The White Knight vs. The Wire MonkeyMatt Parrott
The first misconception to discard when grappling with modern feminism is the proposition that feminists are opposed to patriarchy — patriarchy being defined as the woman’s reliance on men for protection and provision. Modern women are no less reliant on men for protection and provision than they were in prehistoric times. They merely achieve it through more indirect and institutional means, so they can afford to be far less agreeable.
Rather than cry for a hero on a trusty steed when endangered, they dial an officer in a Crown Victoria. Rather than applying charm and grace to woo a suitor into providing for her, she uses votes and lobbying networks to influence the government into extracting wealth and privilege from the males she’s never met and will certainly never kiss.
In psychologist Harry Harlow’s notorious experiments in primate psychology, he simulated one monkey from wood and wires which provided nutrients and created beside it another adult monkey from cloth which did not provide nutrients. The infants overwhelmingly preferred the fuzzy monkey with its “contact comfort” over the wire monkey, only visiting the wire monkey long enough to feed.
Metaphorically, the government and its derivatives are the wire monkey and we actual men are the fuzzy monkey.
Even when we can compete with the system’s copious protections and provisions, our services are largely superfluous. And we still typically insist on loyalty, fidelity, and obedience in exchange for these services they can obtain elsewhere for free. While the protection and provision is originally plucked from our hands, the hand that feeds is the system. Even though I’m the one who purchases the cat food, our cats are loyal to my daughter rather than to me because she’s the one who directly feeds them. Even though White middle class males are creating much of the wealth that Obama redistributes to women through his cornucopia of programs, they’re loyal to him because he’s the face of the system protecting and providing for them.
After all, the welfare handouts are called Obamaphones, not Whitemaletaxpayerphones.
Somebody willing to depart from Traditionalist principles might argue that the current regime renders equal and independent what nature would make hierarchical and dependent. The problem with that is a woman’s natural and instinctive loyalty to her protectors and providers creates a dissonance in the modern age between her compulsion to procreate with her patriarch and the fact that they’re not actual or accessible human beings. In a welcome departure from Kenyan political tradition, Barack Obama has chosen to abstain from impregnating the untold millions of women who would jump at the opportunity for hypergamy.
Unless this dynamic is reversed, our birth rate will continue to hover at its currently unsustainable nadir. While this analysis may seem insulting and dehumanizing to contemporary women, contemporary men are in a sense even more pathetic. Women are, after all, benefiting from going along with the current arrangement while the men are going along almost as eagerly while being played for suckers.
The general pattern up until very recently has been for men to continue desperately going through the traditional motions of chivalry, courtship, marriage, protection, and provision while no longer being valued, respected, or rewarded for doing so, but an increasing number are adopting “Game” and Men’s Rights perspectives which empower them within the current context.
Even a good share of men who aren’t directly and explicitly introduced to these heretical counter-currents are intuitively wandering off of the treadmill and opting out of the status competition and resource acquisition activities which no longer result in a dating market advantage worth the exhaustive effort. We “white knights” can’t continue mindlessly going through traditional motions of chivalry and loyalty. Carrying on a fantasy of defending the dignity of ladies is absurd in the absence of dignified ladies. It’s worse than a foolish waste of time; it’s a necessary precondition for feminism and decadence to continue.
A remnant of exceptional women will continue being loyal to their rightful protectors, providers, and patriarchs, yet most women will be tempted to hop back and forth between the wire monkey of state largess and the fuzzy monkey of “nice guys” as long as circumstances enable them to do so. If she’s Modern, respect her demand for equality by letting her open her own pickle jars, change her own tires in the rain, move her own furniture, and walk herself home. This capitalist system and its welfare state has contraptions, AAA memberships, and cops for all these things.
While it’s well and good to advise young men to stop being played for suckers, it should not be at the expense of the ideal. Even if contemporary Western women are a veritable army of obnoxious and entitled castrated little men, it’s not supposed to be that way and doesn’t have to be that way. For all the (entirely understandable) complaining throughout the New Right and the overlapping “Manosphere,” women are being set up by liberalism for a terrifying future. It may appear right now that they’re winning this “gender war,” but there’s only one way this can possibly play out.
They’re blind to the artificial supports propping up their independence and economic success. They take these institutions supporting them for granted. Finally, they take male chivalry for granted. While there’s likely an innate inclination, chivalry must still be developed and encouraged. It’s something which can be beaten out of boys by decades of female aggression, intimidation, and hypergamy–and it largely has been. The “too big to fail” institutions supporting them will fail them, and what incentive do modern men have to catch them?
The very rough and unfortunate circumstances of young women in Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism is a useful of indication of things to come . . . only the economic crisis will be worse, the culture more degraded, and there will be a great deal of racial strife. The “traditional” churches won’t be of any use, as they’ll have all that much more third world grief in their lap to encourage and ingest. And there won’t even be a West to mail-order themselves off to!
Perhaps some men’s rights types will chortle at this comeuppance, but my goal is to end the gender war that feminists started, not turn the tables or settle any scores. Had we been afforded the identical opportunity of taking what we want from women when we want it without asking for permission, and had we been told by the whole world in chorus that we had every right to do so, I suspect we men would have proven no less despicable. The only legitimate “us and them” identity group designations are between families, nations, and races . . . not between the male half of white families, tribes, and nations.
The New Right will inevitably appeal primarily to males for the foreseeable future, as we’re offering women definitively less than Modernity appears to offer. We Traditionalist men are demanding loyalty and even submission in exchange for protection and provision they can enjoy for free and at their leisure from the wire monkey. I’m a “white knight” at heart, and I live every day for the women in my life and the women on my side. But I do expect them to make a choice: Me or Modernity.
Ha ha! I’ve just started reading Chateau Heartiste and RooshV (though the latter has apparently sold out recently) so this article is very timely. My years of trying to be a chivalrous gentleman are best summed up in this quote from this article:
“Carrying on a fantasy of defending the dignity of ladies is absurd in the absence of dignified ladies.”
Very true! I feel so foolish for years of treating scummy women as thought they were virtuous angels. What’s more, the lack of “dignified ladies” is compounded – in no small part – by the bizarre health and reproductive difficulties of modern American women. Women are become barren and functionally menopausal at younger and younger ages. ‘Sex and the City’? They copy that in their 20’s. By the time they’re 35 many have no sex drive and are utterly infertile. (At a health website, a very knowledgeable woman recently told me in a private chat that when modern American women say they have “irregular periods”….that means that they’re having no periods.)
So it’s very, very difficult to find a healthy and wholesome American woman. All the best ones are snatched up in their twenties, and the mediocre ones have been transformed into “obnoxious and entitled castrated little men”. I used to find the phenomenon of “mail order brides” lazy, unmanly, and even repulsive. Now that I’m past thirty, I’m growing more sympathetic to the notion. Why not have a fertile and feminine young lady instead of a sterile and androgynous older one? Because the older one is American? GTFO.
I also love the closing line. This is indeed the challenge that so many men face when trying to build a legitimate relationship.
Two companion articles: The beautiful and eloquent Harmony Daws laying out the Jewish core of feminism:
And Counter-Currents’ own Ava Moretti blasting “game” (though I disagree with most of it, it’s good food for thought):
Regarding the unhealthy modern woman: there’s just as many males who can’t produce children because of their weak, poor quality sperm. And apparently a not inconsiderable number of young men “need” Viagra to get it up and do the deed. An acquaintance of mine (no, I’m not just saying this, I am telling the truth) in his 40s said all his buddies own up to using Viagra because they need to do so. Disgusting, just repulsive! I think this sexual weakness is likely due to ingestion of alcohol, marijuana and drugs.
I understand that modern American men are also screwed up, and the usage (and need for) the utterly repugnant boner pills is Exhibit A for this argument. (I think a great deal of the men’s problems relate to the internet porn industry – a Jewish creation – as demonstrated by the ‘Great Porn Experiment’ TED Talk. Check it out!)
However, I think that many people are aware of this, but not many people acknowledge the bizarre infertility epidemic and sterility of women (which I suspect is even more severe than the problem with men. I’m doing medical research on this right now, and it’s validating my observations.)
More to the point, I’m a straight man and so I’m pursuing women, not men, and so it’s the fertility and virility of women I pursue which I’m most interested in, not that of other dudes.
You depart from Tradition, the Patriarchy, which teaches Men are superior. Women don’t want equality, they want to look up. Patriarchy gives them this. And beyond that, it is the simple Truth that we are better. Chivalry is only possible when we are above and them below. It we are on the same level, it’s a meaningless giving up of power and respect. And if we are below them, it’s simple slavery. Turn the Tables? Of course, since we are upside down now with them on top.
Traditional hierarchies and roles where one person may be “inferior” to another within a context is not interchangeable with vulgar “men are better than woman” of male chauvinists or “women are better than men” of feminists. The Queen is, after all, “superior” to all but one mortal man within a traditional monarchy, for example.
At my first fast food job, my supervisor was an absolutely despicable, lazy, incompetent, and stupid single mom who carried on constantly about how rough she has it while sitting in the office room. As my role within that context was as the new guy on backline, I was indeed “inferior” to her within the hierarchical sense, which is not to be confused with the traditional sense. I strove to excel at my given station, mastering my craft and working to boost the morale of my co-workers.
In the restaurant manager’s final analysis, I am superior to that woman (who was later busted for employee theft) though. she was my hierarchical superior…just as untold millions of wives and privates are superior in the complete Traditional sense to their husbands and sergeants.
Strange talk from an Orthodox Christian but I guess creeping political correctness is having its effect. Did Adam come from Eve’s rib or the other way around? Read the Fathers, you are seriously deviating from Tradition – all Tradition btw, not just Christian.
I would be interested in following up on where exactly in the teachings of the Church Fathers women are definitively deemed inferior and men superior.
The first misconception to discard when grappling with modern feminism is the proposition that feminists are opposed to patriarchy — patriarchy being defined as the woman’s reliance on men for protection and provision. Modern women are no less reliant on men for protection and provision than they were in prehistoric times. They merely achieve it through more indirect and institutional means, so they can afford to be far less agreeable.
Worth the price of admission.
“The New Right will inevitably appeal primarily to males for the foreseeable future, as we’re offering women definitively less than Modernity appears to offer.”
Perhaps it seems that way, but certainly it is not the case. The average happiness of women has been on a decline since the 1950s. Women used to be, in general, happier than men, but through the recent decades it has been reversed.
The reason is simple (I am taking this from something Donovan said). Men create iphones, wars, and rockets because you are born without a higher purpose (no offense) and therefore must create your own meaning in life. Women are not. Our purpose is to create and care for our children. We are born with a really important purpose and meaning in our lives.
Feminism and (most importantly) stagnating wages, pushed women into the workplace….where regardless of what anyone says, is a soul crushing endeavor. It also “empowered” women to sleep around, which (and you can read this in actual feminist sites as there is a real struggle with it) leads them to become emotionally attached to cads, until they are finally unable to emotionally bond with a man (“He’s perfect but I’m just not that into him!”). Women are also taught that 30 is the new 20 (it’s not) and we’re supposed to wait until finding a suitable mate….and wait even longer to have children. And then they’re surprised they need IVF or whatever at 35- and even the high achieving lawyer feels like a total life failure……
Feminism wants to circumvent biology (“the patriarchy”), but through this endeavor, they are also making us miserable and confused, as our biological drive IS innately tied to our sense of peace and happiness.
They have stripped women of our actual purpose and replaced our innate biological drive with frivolity and mindless tasks.
I think these sites will become more popular with women….and frankly even if not, woman deeply feel the need to fit in and achieve consensus. Once this movement is popular enough, all those idiot SWPLs females will come around, just for the sake of “community”….hope you guys like chest tattoos of birds and Skrillex cuts.
Flavia, the New Right should appeal to women, and will appeal to women, eventually, when they recognize that we have their objective interests at heart. But for the time being, Matt is right: it appeals primarily to men, because politics — and metapolitics — have always appealed to men more than women. Men are wired to protect and provide, which entails politics and war, whereas women are wired to nurture the next generation, which draws them away from politics and war. Politics is all about the cold, calculating, quitessentially masculine deployment of quintessentially masculine aggressiveness and honor to achieve all sorts of ends, most of them dubious, but in our case aligned with the objective interests not just of our race, male and female, but of all races and species and the universe itself.
Women are not generally drawn to that sort of stuff, especially when we are in opposition rather than in power. But that caution in itself is a manifestation of deeply-wired biological impulses that 50+ years of feminist miseducation have not been able to overcome and never will overcome. The New Right stands with biology and Tradition, both of which speak in unison in proclaiming feminism wrong. Only if feminism is right would 50% of the writers and activists in the New Right be women, which is why it is so dumb for people to continually pop up and suggest that we soften our message to appeal to more women. If we were a ballroom dancing society, sex parity would be a necessity, of course. But this is politics.
Should women have a voice in politics? Should they have political power in a white society? I think that they should, because people who have no political voice and power tend to be ignored and exploited, and if the proper goal of politics is to secure the common good, then we have to empower different groups enough to prevent other groups from ruling for private, factional interests. The whole thrust of modernity has been to erode the private realm in favor of the economic and political realm, and part of the original impetus of women’s suffrage was to check that tendency. See my essay “5 to 9 Conservatism” https://counter-currents.com/2011/10/5-to-9-conservatism/ and F. Roger Devlin’s “The Family Way” https://counter-currents.com/2010/11/the-family-way/
Women already have a voice and influence in this project. But precious few. We don’t have any women actively writing for us, but I am cultivating a couple of new potential writers. Mike and I worked to encourage and offered to help with the setup of a WN women’s blog, which came to naught. Among our commentators are you, Stronza, Rhondda, Angie, April, Justawhitemom, and others. (Where is MOB, by the way? I am worried about her.) We have women who donate to CC as well. These numbers will grow in time.
One area where we have to walk a fine line is dealing with people who are haters first. There are people who love their own race, take their own side, and as a consequence feel hatred of the enemies who would destroy us. That is natural, normal, and inevitable. But there are also people who are haters first, last, and always, and who seem to hate their enemies more than they love their own people. Indeed, I have met people who come to hate their own people more than their enemies, because of their people’s refusual to go along with the hater.
Of course the enemy likes to brand even the most objective statements about human biological and cultural differences, conflicts of interest, and potential political conflict, as “hate.” Do you offer rational criticisms of patently false and destructive ideas about equality, diversity, and the possibility of a liberal utopia? Obviously you are a mentally unhinged hatemonger. Do you have a problem with Jewish power and influence? That’s just because you hate them. Criticize feminism? That’s just because you hate women. Etc.
The proper answer to that kind of charge is: not necessarily, not primarily. There are good reasons to dissent from the multicultural, multiracial consensus. Sometimes our enemies give us good reasons to hate them. Sometimes the reasons come first.
But we have to admit that we do know people who are haters first, and such people have no role in a healthy, rational New Right movement. Sometimes, of course, it takes a while to realize who these people are, but when I spot them, I cull them out, and as my confidence and perceptiveness have grown, I have culled them out more quickly.
The other day I was at a sports event with my son and I was talking to another mother about the Brittney Watts affair. She got a sad look on her face for a couple of seconds and then turned right around and started scrutinizing her child’s technique in the field.
It is shocking to me that women can be so indifferent to the larger forces that affect the future of their charges. Yet that is exactly what they do. It is beyond bizarre.
It happens a million times every day: Woman glances at big, politically-charged issue — then looks away to her child.
You are right to see that it is not rational, because rationally you know that these issues are connected to the well-being of your children and hers. But biologically, there is a “rationality” to it, in the sense that, as mammals, males are wired to guard the perimeter and females to mind the young. That is a kind of wiring that predates the emergence of mankind and all hominids. It is not a kind of wiring that is easily changed, even when it is necessary, e.g., when males are no longer guarding the perimeter but instead paying to import and turn loose non-white rape gangs.
The battle lines are as follows. On the feminist side you have the media, the government, the schools, the popular culture industry; really, practically the whole man-made world is now locked down by them. On our side is a tiny remnant of healthy-minded human beings, remnants of traditional social forms, and . . . the nature of life itself, in which sexual dimorphism and specialization has existed for hundreds of millions of years before the emergence of man. In the long run, which side do you think will win?
“Women are not generally drawn to that sort of stuff, especially when we are in opposition rather than in power. ”
If anyone ever doubts it, check out Huff Po women or Daily Femail…..
I think the comments section help a lot with women- as (and I can only speak for myself) I gather information in order to talk about it, more for than the innate satisfaction of the actual process of attaining knowledge. But regardless, when you are mainstream or popular enough, cooperative minded women will follow. When more men turn, their women will too. And certainly it is important as most women are still the gatekeepers to future generations.
I am quite peripheral, so I am unsure about your comments on haters. People sometimes get a bit consumed and it’s quite destructive to whatever movement. As the gamer blogs say, there is nothing more unattractive than bitter, and I think it applies to social movements as well. Being bitter and hateful makes you look weak and pathetic, humor and pride convey a much better image.
Outstanding; I agree with every word.
Mr. Devlin, I greatly admire your work on this topic. It is as thorough as necessary, while as succinct as possible. Kindly accept my compliments.
Sorry but this appears to be another article for the ” He-Man Woman Haters Club”.
I certainly don’t consider myself a feminist in any way shape or form but I still get annoyed at articles like this that seem to blame us women for all that is ill.
I’ve been a single mom ( I am sure you will blame that on my behavior or my choices as a woman). I have had to work outside the home ( again, more bad choices on my part I am sure you will say). I have been beaten by husbands ( again, my fault in the end) and forced to file for divorce and take custody of my children away from their father ( sure you will call that bitter feminist agenda).
When you alienate women like myself, a traditional mom, heterosexual White woman with far right beliefs, doesn’t that tell you something? Over the years, it is this very attitude from men within the movement that has made me start to question wanting to have anything to do with you guys.
Perhaps my recent comment in response to Gregory Hood’s ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ article celebrating Traditional women who aren’t conventional housewives will redeem me in your eyes.
I have a more nuanced perspective than you project in parentheses, and I think I empathize with the plight and predicament of contemporary Western women more than you presume.
If you notice Matt did say that society is bringing out the worst in women and readily acknowledges that men would be “no less despicable” if the shoe were on the other foot.
Yes but it seemed just an aside, one or two sentences to try to make it sound fair minded.
And I want to be clear, that I am not directly pointing fingers at Matt alone. The anti female, blame- it-all-on-the-girls mindset that seems to permeate the right and the White Nationalist movement in particular has become increasingly repugnant to me over the years.
I personally know of events in which high level WN men have sat around while another one goes off in a nasty vocal rampage about the ” slut” that refused to marry him, (who by the way was me and who by the way is a WN as well). The other men sit there and say nothing, no chivalry because they dont want to piss off their buddy who is still fretting and complaining about a girlfriend who dumped him 10 years ago.
The old farts who have waited till they are 50 to settle down and now expect a fertile 20 something wife who looks like Barbie but acts like a Stepford wife, and the young guys who think they can outbreed the nonWhites and use that as a reason to pursue multiple wives or partners.
These men complain about women not being traditional but if we actually acted traditional we would be run over by a steamroller. I don’t think men are superior to women. I don’t think we are interchangeable either, but I know that I am way better, smarter, more logical, honest and fair than many many men, WN men included. Why should I be refused a say in it all just because I dont have testicles?
The thesis of the article was that male chivalry ought to be cultivated and preserved. My numerous previous writings on this topic and my devotion to both my terminally ill wife and my two step-daughters should sufficiently allay any suspicion that I’m attemping to run a bait-n-switch angle on you.
This is a completely valid concern. The basic problem is that Modernity has pitted White men and White women in competition rather than in cooperation. Any attempt at brokering a peaceful resolution carries the risk that one or the other side will use the other’s disarmament to their advantage.
I’ve coached my daughters to have pink-collar careers that they can fall back on, because I don’t think it’s safe to advise modern women to fully trust modern men to completely support them. I’m arguing for incrementally muddling through the process of reconciling the genders into a healthy relationship…not for either men or women to simply “drop their guard”.
I don’t, either. I see the different strengths as being complementary. And I don’t think we’ll win if we don’t manage to leverage the talent, potential, and even aggression our women can bring to the fight.
I’m not arguing for some despotic Oriental degree of female submission. Given the historical disposition of White women–whether pagan, protestant, or papal–I don’t think having our women be as submissive as traditional Asiatic women is an achievable goal…if it were a goal of mine to begin with.
Would you admit that the ideal outcome would have been for your ex-husband to have been the leader you imagined him to be, and for him to have lived up to his familial and patriarchal obligations? I’m not being rhetorical, here. I’m genuinely curious. Would you have preferred an arrangement where his courage and discipline was such that you felt comfortable in a ceremonial “servant/steward” relationship with him? Note that a “servant/steward” relationship is not necessarily (and shouldn’t be) one where the wife has a silenced (or even necessarily diminished) voice in the decision-making process.
April Gaede in blockquote:
Matt has dealt with the substantive issues you raised concerning his article.
I would like to address a very important issue you raised, that no one seems willing to address in forthright manner. The exception is Greg Johnson’s commentary on why WN seems to attract so many nihilists.
I might add, nihilists, and damn incompetent nihilists, at that.
To the extent White Nationalism is a “movement,” this seems to be a function of their general failure as Men, particularly Adult Men, with none of them remotely close to being Patriarchs.
In short, they are, for the most part, LOSERS.
I have long argued that Movement Past should, with a precious few exceptions, be dead and buried, as being, for the most part, simply tellers of tales, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Chivalry is discouraged in this society by women. April, talk to the women coming out of high school and college. The guy who holds their coat, pulls out their chair, seats them, and helps them on with their coat is seen as (1) an oppressor, trying to control them, and (2) a damn fool. Join us at the-spearhead.com to read of this in more detail. Chivalry is dead, and it is not coming back. Read the earlier postings here on the topic of man-women relationships, and understand that chivalrous guys are treated with scorn. Alpha Male Bad Boys are worshiped s God – Dark Gods, to be sure, but Gods nonetheless.
“Open the car door for her” chivalry leads to mockery and scorn. Why bother?
Taking your instant examples, the guys who did not defend the lady in question did so because there was nothing to be gained for them. Period. Their arguments would not have changed anyone’s mind. So why bother?
These old men are doomed. Those who pursue polygamy do so because they are not truly involved in a “meaningful relationship” with any one woman, and substitute quantity for quality.
THAT SUCH “MEN” ARE THE LEADERSHIP OF ‘MOVEMENT PAST” IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THEM, AND “MOVEMENT PAST.” Bury that damn thing, and let’s move ON!
These men complain about everything, because they do not see themselves as having the power to DO anything remotely effective. All they can do is complain, and reinforce the self-selected impotence of one another. Period.
The larger issue was addressed in a VNN broadcast – Goyfire? – where Briseis – someone else who has left the “Movement” – asked, in effect, toward the end of a long show, why was it that White Nationalism only attracts the most marginal of young men?
Why, as Harold Covington astutely stated in what is called Covington’s Conundrum, why does the best Idea in the world seem to attract the worst people in the world?
I recognize that counter-currents reflects the leading edge of what White Nationalism should be, and could become, but so many of those who self-identifies as White Nationalists are not people you would want to be in a room with.
Greg Johnson’s Insight on the attraction of nihilists – incompetent nihilists, at that, I might add – strongly suggests serious issues in the message. Briseis was correct in her observation. Covingtion noted that we might well be attracting what he called the “t-shirt people” – young men who only have the clothes on their back.
How can we do better, or, more to the point, should we even try, focusing on the development of the Elite, and letting the rest face their karma mercilessly, displaced and loathed minorities who only serve as professional victims – the choice of the impotent?
Incidentally, my criticisms of William Luther Pierce around these issues are a matter of public record on this site.
With all due respect (and I say this being very well versed on the destructive nature of bad men on families), anecdotal evidence is a bit irrelevant.
I think what he is arguing is a general tendency towards a trend- which is completely and utterly true. What women want now is the continuation of male chivalry, with the eradication of female deference- and they are getting it.
Yes exactly. And Chivalry without deference is slavery for men. You can’t have it both ways, Ladies. You want to rewrite the Social Contract without our input? There is no Contract without our signature.
Women love to think of themselves as special. Right now the female warrior archetype is being pushed to demoralize men – and the girls love it. You said your own daughters wanted to study archery after watching the Hunger Games. The problem is that this is a very rare calling among Women, for most marriage and family are going to be the big thing. And anyone or any group that tries to confuse them on this is doing us and them a great wrong. Again, that’s not to say there are or have been no female warriors: a tomb was found near the Black Sea of a Queen in a beautiful suit of armor. And that is right where the Greeks said the Amazons lived. The Greeks had no doubt what to do with Amazons in battle – kill them. Chivalry did not exist back then. And pity the poor female fools who go into battle agains the Muslims. Like moths to the flame, they are being suckered to a most unpleasant place.
Now you have been a most passionate defender of the White Race for many years. And I do not say this lightly, but you may be the Superior Woman you deem yourself. And if so, you naturally deserve a Superior Man, one you can look up to. Maybe you haven’t found him yet – this is a hard search for a Woman of high attainment. But why take the side of ordinary Women against Men? If you are truly superior, you will see how silly and foolish ordinary Women are. Take Queen Elizabeth: she loved flattery and flirtation and had many foibles, but when it came to policy, she was cold and logical. She was highly educated and had been trained to think as a Man and she did so. Traditionally, Women of power understand the need for the Patriarchy even though they are above it and equal to the Lords. In other words, when you say you are just as good or better than the vast majority of White Nationalist Men, I believe you. When you try to extend this beyond your own person to Women as a whole, I don’t.
I’ve figured it out. Feminists were put on Earth to make other liberals look rational by comparison. I link and riff here:
Matt Parrott wrote:
“Had we been afforded the identical opportunity of taking what we want from women when we want it without asking for permission, and had we been told by the whole world in chorus that we had every right to do so, I suspect we men would have proven no less despicable”
You are much mistaken, men had total control over females in certain middle eastern cultures, east asian cultures (e.g. Japan) and to a lesser extent to Rome and in certain Ancient Greek cities and they never exploited it to the extent females these days exploit the system to take what they want. That is because males are inherently much more ethical,altruistic and less self-centered than women.
Matt Parrott asked:
“I would be interested in following up on where exactly in the teachings of the Church Fathers women are definitively deemed inferior and men superior.”
Really? You aren’t aware of what the early fathers of the Church said about women?
Wow…well since you are a protestant I shouldn’t expect that you know much outside the old testament…
Anyway, the Church Fathers were very open about their beliefs regarding the inferiority if not the demonic nature of women. You should start your search with John Chrisostom ( he more or less thought that women were of demonic nature) and St Basil (he thought that husbands should beat their wives frequently). Then move to Tertullian who believed that women were actually a gate to hell.
PS Please Matt stop referring to yourself as a White Knight, perhaps you should consider the term Mangina as a more appropriate description. No offence of course.
As a consistent Traditionalist, I take the writings of the Church Fathers on balance with what the contemporary Fathers write, mindful of the tremendous contributions made by the numerous female saints.
Traditionalism isn’t about cherry-picking the most extreme and arcane material available which contrasts most starkly with Modernity. It’s a living, breathing, active thing.
In what tradition (christian, pagan, indoeuropean, semitic, african etc) men are considered equal to women? Let me answer that for you, none. Please let’s stop kidding ourselves in order to make Traditionalism and White Nationalism more appealing to females who after all don’t even want to participate in the whole struggle. As it has been proven several times in all alt-right sites females participate only when they want to complain about how oppressed they are by the “evil patriarchal WN males”….
“mindful of the tremendous contributions made by the numerous female saints.”
Do you have any examples? I’ve got a fairly decent christian education and I cannot think of any “tremendous contributions” to theology or christian ethics by women….
“Traditionalism isn’t about cherry-picking the most extreme and arcane material available which contrasts most starkly with Modernity. It’s a living, breathing, active thing.”
Cherrypicking? Not at all, all the Fathers of the Church were clear on the role of women in society. For traditional christians, man is the head of the family and the house, he must respect his wife but she needs to obey him. In fact the underlying idea in both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was always that women are more or less a necessary evil. Simply as that.
Who are the “modern fathers” you are referring to? Anyway, what modern theologians and preachers say is irrelevant since the decadent modern culture which promotes feminism has polluted most Churches and they have to play along (especially if you consider the fact that most church-goers are female).
Oh I get it – Living as in a Living Constituion? To parphrase Scalia, no thanks, I like mine dead.
Here is a link. I crave your indulgence for it being Catholic, but the Fathers are the same. I mean we wont play that Jewish game where something becomes false because the wrong person quotes it, I trust. In any case, this is mostly for the other people following: by your words you have indicated you are are not open to discussion and are committed to Prelest (Error, Disobedience). http://www.scripturecatholic.com/husband_headship.html
In this Tradition, a Man has to be willing to die for his Woman – as Christ did for the Church. A Woman doesn’t have to, she just has to be obedient as long as he is good. Who gets the better deal here? Who serves more? Of course Woman wants the Devotion without the Duty – that is her fallen nature.
The word “equality” can have any number of implications about relative value, interchangeability, and so on. I’ve not wavered on the steward/servant relationship between husband and wife, I’ve only refused to attack and insult traditional women. I don’t believe the full weight of Tradition suggests that women are “unequal” in the degrading way you’re suggesting.
Here’s for starters…
How is it “respectful” to call a humble and loyal wife wicked, inferior, and a necessary evil?
It’s understandable that the amount of subversion and perversion in the Church (and everywhere else) would lead one to have a suspicion that changes may well be decadent subversions. I believe the perspective that women are cherished and honored complements of their men has been an authentic and prominent position in this traditional conversation since long before these recent subversions. My reason, my Church, and plenty of traditional passages from the sacred texts and honored prophets and fathers of my Church are united in this position.
It’s a natural impulse when there are widespread attempts at subverting our faith to perceive every possible deviation from the most archaic and strident positions as subversions. Ultimately, that’s mistaking Traditionalism and Conservatism. If it’s not alive, and it’s really just about reading dead sacred texts as a computer parses a code, then it’s not Traditional: It’s Conservative and Protestant.
I’ve repeatedly made plain in both the article and in the comments that “devotion without the duty” is unacceptable. The anti-female fighters in this farce only see my position as an attempt to aid the enemy, and the anti-male fighters in this farce only see my position as an attempt to aid the enemy.
“I don’t believe the full weight of Tradition suggests that women are “unequal” in the degrading way you’re suggesting.”
There is nothing degrading in the natural order, women merely need to (re)accept their place in it. The whole mess we are in now exists because that order was usurped. And actually women were very happy with their role and place in society before judeofeminism. It is now that they feel unfulfilled and unhappy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1189894/Women-happy-years-ago-.html
I do understand that we won’t convince any women with my arguments, but women don’t need convincing, in the coming chaos and civil war (in all western countries) they will merely side with the victor and accept whatever place in society is given to them in return for security. After all isn’t this what has been happening since time immemorial?
“Here’s for starters…http://www.antiochian.org/content/orthodox-women-saints”
I did not ask for a catalogue of female christian saints, I am aware that they exist. I ask you to tell me of any “tremendous contributions” (your words) women offered in any area of christian philosophy, theology and ethics. I know none.
“How is it “respectful” to call a humble and loyal wife wicked, inferior, and a necessary evil?”
Historically there was a compromise between the christian teachings and societal needs. The early Church considered women wicked and evil, there is no doubt about that, but it did recognise that society couldn’t exist without women, hence the husband was told to respect his wife since she was the mother of his children.
Matt, I appreciate what you are saying. While I do not consider myself a Christian, there are many Christians that I admire. St. Francis of Assisi and Hildegaard Von Bingen come to mind as well as the Celtic-Christian poet John O’Donohue. Then there are all the great composers who wrote such incredible music that takes one to the Cosmos. Yes, indeed there are also those theologians who blame women for Eve’s sin and la de da can never be redeemed. Poor guys. Yet, Christianity did inspire great works, even if they did it on top of Pagan structures. It is the Jewish element that has to be purged nowadays.
In the National Post, one of Canada’s supposedly national newspapers, an American Jew is trying to influence the election of the new Pope and disses one candidate as an anti-semetic. Hello Horowitz, mind your own business. (as if)
I have no doubt men would behave worse if the reverse circumstances existed. We don’t have to speculate about it because history shows they do.
Contrary to Maaldweb, I don’t see where the treatment of women in pre-liberal societies disproves this. Men often did subject women to barbaric treatment, even in the West. At the extreme end, mass rape was often the outcome when men got the upper-hand on women in environments with no restraints.
One point of civilization is to restrain male savagery because women are not as efficient at violence. To paraphrase Aristotle, man is capable of the best and the worst. Outside of law and society, Aristotle regarded man as the worst among all the animals. I don’t think it’s plausible he had the excesses of female behavior in mind when he wrote that. The worst atrocities have been planned and carried out by men. The idea that men wouldn’t abuse it to the extent women do today falls down so fast upon scrutiny it’s almost not worth discussing – IMO. Reasonable people can disagree.
Modernity has done a number on men and women. Men have affected by the cultural brain-washing too, including me. I would have had kids much sooner if I had known how good it would be. Instead, I opted for an extended adolescence in my early 20s and a detour into a first marriage with a woman who said up front she didn’t want kids because it would interfere with her career. White men and women are really missing out.
You wrote: “Contrary to Maaldweb, I don’t see where the treatment of women in pre-liberal societies disproves this. Men often did subject women to barbaric treatment, even in the West. At the extreme end, mass rape was often the outcome when men got the upper-hand on women in environments with no restraints.”
Such incidents happened in war and the victims were always females of the enemy population who were considered fair game. Don’t confuse how men behave to the enemy in war and how to the females of their own tribe. There are no incidents of intratribal mass rape and slaughter of women even in the most extremely patriarchal societies of the orient. After all something like that would be impossible since those women would have male relatives who would defend them and who wouldn’t go mass raping other women in fear of reprisals against their own female relatives.
Men got the upper-hand on women throughout most of the recorded history and what did you have as the result? Chivalry, a thriving civilisation and healthy families and societies.
Women got the upper hand on men the last 20-30 years due to the imposition of judeofeminism and what do you have as a result? Ruined families, single moms who feast on the fortune of their ex-husbands, kids with no paternal figure who end up in gangs, mass consumption of antidepressants (by women), declining birthrates and paranoia. Most amazingly, the majority of females don’t see what exactly is the problem with the aforementioned and they still think they are somehow the victims and they ask for more and more…
That is why no society can really survive when females are not restrained by rules and a strict code of ethics. Ancient philosophers and lawmakers understood that, christian theologians also knew it, but we somehow think we are smarter and more advanced…
You wrote: “One point of civilization is to restrain male savagery”
That sounds like it is taken out of a women studies textbook….
You wrote:”Aristotle regarded man as the worst among all the animals. I don’t think it’s plausible he had the excesses of female behavior in mind when he wrote that”
Don’t be too sure. Aristotle consider women as shameless, devious, canning and thus capable of great evil.
That sounds like it is taken out of a women studies textbook….
I didn’t mean it that way. I am a strong supporter of patriarchy.
I had in mind in this idea that civilization is a “thin veneer” and that the default in the absence civilization is a war of all against all. In this environment, males are the main threat to women and to other men because they’re better suited for violence. Men are the ones who will steal your food, rape your women, bash your head in.
I’m not getting this from women’s studies material (I read no feminists but Paglia) but from history and common sense. Say you were caught on the street during a complete breakdown of civil society, such as the Los Angeles riots. Would you worry more about being assaulted by the men or the women?
I brought up war rape to point out how some men behave when there are no restraints on their sexual impulses, essentially the exact opposite circumstances of what we have now. I think there is some agreement in these circles that modern women behave the way they do because they can. They have the power structure behind them. They can, therefore, act on their most basic impulses — in their case so called hypergamy — without restraint or any responsibility for the consequences.
The pre-liberal patriarchies fail as a parallel for our own time, because, even though the women were subordinate to the men, the men were restrained by duties, obligations, responsibilities and social pressure. In the pre-liberal patriarchies, the laws weren’t written to facilitate male irresponsibility on a sexual level. In our time, in contrast, the laws are written to facilitate female irresponsibility on a sexual level. So I don’t think the comparison works.
Our situation is so unnatural I doubt there is any exact parallel for it in all of history. Admittedly, mass war rape is not a perfect parallel either, far from it, but at least it’s a setting that illustrates how some males behave when they can act without consequences.
Bottom line: there is no reason to believe men wouldn’t press equivalent advantages if they could.
I’m not a “managina” or “white knight” if those things mean some dolt who isn’t tuned in to how things are ; I’m not 100% sure what those words mean. But like many white men, I do have a daughter, and I’m not entirely comfortable with some of these sweeping generalizations about females.
I agree with some of the things Parrott has said in the comments such as:
“Modernity has pitted white men and white women against each other.”
“Men are not superior to women. Men and women complement each other.”
I agree with those claims 100%. However, for the most part, the article raises more questions than answers for me.
I’m probably missing pieces of the debate Parrott is obviously well-versed in, but I’m curious about how exactly men are being played for suckers when they do things like open pickle jars, change the tires on their wives cars, or move the furniture? Is it that, thanks to feminism, women aren’t being sufficiently grateful when we help them out? Is that it? I’m guessing that these kind of trivial examples are indicative of deeper and more substantial cases from everyday life, but I’m not sure what those are. Or are significant numbers of men really chafing from the lack of gratitude for doing these tasks around the house? I’ll be the first to admit I’m old and out of touch.
Some other questions: What are the artificial supports that women are getting that delude them into thinking they’re independent of men? I’m open to the possibility that there are some, but I’m just not sure what they are. Examples?
Also, is there a contradiction between seeing men as not superior to women but then turning around and demanding some form of submission from them? To paraphrase Parrott: Nature dictates that there’s a hierarchy between men and women, that women are dependant on men, that women should be submissive to men, but that men are not superior to women. Perhaps I’m paraphrasing wrong, but the last bit – that “men are not superior to women” – doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of the sentence. Any furthur explanation would be greatly appreciated.
I think Matt’s point is that women are inferior in rank but not in value. The same as a mother is superior in rank to her children but not worth more than they.
I too am puzzled by the apparent belief on the part of many men that they are being ill used in romantic relationships. I don’t understand it at all, but then I don’t really think I need to either. I will say that I think globalists prefer women in positions of power because they are seen as less “xenophobic” than men and therefore more likely to support their agenda.
All throughout one’s life, one is to answer to and obey people who are not objectively superior in any meaningful or transcendent way because of hierarchical and institutional happenstance. The example I used earlier of my submission to the authority of a truly despicable fast food supervisor whom I don’t flatter myself in declaring myself superior to in every meaningful way elucidates this, but there are others.
Setting aside the legitimacy of this particular regime, a dutiful citizen should submit to the authority of police officers, filing clerks, teachers, professors, parents, and priests in the relevant context…any one of whom may or may not be deserving of his or her post or more fit for the post than oneself.
It’s necessary for a variety of reasons–theological, biological, social, and psychological–for wives to submit to the authority of their husbands. This doesn’t imply that wives are inferior or bad. It also shouldn’t be a slippery slope to the woman’s humiliation, degradation, and disempowerment. A pious husband wouldn’t exploit his stewardship responsibility to be so cruel, insulting, and tyrannical to his most cherished possession.
Well, Matt, there is a degree of submitting. Authority has to prove itself by reason and not just because I say so, especially if the outcome is very bad. It is called losing credibility.
My father used to change the rules at his personal whim of the moment. He got no real respect from us kids. He was a tyrant. If you cannot remember the rule you made the day before and make up another one the next day, it does nothing for respect or love. A child may obey, but deep inside, he/she knows there is something very wrong. Consistency is something parents really need to establish.
So European Women are converting to Islam for the Equality? They want to surrender to Power. Likewise in our “Cutlture”, where wealth is the coin of the realm, do Women seek out those on their own level and below? Women look up and seek to use Men to better themselves. Yes, and Men look for the most beautiful – both they don’t typically seek to better themselves via the other. Thus Men have the superior disposition in a fundamental sense. By not admitting this, YOU are the one who is confusing the issue. Why should Women surrender if they coddled into thinking they are equal? Your example of submitting to an inferior at the restaurant doesn’t really cut the mustard here. This is an Existential question.
It is Just, but not here on Earth where there is no equality. Consider Christ’s parable of the talents. To whom much is given much is asked. Men are given more but they will have to give an account for that. If a Women accepts her inferior position, but makes good use of her gifts, she can attain sanctity even in this life. There were Abesses in the Middle Ages who chastised Bishops and Popes. These Men wouldn’t have listened to some ranting Feminist spouting nonsense about equality.
Your distinction between Traditionalism and Conservatism is specious in terms of this conversation. Traditionalism is Conservatism cubed. Or if you want to keep it one dimensional, it is Conservatism on steroids. Traditional Christianity was far stricter than most Protestant Sects – but for clear reasons not as an end in themselves. Puritanism was an imitation and even an exaggeration of the externals, but without the Reason or Transcendental Connection.
Thanks very much for your reply, Mr. Parrott. I think I understand your point of view better.
I think most regular readers of this site would agree than men and women have essential biologically-based differences that make them inequal.
It’s the nature of the inequality that leads to debate. I’m guessing that where you and I disagree is whether the details of those essential biological differences work themselves out to the conclusion that women should submit to male authority, and that wives should submit to their husbands’ authority. If the issue is whether women are lacking in some essential qualities of leadership ability, I just don’t see women missing anything in that department. Women (especially white women) are running things quite capably at all levels throughout all white nations.
This territory is tricky because the biological differences between men and women are still being sorted out by science and the results don’t always confirm and support traditional “wisdom,” so I respect your willingness to walk out into this particular minefield.
My two cents for one way to make headway on this subject matter is to go around the battle of the sexes that feminists and anti-whites want to fight in favor of a radical defense of the white family. White men and white women are natural complements and partners here, with more in common than not (which is probably at least one reason why radical feminists are so intent on destroying what’s left of the traditional white family). Both white men and white women desperately need help in how to choose mates for family-making, how to stay together for the long haul, and they need modeling of family life that is optimally healthy for themselves and their children. The white family must be the heart and soul of our resistance.
I open the pickle jars and move the furniture (including refrigerator, freezer, etc.) in our household, as difficult as these things are for me. I move 100-lb. rocks. As to changing tires, I don’t know how. We hire a professional to do that. Lots of men can’t do these tasks, either. Including my husband.
“The first misconception to discard when grappling with modern feminism is the proposition that feminists are opposed to patriarchy — patriarchy being defined as the woman’s reliance on men for protection and provision.”
This is true. Delving deeper I would say that patriarchy, perhaps in a decadent form, gives rise to, and paves the way for feminism. It provides the soil within which the feminist seed germinates and blossoms.
“perhaps in a decadent form” You may be onto something there Catiline. There has been talk of men being emasculated and women being blamed for that. I personally think it is the religion that tried to kill the Greek God Pan, or Cernunnos, or Herne the Hunter, who embodied masculinity as Lord of the Forest and Lord of the Wild Hunt. Primal presence of masculinity. Then there was Artemis as Lady of the Forest and of the beasts who was also dissed, but she embodied primal femininity. Both regarded as evil and as a threat to civilization.
Actually in classical Greece Pan was an insignificant forest deity compared to the Olympians. He never had the significance Cernunnos had in the celtic cults. If you want to compare female and male archetypes of the Greco-Roman religion then you should it properly by comparing Artemis to Apollo and Aphrodite to Ares. In fact, primal femininity was expressed by Aphrodite, Artemis was considered a virgin.
Do you mean like men abusing the power they have over women? I could very much see that happening. We like to be led, not stepped on.
There is nothing wrong with feminism and women’s rights. Heinrich Himmler of all people was a women’s rights advocate. Ask Wilf Heink about this. He researched it.
Sorry Maaldweb, I am talking functions, not relations.
“Perhaps some men’s rights types will chortle at this comeuppance, but my goal is to end the gender war that feminists started”
Well, waddaya know, this is exactly the goal of the MRM. I don’t know where you got your ideas from about what the Men’s Rights movement is, but it’s time to reevaluate them.
This article is pure gold, apart from misunderstanding and misrepresenting what the MRM is.
The extremes sited in the comments here demonstrate the extent of the mind poisoning which is the result of the Jewish takeover of all popular culture. Neither sex is perfect nor are we interchangeable. Happiness is a result of working with strengths and minimizing weaknesses.
Feminism promised to cure all the illnesses of society. Are we happier? Women have demonstrated that, at the cost of all that we most hold dear, we can do many jobs as well as men. The price we have paid for this dubious benefit is to lose all real power and influence acquired over countless generations. Are our families and children happier and healthier? Is our society safer, mores secure and pleasant ? Are our marriages better?
Yes, women are responsible for the sad state of our culture. We are however, guilty with an explanation. Women are, by nature, more compliant than men. Our daughters have, for two generations, been brainwashed from an absurdly young age. Everything from children’s books to cartoons and the girl scouts, relentlessly promote the notion that girls’ happiness is a result of pretending they are boys in all but genitalia. The results are all around us. It is never mentioned that we owe the options available to men who invented modern medicine including tampons and birth control. Is it any wonder neither sex is very happy?
Thank you Matt. I enjoyed this article because I feel like it deals fairly with the circumstances we’re in. I’ve seen a lot of anger thrown at women as a whole for this mess, but I think you dealt with the situation well when you said:
Had we been afforded the identical opportunity of taking what we want from women when we want it without asking for permission, and had we been told by the whole world in chorus that we had every right to do so, I suspect we men would have proven no less despicable.
What’s necessary in a traditionalist society is restoring the checks and balances between men and women. If men and women depend on one another, there is higher incentive to treat each other with respect – even if the relationship is not ideal.
So, as a woman, I have a question for you.
If we return to a traditional family archetype, will there be any checks against men abusing women? I grew up with a very abusive father. I won’t go into the gory details – but he has committed 3rd degree level assaults on my mom and future step mom’s (he’s been married three times). Broken ribs and eardrums included.
In terms of traditional marriage, I don’t mind the idea of committing to one person and treating them with decency and respect. But I fear the idea of a man having untold power over me and being able to physically abuse me with complete authority. What would prevent that in a traditional marriage?
Both dereliction of stewardship and dereliction of service in the steward/servant relationship are traditionally unacceptable. The most important point I wish to make is that I’m advocating for the pursuit of an abstract ideal. In any case where abstractions and anthropoids intersect, there will be edge cases and exceptions. In my ideal world, there will still be divorces, there will still be single mothers, there will still be career women, and there will even be murders, abortions, and so on.
(not to equate a woman’s choosing a career over a family with murder, mind you!)
Both men and women sometimes find themselves in situations where divorce is the only option. Communities sometimes have to remove children from their parents because of abuse or neglect. S*** happens, and the human experience is not a clean, simple, or formulaic thing.
Unlike liberals and other idealists, I don’t purport to be able to deliver any final solutions to these problems. I just believe that encouraging and promoting organic, natural, traditional roles will reduce the frequency of families falling apart or going horribly wrong.
I’m very sorry you went through that, and I wish to make very clear that I’m not arguing for a situation in which women or children are trapped in the home, left voiceless, or treated with cruelty. I suppose the consistently traditional solution would be for an uncle or brother of the abuser to intervene, something which happens more frequently and naturally within a cohesive traditional familial context and happens less frequently as modern families become more alienated, isolated, and indifferent about their friends, cousins, and neighbors.
Thanks Matt for your well thought out response. Yeah, I think the hope of Feminism was to empower women so they wouldn’t have to deal with abuse. Yet in some ways, I think abuse and rape are worse today than ever. I think there is much more motivation for people today to use each other for sex and money – and then discard the individual when their utility evaporates.
I talk to some traditionalists and MRA’s who think the simple solution would be for men to have power over women…but I think it’s more complicated than that.
I guess my ideal would be for people not to see themselves as individuals, but to see themselves as part of an integral family unit – one in which sacrifices and respect are necessary for all member of a group – both male and female; I think that’s the idea that most traditionalists support. Had my parents lived with grandparents, cousins, uncles and so on – my father’s behavior would’ve probably been unacceptable and not tolerated.
Suffice it to say, my Indian friends are often horrified at the stories I tell them about family life in America. We’re a beacon of family values, eh?
You are being unjust to Women by asking them to be Servants and then denying them a Master. What Women wants to surrender to a “steward”? She might as well go to work and be an employee. This is a just criticism Islam makes of Christianity: always craven, always seeing themselves as “creatures” and never Sons of God. God will that the Good Man be his Representative or Caliph here on Earth. This kind of Christianity would satisfy Women, satisfy manly Men, and be a worthy successor to the Paganism of Old. Nietzcsche wasn’t all wrong in his critique after all.
Unfortunately, this kind of Christianity lost out to the Doctrine of the Sun and the Moon – the Church being the Sun and the King being the moon in subservience to the Church. The True Doctrine is that of the Two Suns: the King being his own intrument of God and ruling the physical world and the Church the Spiritual. The King and Aristocracy would be chosen by genetics and of course, great deeds. Thus our bloodlines would have been preserved as well.
Your situation under your boss is exactly how Feminists see Marriage: having to live and take orders from a scumbag. And the more a man tries them to placate them, the weaker and more contemptible he will seem.
Jaego, what would be your solution in the case of domestic abuse? What checks and balances do you propose?
Perhaps I’m just not quite up to your level of epic manliness, and I’m only half-joking there, but I simply can’t square up the harsh master/slave dynamic with the exceedingly intelligent, talented, and capable women in my life. I believe the head of the household is my rightful place, and my say is final in the event that an agreement can’t be reached, and I see my wife as a cherished possession . . . not a threat to be vanquished. This dramatic stuff about mastering and controlling them seems unnecessary, intemperate, sub-optimal, unfair, and counter to my analysis of tradition.
I am very familiar with working under a good boss, a boss who, unlike you, grasps the difference between beneficent leadership and malicious control. The contemptible ressentiment and its consequential slave morality Nietzsche speaks of festers under the humiliating and degrading boot of the sort of cruel domination you seek for our subjects, wives, and children.
You’re going to continue confusing my kindness for weakness, and there’s no way for me to convince you that it’s not. There’s no point in carrying on this exchange.
Excellent article, Matt. It deserves broad circulation.
It’s also been a fascinating discussion, and while good points have been made by many, I share your essential take on Tradition. I also understand that your view has nothing to do with weakness, and it is error to interpret it that way.
Isis raises legitimate concerns about checks and balances, and I strongly share her concern, but I think a future Traditional society can, and in fact must, provide these. As you suggest, the broader family has a role to play in terms of preventing and stopping various misbehaviors. More broadly, we need an honor based society where abusive behavior is seen as unmanly, which it is. What kind of a man comes home, after a frustrating day at work, and kicks the dog? What kind of an officer beats his troops?
Do such people elicit respect? Are they “manly?” Rather, they are contemptible.
Abuse of authority, in pretty much any context, is not highly regarded by someone who has a Traditional worldview. To abuse those weaker than you, to exploit and degrade, these are the marks of an Oriental despot or a typical African bush n***er, not an Aryan Traditionalist. To me, this is self-evident, cherry-picked quotes to the contrary.
As to the practical nuts and bolts of the matter, it is obvious that in a society guided by Tradition, the laws must reflect essential values. Today, if an uncle or brother physically intervened in order to, shall we say, have a “word of prayer” with a wayward abuser, that uncle or brother would probably find themselves in jail. The law will not recognize the justice of his act, but will punish him just as it would a common street thug. Welcome to the Jerry Springer Show.
In a Traditional society, the law must allow some degree of latitude for the man to uphold justice and honor. Not carte blanche, but certainly enough to make the cultural point.
Of course, it’s arguable as to how far we want to move in such a direction. Do we really want a society where duels to the death are commonplace? Perhaps not. But maybe we do need the ability to dish out a few knuckle sandwiches to the richly deserving, including assorted punks who seem to think that terrorizing women and children is wonderfully good sport, especially after a few cold ones. The take away is that new legal defenses will have to be carved out. Needless to say, we’ll require our own homeland in order to accomplish this.
While it is a bit of an oversimplification, our current legal system essentially prohibits men (and women) from being moral actors. Everything must be bureaucratized and outsourced to the “proper authorities,” thus denying our essential humanity…in the name of humanity, of course. The problem is that, in the real worl, this doesn’t actually work very well, and most especially where honor is concerned. Sometimes, knuckle sandwiches delivered by the right person can be much, much more effective than Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Those who abuse their position must know that, in doing so, they become fair game themselves, whether they manage to evade the bureaucrats or not. Fair game to people their own size.
Again, I realize that this could get out of hand if we let it go too far. I’m really just envisioning a few, very limited legal defenses that would make the fundamental point clear to everyone.
Of course, the anti-white, anti-Traditionalist Left loves the dehumanizing nihilism of the present order, and its inherent emasculation of men. I should clarify: the emasculation of decent men. The lower sort of man is freed to engage in all sorts of misbehavior, and so long as he is able to dodge Juvenile and Domestic, there are no negative consequences for him. He kept his pimp hand strong.
The law inhibits the good, and provides cover for the bad. Is it any wonder why the anti-whites love it so?
In any event, I think that Tradition can offer the essential checks and balances that Isis seeks, and what I mention in this post is just one of many. There is another concern that I have, however, though it pales in importance to the issue that Isis and some of the other posters here have raised. That is the question of aggressive, rude and insulting females in the workplace. The aggressive “career girl warpig” is becoming almost an icon of American culture, in which the woman will say insulting things to a man that another man likely wouldn’t. How to resolve this, short of excluding females from the workplace, which I don’t consider practical?
In other words, it is easy to imagine an honor based society in which men can keep other men in check, and it’s fairly easy to see how misbehaving women can be sanctioned in a family environment, but what about females in the public sphere? What is a man to do when a woman behaves in a way that would earn another man the ever popular knuckle sandwich (or worse)?
Bottom line is that in a future Traditional society, where the greater probability is that there will be more women in the public realm than earlier ages, the honor based culture will have to develop a sustainable way to deal with their misbehaviors.
The Anglo legal tradition already has ways to deal with these situations: jury nullification, prosecutorial discretion, and the pardon. The problem is that anti-traditionalist and anti-masculine values are so pervasive that these actors either cannot or will not bring considerations of honor into the criminal justice system. In other words, it is a cultural problem. Our alien elite is hostile to traditional sources of authority and jealously guards its monopoly on violence. In a white republic, this conflict of interest would be eliminated.
JustAWhiteMom: “The Anglo legal tradition already has ways to deal with these situations: jury nullification, prosecutorial discretion, and the pardon.”
This is correct. One obvious thing that must change concerns jury nullification. Today, the norm is for a jury to be told, in effect, that if the evidence supports the charge, that it “must” convict. This is misleading at best, and fundamentally untrue. The jury, as a simple matter of fact, has an inherent right to refuse to convict for whatever reason, or no reason at all. Judges, and the system in general, of course prefer to play upon ignorance.
Instead, the jury should always be informed of their right to nullify, if they find that justice would be better served by not convicting. The constitution of the White Republic should have a specific provision requiring juries to be so informed in each and every case, just as they get misleading instructions today. In a true white polity, this would make enormous sense, and would be a powerful, semi-organic check on abuse at all levels. In the polygot hell in which we currently endure, of course it would be massively perverted.
I would go further, however. We should add explicit legal defenses in the criminal code to provide at least some degree of latitude for a man to uphold honor and protect the weak on his own initiative. Most abuse never reaches a court of law in the first place, but the mere threat of it has a chilling effect on honorable men, while providing cover for the dishonorable and abusive. That must change. April’s story concerning how this reality constrained her father is instructive, and not at all uncommon. The law, perversely, prevented an honorable father from dealing with an abuser. Sick.
Point is that Traditional white societies have generally been far more effective than the current status quo in dealing with these situations, but at the same time even people sympathetic to Tradition don’t necessarily want to just “go back” and leave it at that. Perhaps we can do a bit better, while staying true to the fundamentals. Tradition doesn’t mean ossification. If it did, and if it can’t be improved upon and adjusted in light of new circumstances and knowledge, it is doomed to be overthrown yet again.
If nothing else, this horror show we call modernity has lessons to teach us that we can put to good use in creating a better White Republic. Some fears of earlier generations of Traditionalists have proven at least somewhat unfounded (though rarely completely off), while other problems have developed that few would have imagined. We must adjust in light of experience, and therefore the future White Republic will be unlike any society the world has ever seen. And I sincerely hope that it will end up being White Republics plural, but one must start somewhere.
Harsh? Why harsh? I didn’t say slave either since she can leave anytime and her submission is voluntary, an “erotic necessity” as C.S Lewis puts it. Most couples find the Captain/First Mate a good model. Her competence and dignity and dignity are preserved both in the relationship and towards the world. Your servant/steward model doesn’t give the man much at all, does it Matt? And by not serving you, it doesn’t serve her? See, you two are connected!
What can I say? I don’t think a woman is just a man without a penis. Like St Paul and the Fathers (not the Mothers) I believe Man is ontologically higher, closer to God. That’s what I mean by better. And not only that: I believe White Men are higher (on average) than Black Men. But again, in all cases, he has to live up to this. It’s a trust, a responsibility.
It is really hard to explain and even understand why women stay in violent relationships. I was in one and even though I was raised in a family where I was taught to be strong, not take any shit and my dad never hit my mom, I lived under a violent man for almost a decade in my 20s.
If he had beat me the first time we got in an argument I probably would have left him, but he didnt and by the time that he got really violent ( to the point that 4 year old Lynx asked me to ” get us a new daddy who is nice”) I was so beaten down I saw no way out.
Looking back it seems ridiculous. How in the world did I let myself get in that situation? My dad wanted to kill him or at least beat him half to death, but he would have ended up on jail for it and that would have solved nothing. I was somewhat convinced it was my fault.
Finally I got fed up and broke his nose. He left and didnt come back.
Has that made me a hard case? I guess so. I try to defer to my husband as much as possible and let him run things, but I guess I cant totally trust anyone now.
I think there is a psychology experiment that can shed some light on your question April. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water she will jump out. But if you put a frog in a normal pot of water and gradually raise the temperature, she will stay in there until she boils to death.
Toxic relationships are the same. One thing the internet does not seem to realize is that both women AND men stick around in toxic relationships, even when abuse is happening.
The reason they stay is because – as you said yourself – the abuser isn’t bad at first. They are nice, they are charming, they lure you in. This is the way my father was. If he smacked his girlfriend on the first date, she would’ve probably left his ass for good. But he was an absolute charmer until the second year of the relationship: washing dishes, running errands, writing romantic poetry, acting like a gentleman more or less.
The victim in these situations falls in love with the person they first met. Over time the abuser gradually becomes more controlling and destructive. There are small signs at first, but the in love victim ignores these. It’s not until the abuser does something violently destructive or lands in jail that the victim leaves. Sometimes the victim just stays and ends up dead or in the hospital. It’s really a sad affair.
I’ve seen men go through several similar situations. Maybe not to the degree of physical abuse that women go through (since women are a weaker smaller target). But I do know men who stick around in relationships with women who smack them in the face, cheat on them and have complete control over their lives.
Toxic relationships are bad for everybody. I think if the family was more involved and present in the marriage, such events would be less common. If uncles, brothers and fathers were allowed to arbitrate justice in the case of violence – such happenings would be even less common. Domestic abuse is virtually unknown in tribal societies because the people have such a close knit bond with each other and family life is lived out in the open for all to see. I think we “civilized” folk could learn a lot from such barbarians.
Isis! Godess of Wisdom! A fair question but far beyond my scope. Quite simply, on a social level, everything has to change. Fathers have to take control of their daughters and their sons again. Daughters have to be prevented from making the stupid choices young women are so wont to make. Mothers and older Women have a huge role to play as well of course. All this should lessen the need for shelters – which I’m not automatically against. As it is now, they are hunting grounds for Lesbians looking for fresh and wounded prey. Here’s a good article: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/02/25/gender-roles-the-womans-father-and-the-afterparty/
I agree that the involvement of a father figure is definitely essential in a young woman’s life. Many of the woman I know who have a penchant for entering destructive relationships did not have a father figure around. I disagree with feminists who see fathers as an optional accessory in family life. That’s like saying human beings need water but air is optional.
The model of marrying women young is a good one if you want to produce a large population. But I think the problem is that the planet has too many people. Patriarchy is a system that produces large populations. Matriarchy curbs these populations by allocating women more of a role in the external society than the home.
Perhaps not a very traditionalist view, but a pragmatic statement on our planet’s current situation.
Yes, too many people but not enough White People. Our numbers are falling rapidly, our birthrates below replacement level in all White Nations except Muslim Albania I believe. We need that Patriarchy, Isis.
Have you read the novels of the Occultist, Dion Fortune? I suggest “Moon Magic” and “The Sea Priestess”. A Priestess of Isis initates a man in each novel. In this system of Magic, the Women is positive or dominant on the astral or emotional plane, just as the Man is on the physical. She’s a pretty good writer and was an initiate of the Golden Dawn. She went on to start her own Order.
No I haven’t. Sounds interesting though. I’ll have to check it out.
I think the standard in these debates ought to be “is it good for whites?” not “does it fit with tradition?”
Obviously, there is always going to be a lot of overlap in this area, because much of what’s traditional is good for whites and most of what’s modern isn’t, but this isn’t always the case. This is a case in point. Isis’s concerns are easy to solve if you don’t get bogged down with how the liberal solution for women squares with “traditional societies.” When select liberal practices are good for whites folks, and some clearly are, the obvious answer is to retain them and move on — IMO.
The subset of the white community that needs a justification to reconcile a given practice with “tradition” will always be a minority, even if they’re well represented here at CC. The dispute between Matt, Jaego and Maaldweb makes for an interesting read, but the outcome is not relevant to non-Christians. Outside of Christian circles, nobody cares what the church fathers did or didn’t say.
Continued…im caught in some kind of spam hell…
Just as we shouldn’t let the enemy demonize the Western past, we need to be careful not to mythologize it. Judged by modern standards, women were in fact not treated fairly in the most “fair” traditional Western societies.
The modern feminists, cultural Marxists and Jews are not the only ones who push this idea. Many great Western minds have perceived this too, including many non-liberals. When the French Revolution came up in Alex Ks most recent article on equality, it occured to me good example is the French novelist Victor Hugo and his character Fantine from Les Miserables . They don’t show it in the musical, but in the book it’s clear that Fantine is the victim of a “pump and dump” (to use the vulgar parlance of the gamer community).
A young Frenchman treats Fantine as a dalliance, gets her pregnant with Cosette, and then moves on leaving her without support. Under the pre-liberal, patriarchal, traditional standards of the time, an out of wedlock birth meant instant disgrace and social ostracism. Because of this, Fantine is forced to leave Cosette with the Thenardiers who promptly begin abusing the girl.
Since the father is not around, Fantine is forced to take a factory job. She is fired and then dumped in the street like trash when the boss learns she has an out of wedlock child. At this point, she is forced into prostitution, suffers abuse at the hands of some very depraved men, and ultimately she dies without ever seeing her daughter again.
This is fiction obviously, but like every great writer Hugo drew from what saw around him in the France of his time, and I think Fantine is loosely based on a real prostitute. Hugo was not a fool blinded to reality either. He didn’t have unrealistic attitudes about the female sex, and he didn’t put all women on a pedestal. Thenardier’s wife is one of the cruelest characters in the book.
The point being, Hugo was a 19th century monarchist not a modern liberal. The abuse of women under the moral strictures of traditional France was so bad Hugo made it a major theme in his most important novel. From this (and other evidence of course), I think we can safely conclude that the abuse of women was real and not a fabrication of modern feminists. In this area, the advent of modern liberal attitudes has definitely helped to correct some real injustice that was bad for white folks (our women).
If WNists are going to rally mass support at some point in the future, it won’t be by reflexively linking WNist ideas to archaic social conventions that most people rightly find repugnant by sensible modern standards. Is it good for whites has to mean is it good for women too. Just how I shake out on it.
One reason this works as high drama is because her treatment is rightly dispicable from the POV of modern moral sensibilities.
Yes, the post Revolutionary France of Hugo’s Day was profoundly Anti-Christian in the circles of power and big cities. So just like today, the problems caused by the Revolution got blamed on old fashioned social mores and became the cause of further Social Revolution. Give the Fantines of the World full support – voila, you have tens of thousands of them where there were hundreds before. The cure for immorality is morality not social spending which empowers the welfare state and Feminism. Restoring the Patriarchy and the White Race go hand in hand. Dont throw monkey wrenches into the Machine we are building. It is what Women want too, secretly. How many would kill for the leisure their Grandmothers had. How wonderful men are! Especially White Men! That’s what will get us Home, not more Feminism.
Damn, Jeago, that’s cold; just leave Fantine to the street, prostitution, abuse and death so more don’t crop up in her place. What about Aryan justice and Christian mercy?
Maintaining the church’s control over marriage and family life was always more important than justice and mercy, hence the punishment of children with the stigma of illegitimacy.
What you subsidize, you get more of; what you tax, you get less of. Simple as that, Lew.
Right, uh. Let’s keep it simple, and return to throwing single moms into the street. That would have included my sister and my nephew now in graduate school at an elite university. It will include my wife, son and daughter if I pass away before my time. I know you’re not a idiot. Try thinking on it a bit.
I agree that the good of whites should be our standard here, but both biology and Tradition (and traditions) are good sources of information for determining what that good is.
Not what I meant Lew. Make changes at the level of the CAUSE not the effect. This doesn’t even reach high level Traditionalism – just basic American Conservatism. Now I didn’t read the book, Victor Hugo is a bit long winded for me. I’m just going on the movie. I have read a bit about the disaster Industrialism caused in England: countless thousand uprooted from the Land and from their traditional livelihoods. And at this level, Traditionalism would have said no and Conservatism per se is out of its depth.
Was this the condition in France at this time too? London is said to have had tens of thousands of prostitutes – many of them teenage girls from starving families. Obviously, this goes far beyond girls not keeping their legs closed. Ned Lud is one of my heroes. His people, the Weavers, asked, pleaded, and demanded a stake in the new Order. He said teach us to use the machines and we’ll make your clothes as we always have. Rent or Sell us the machines. Nothing doing – no profit sharing going to happen. And his people were crushed when they tried to resist. Ned Lud and the other leaders were put to death and the weavers ended up as virtual slaves in the new factories of Manchester and Liverpool.
This is all very different that the problem here in America which has been moral and cultural. If you fund something, you endorse it. So single motherhood has become accepted. And it has become a way of life – a way without having to get a job. Yes, girls plan to get pregnant. It’s a rite of womanhood in many poor and minority communities. Uncle Samuel is the Husband. Nothing Aryan about this at all.
Christians have always been very big on hospitals and orphanages. I don’t think the blame for any of this can be laid at their feet. It’s when people fell away from Christianity that the plague began and the social mores changed completely.
Good comment. A few observations:
First, my point is NOT that we should embrace modern liberal policies and perspectives on sex and women. That would be ridiculous.
My point is even while rejecting modern feminism we can’t return to how women were treated before 1789. Nor should we want to for reasons such as Hugo documented. If select liberal ideas or perspectives corrected a problem, then I don’t see a problem with embracing them even if they are “liberal” in origin.
I don’t know about pre-revolution France, but I caught a class in college with an expert on Victorian England. He said desperation drove so many women into prostitution in London they would throw themselves at any man who happened by. He said they would not have left the streets even when it was know Jack the Ripper was killing women in gruesome ways.
So what’s the root cause there?
Displacement through industrialization, or “patriarchy” and Christian ethics as feminists would have us believe?
Well right away the starting point ought to be throwing the feminist interpretation into the garbage. You make a well-considered point, and it’s amazing how modern liberal narratives can cloud one’s brain if you’re not always on guard.
If I’m understanding you, you’re suggesting the shift away from traditional modes of living created or exacerbated many of these social problems in the first place. In turn, they were used to justify waves of social revolution that made some of the problems worse.
The cycle then repeats itself as it must since the previous cycle made things worse. The effect, then, is a perpetual cycle that draws society ever further from traditional ways of doing things, further degrading human life and increasing misery and unhappiness.
The rational response would be to back up and figure out where it went wrong, but modern egalitarians won’t do it because they’re evil. Creating misery is their goal.
This seems plausible to me. Tolkien among others was sickened by industrialization in rural England degrading the quality of life.
I’ve seen the musical version of Les Miserables a few times, and I read book many years ago. The book seems favorable to Christianity to me. The bishop gives Jean Valjean a break. It makes him rethink his life, and ultimately he helps Cosette who was abandoned by her biological father. A man inspired by Christianity saves the day. That looks like a pretty traditional take on it.
I brought up Hugo because I don’t trust modern perspectives on race, class or sex. At the same time, I don’t want to fall into mythologizing the past or cherry-picking facts to fit a narrative.
On race, class, sex, I like to look to what our own people had to say about the issue, in this case the status of women in earlier times. You can’t say they biased by modern perspectives, and they were often contemporaneous with the events at issue.
Some on the right seem to believe male dominance and putting women lower on the social scale never had any downside. This is not true.
I skipped the 2012 version of Les Miserables because Greg Hood’s review suggested it was uneven in quality, and I didn’t care for the 1998 version.
He deemed the 2012 version a work of subversion that caricatures the issues. But I do want to see it now based on that You Tube clip.
There is no question that Jaego is essentially correct, in the sense that without government support, the number of women who would make destructive choices would decline dramatically, for the simple reason that the consequences of such bad choices would be so severe.
Still, I basically agree with you that such is not the way to go. Your points about Hugo’s Fantine are useful, though we must not forget that she did spread her legs for a dandy (am I remembering correctly?) who had not married her. On the one hand, the disastrous consequences that resulted from this decision seem out of proportion to the “crime,” but then one looks around and sees the behavior of modern females who are subsidized, and it starts getting mighty tempting….
Maybe there is a better way. For example, today we have various forms of passive, long term birth control. Some procedures are reversible, some aren’t. In a White Republic, I would have no problem providing destitute, wayward white females with some degree of support, conditioned upon their not having any additional children out of wedlock (and almost certainly other requirements as well: work, etc.). Surely such people should not have the franchise so long as they are, in effect, wards of the state.
Such women would of course face a degree of stigma, but would also be able to live in some degree of dignity, if only at a basic level. There would also be a benefit to the gene pool in that their fertility rate would be reduced significantly below that of normal white females who made less destructive decisions.
So long as we stigmatize the behavior (which is rather inherent in the requirement to go on birth control), and so long as we gain a eugenic benefit and improve the gene pool, I’m going to call that a win….and no white woman will have to suffer the horrors of a Fantine. There are worse crimes than bringing a white baby into the world, even if out of wedlock.
That option would not really have been available in Hugo’s world. But it is now, and these sorts of possibilities should be considered. I find it highly probable that, in a White Republic, stupid and destructive behaviors can be greatly curbed without creating the sort of society that would schock the conscience of normal people, whatever their political orientation may be.
What some Traditionalists don’t seem to get is that, however correct their analysis may be (and someone like Jaego is making good points left and right), certain aspects of the Old Order were in fact genuinely unappealing to a great number of normal people, which left those societies open to the forces that would destroy them. In other words, the old status quo was unsustainable. That’s why I’ve often said that I don’t want to go back to the fifties, for the simple reason that it was so closely followed by the sixties. If a given culture is not capable of sustaining itself, if it leaves itself open to insurrectionary forces, and if it can’t fight off the competition, then it is not useful as a long term vehicle to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
So we can’t “just go back,” at least not if we want to create something that is truly sustainable, which to me is the whole point of our project.
I’ll sign onto that plan as a good fall back. Women who fall thru the cracks can have a safety net while we protect ourselves against them. No more welfare clans or Nadia Shulymans – one of the great criminals of our day. And at the high end, we practice voluntary positive eugenics: tax breaks and social approval for high level couples who have lots of kids.
What you said is true: we’ve been declining for a very long time. The seeds are deep and many. Most of the Conservative Good Ol Days are just the failing societies of yester year.
Another problem I percieve with traditionalism is that it’s not substantively distinguishable from older forms of conservatism. If the notion is that society should be based on traditional principles but without a rigid inflexibility that can paralyze the leadership, then this notion is not very different from Burkean conservatism. In fact, that is Burkean conservatism.
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.
Edit your comment