‘Brad Pitt’ persona and come on in. He says her Inner Bitch needs to meet your Inner Bastard, and he is tanned, rested, and ready to go!”
You wrote:
In reply:
Hell, it’s better.
What is the source of the ambivalance, but an unwillingness to accept What Is, and become who you were meant to become, before the foundations of the heavens and the earth were laid?
How many people who fought all of their lives to become slaarymen saw thei foundation of their lives – their Personae – swept away on the tsunami that followed a 9.0 earthquake, and see an imploding future for themselves?
“Calling Mr. Mishima!”
No wonder anime is so popular.
It’s because the Consensus Trance is breaking down.
You wrote:
In reply:
Their social system was not under the defining power of The Destroyer; their Enemies were clearly defined, clearly visible, and cleanly understood.
Ours is.
They could not afford the luxury of The Destroyer’s phrasing – “postmodern, postfeminist” – when we are neither, but such phrases are dessigned to reduce the quality of your “thinking” to vague emotional responses, worthy of Winston Smith, as emotional control is very easy to establish and maintain.
And, as for “psychotic?”
Why, Mr. Adorno, are you concerned about Authoritarians, who are Masculine in Form, and Patriarchal in Substance?
Easy to see why.
“Psychotic?”
In a country that increasingly resembles Arkham Asylum, the man who takes the time to listen to the Goddess Psyche is all but a common enemy, of people who, in practice, are all too common.
Bonus Question:
If Tyler Durden is “psychotic,” and Homer Simpson is the New Normal, who would you choose to work with, and why?
“First Rule of Fight Club IS?”
We can learn from this.
Your reading of FC is utterly wrong. Please, look closely at what actual story the film tells you: the main character is clearly, explictly a borderline psychotic, “Tyler Durden” does not exist and is a phantom of his schizophrenic mind, and “Project Mayhem” turns into a nasty, nihilistic, totalitarian nightmare, with brainwashed, robotic followers haunting the narrator. The film does not question traditional masculinity, and portrays the narrator’s revolt as justified at the core, but it is deeply sceptical if a re-barbarianisation of the male is the right way to break free from society’s brainwashing.
Tyler was in fact rather a puerile narcissist who wanted to destroy consumer society, because he wasn’t able to participate: “We were raised by television to believe that someday we’ll all be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars — but we won’t. And we’re learning that fact.” The irony of casting Brad Pitt made a point not only about Pitt but about Tyler as well.
But enough of this, if you are not able to see all this, which is crystal-clearly intended by the authors, and prefer to invent your own brain theater film, I can’t help you either.
I had a good laugh, when you called me “Mr. Adorno”. I emphatically endorse “Authoritarians, who are Masculine in Form, and Patriarchal in Substance”, but Tyler Durden is far from this, and his is rather the exact opposite of a “patriarchal” attitude, let alone “substance”. He is rather a fatherless son trapped in a perpetual nihilistic revolt, who does not find a really productive way in which way to direct his destructive impulses.
FC shows masculinity in an advanced stage of decomposition and lost balance and center, where even the cure turns out to be part of the disease.
And finally:
“If Tyler Durden is “psychotic,” and Homer Simpson is the New Normal, who would you choose to work with, and why?”
The question itself is so wrong from the start in so many ways. Homer comes to my mind again: Scylla and Charybdis.
It’s interesting you mention the Chuck Palanuik’s connection with the Landmark Forum. I would go as far to suggest the Landmark experience is really the key to understanding the movie and the book. I attended the LF back in 2004 and learned both The Matrix and Fight Club had something to do with the Landmark Forum. For those who don’t know, the Landmark Forum is a 3 day intense encounter group which supposedly has it’s origin in Ehard Seminars Training or EST. The techniques covered in the forum were interesting and have come in handy over the years. However, from the perspective of a white nationalist, I would say the overall experience of the forum was quite negative. For example, once people began to open up, nearly all the white women, in a room of 200 or so people, began to admit they purposely verbally abuse their husbands, play psychological games on them, screw around on them, lie to them, turn their children against them etc. At the beginning of the forum one woman told her husband she had slept with his best friend on their wedding day. By day three, she confessed to sleeping with at least half a dozen of his friends. On the first day of the forum I “confessed” that my basic outlook on life was that of a misanthrope. So, when this poor fellow, after being pummeled with his wife’s admissions, was brought in front of the group and asked by the facilitators to state “where his mind was”, with tears in his eyes, he pointed to me and said “At this point I’m totally convinced we should all listen to Shawn.” Needless to say, this didn’t settle well with the facilitators who then spent the next half hour deconstructing “Shawn’s misanthropic world view”. If that wasn’t entertaining enough, some kid drove his car through the front wall, another ass, some Jew with spinning yarmulke and all, totally flipped out on everyone and for a grand finale some woman had to be restrained for wanting to express her new found enlightenment by taking her clothes off.
As far as reading books in a bar goes, I do it all the time. Occasionally I get asked what I’m reading and in most cases a good conversation will follow. On one occasion a younger woman stated she had never met a guy who read books. I didn’t quite know what to make of that…
In reply to Shawn:
Thank you for taking the time to deal with a most substantial issue, and keeping the thread on topic!
I would like to comment on some of your comments.
You wrote:
In reply:
I’ve bolded the comment I found most interesting, and I will tie all of this into why I believe the Northwest Republic Analytical Model is the only way to go, both in its own right, and as a temporal bridge for the metapolitical project.
I’ll deal with it in the context you supplied, and will explain why this is most wonderful, from the WNist perspective. Remember, Pahlunik had what seems to have been the functional equivalent of a Saul to Paul type experience, an Initiation experience that changed him forever.
You wrote:
In reply:
The Truth – the cold, hard, does-not-care-what-you-believe Truth – is wonderfully clarifying. The masks came off, and people had to deal with what they were trying to avoid dealing with, with no place to run, and their Illusions seen as the crippling tools they were.
That is one of the foundations of why Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic is so wonderful to me, while being a source of anger to so many Others.
Covington says, “This is what you and your Posterity deserve. This can all be yours, and theirs, if you will take responsibility for what has happened, to make something better happen, from the ground up.”
This is much more work than merely blaming the Jews for everything, because, while the practice of Judaism is the locus of Evil in this world, they always had the power to Do Something! about it.
Nobody makes you take out loans you can’t afford, to buy things you don’t want, at prices you can’t afford.
When you claim the Jews as being “all-powerful,” you are rationalizing your choices that have made you, and will continue to make you, impotent, powerless, and a blot on the history of your Family.
I wish the people who go to (nominally) WNist websites each sent a dollar a week to people like Greg Johnson, and Horus the Avenger.
I wish they would have to pay a dollar to one or the other every time they blame “the Jews/the Illuminati/the “Insiders” for something, instead of looking at what happened, and asking themselves how this coukld, should, and would be dealt with in a Northwest Republic, a White Homeland.
THAT is the key to developing an effective Persona.
The people at Cross-Currents did more good the moment they went live than their predecessors, because they opened the doors to a sharing of information, an amplification of knowledge, and a greater foundation of wisdom.
In the examples you cited, the women described EXACTLY how they REALLY felt. To help move forward, the men needed a new way of seeing the Reality, and dealing with it. Doc Love, the internet expert on man-woman relationships wrote a summary of his understanding called the Dating Dictionary.
You wrote:
If the men who were “victims” of these women had tead the Dating Dictionary, until they could recall on demand the key concepts defined therein, they would not have made the choices that led to them being PROFESSIONAL victims. Note that when the cuckold saw his entire understanding of man-women relationships fall apart, he turned to the strongest Man in the room, and said, “I wish I could be like him.”
This is normal, Initiation behavior; acolytes want to be LIKE the Priest today, so they can BE the Priest, in time.
That you were ganged up on is normal Female behavior; they needed to replace a Red Pill with a Pink Pill – one that would keep you in The Game of man-woman relationships as they understood it. (That’s why I know of Men who are Forum leaders, by the way.)
Here’s why.
IF other men had looked at you, had seen you, and saw that what you symbolized to them was POSSIBLE, they might well bolt for the door themselves, or at least come to a dead screeching, Wile E. Coyote run-off-the-cliff, FULL stop.
Now, that would have been fine, if the issues could have been addressed in more advanced Forum courses; my guess is, YOU, by your living example, opened the floodgates.
THAT takes us to the Northwest Republic, and why they who manage the Consensus Trance (HT: Horus the Avenger) believe people MUST not be allowed to see life in a post-Red Pill world.
You wrote:
In reply:
Too much Truth, too much energy coming in too fast, and no circuit breakers to get in the way!
(paraphrasing from memory)
Narrator: “What are you DOING? That BURNS!”
Tyler Durden: “That’s lye, brother. Go into the pain!”
Go INTO the pain, and shatter the Illusions that crippled you, or be destroyed by your addiction to them.
Suppose YOU had been married, and faithful, for years, to a faithless whore you nailed you friend on your wedding day, and had nailed several other guys since.
Would you cry at the loss of your happy marriage – that never really was, she was a parasite, looking for a host – or would you realize that MARRIAGE ITSELF IS LARGELY A SHAM, if only because we enter into a contractual arragement to form a corporation where the State has all of the power?
This is why Doc Love and his Dating Dictionary are so valuable; they give YOU an Analytical Framework to test your relationships as they develop. Above that, the Tom Leykis perspective is there are your Masculine Guide – “DUMP THAT BITCH! Don’t try to ‘fix’ the Illusion. DUMP the Illusion, DUMP THAT BITCH, and get your Life back!”
The Dating Dictionary helps you to develop an Analytical Model for relationships with women. The Tom Leykis Perspective gives you access to the primal power of the Darl Masculine, useful indeed for actually Doing Something about it.
For a change.
You wrote:
In reply:
And THAT is your Competition?
Let me tie this back to the Northwest Republic.
Just as Doc Love’s Dating Dictionary provides the Analytical Framework that allows you to test your experiences against a tested System, so, too, does the Northwest Republic provide an Analytical Framework that allows you to test your experiences in what America has become – and WILL become – against Something Better.
WN thought has been pretty much accepting of William Pierce without question, without realizing they are looking at the Past, through a microscope, rather than to the Future, through a telescope.
The telescope points Northwest, and looks to the Stars, so that one day, our Posterity may walk “Among The Stars (HT: Kevin Alfred Strom).
I read in bars all the time. Chicks love it, but that is not why I do it. I read in bars because the ambient noise helps me focus.
If one wishes to understand the roles of the masculine and the feminine, I suggest a thorough study of the Vedic Tradition. Here, the emphasis is on strong men with a sense of cosmic duty to take to leadership-in the home (Grihastha), on the battlefield and in politics (Ksatriya) and in the realm of the philosophical and spiritual (Brahminical) capacities. Much like the Platonic approach, men are also urged to control their lower appetites, egos, and lead lives in pursuit of wisdom, understanding that the shadowy world of “sights and sounds” is both illusory (Maya) and transitory.
Naturally, Codreanu also understood this principle, and stressed the importance of asceticism, the transcendent and the national ideal (an ideal which he viewed, like Herder, as an eternal concept in which past, present and future were linked by both the Divine and the sacred blood and soil of all Europeans) over the ego and petty materialism. This is true manliness. In the Kali Yuga, these principles are paramount.
Alaskan, I’m from the living Vedic tradition – South Asian culture or “Hinduism”.
Ksyatriya and Brahmin are castes. Women are also in caste system so there are ksytranis and brahmanis. Intercaste marriage is still frowned upon by many.
It is considered better for a woman to marry up in caste rather than down. For a man it is considered better to marry down, if he has to marry out of caste at all. This is because in our culture the bride lives in the home of her husband’s parents and thus must conform to the home culture. Each caste has its own traditions and food taboos. If she marries a man of a lower caste than herself than she must conform to “lower” traditions and perhaps even cook or eat food that is forbidden to her caste.
In our culture we arrange marriages according to same caste and similar socio-economic status.
“Essentially, relativism is a thymosectomy.” Brilliant.
I have to disagree. Fight club or ultimate fighting or the NFL for that matter is a harmless release for the neutered male of modernity. When on occasion a male acts out in a violent burst he merely fuels the system of repression. What modernity lacks is aesthetics. Aesthetics is set opposite of science. It cannot be reduced to formula. In fact relativism is the reduction of aesthetics through the scientific method.
“didn’t see much potential for that in those guys in the bar. But I’m a bit of an optimist: I still think it is there. It has been suppressed and occluded, but it is still there. Here’s an analogy: Human beings are natural carnivores. Vegetarianism is not natural to us (and it’s also really girlie). Imagine a child raised all his life without ever eating meat. He would survive, but he would not thrive — and he probably would not even realize it. He would experience cravings for meat, without being able to understand the nature of those cravings. A natural part of his makeup would simply be suppressed , undeveloped, and unexplored. His first steak would be like a revelation.”
*
As someone who comes from several generations of a very healthy and strong South Asian vegetarian culture, I must disagree. I have never in my life craved meat nor do our recipes call for “meat substitutes” such as you find in the West.
We are Aryan Brahmins. In Aryan culture the cow is revered as one of the 7 Mothers of Man, for reasons that are socio-economic as well as religio-spiritual.
It may be that in YOUR culture vegetarianism is still something that is seen as “girlie” – but not so in my culture.
My culture is thousands of years old and still going strong.
Most people do not understand that needlessly killing and eating millions of innocent animals (who suffer and depend on our mercy and compassion in the same way children do) is not at all manly. It is simply cruel. Even Kant believed that cruelty to animals did harm to our own self, because it caused us to insensitive to suffering. There are countless stories of Vedic kings who, upon hearing about the abuse of a cow (or any other vulnerable entity such as a woman or child), would personally inflict swift punishment on such persons.
Of course, one of the primary practices of the Kali Yuga is meat eating, along with other vices and base behavior such as obsession with money, power, and sex.
Astonishingly brilliant article.
I like this writer!
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment