1,826 words
Czech version here
The reality about women and gender relations is usually the last red pill for a man to take. It is also the hardest and the most emotionally devastating one. While understanding inherent biological racial differences, the truth about Hitler and WWII, and the Jewish Question proceed seamlessly provided a good amount of open-mindedness and critical thinking, getting red-pilled about women is initially met with a lot of denial in the process of a man’s enlightenment. It is, after all, difficult and shocking to accept that beings one thought of as fragile, sensitive, and in need of support in fact operate in a completely different moral universe at odds with a man’s understanding of decency and honor.
When discussing the devastating effects of “women’s liberation” on our society, emphasis is given on the inducement of women to flout their traditional responsibilities and functions, which had hitherto served to uphold its stability. Its most devastating effect on society and civilization at large was, however, distracting men from and eventually hampering their civilization-building tasks.
One of the indispensable pillars for the establishment and continuation of a civilization is the coupling of mate choice in women to real-life success in men. What feminism and sexual liberation have brought about, and what is the main source of our societal ills, is the decoupling of civilization-promoting endeavors in men from their success in finding mates.
In a healthy society, relative success in finding a girl for marriage is directly dependent on a man’s possession of character traits that are conducive to building and promoting civilization – e.g., conscientiousness, reliability, hard work, and intelligence. The twist here, and the source of the primary shock experienced while getting red-pilled about women, is that these are not the qualities that women find arousing. On the contrary, they are rather off-putting to them, and men for whom they are their main personality assets are seen as boring by women.
Therefore, from time immemorial, it was seen as imperative to refuse women the freedom in choosing their mates, or at least to minimize it as much as possible. This is because the qualities in men that women find charming and arousing are inherently destructive to civilization.
What is more, any constellation that allows freedom of mate choice for women is bound to distract a man from his primary, civilization-building vocation by forcing him to devote a certain amount of his energy and time to finding a woman, and then, if he succeeds at keeping her bound to him by constantly evincing the character traits that are attractive to her. In other words, under the conditions of women’s liberation, finding and keeping a mate for a man becomes a separate endeavour in itself, uncoupled from his success at his primary vocation. And it was exactly this scenario that traditional moral codes had tried to prevent.
In modern Western society, most white men are now forced to squander their energy and time to find and maintain a woman. With women’s liberation, men are no longer able to concentrate fully on learning and professing their vocation, be it science, a craft, or an art. Getting married doesn’t eliminate or even reduce this strain either. With lax no-fault divorce laws, men who want to keep their marriage from falling apart have to constantly maintain their charm and alpha attitude, in other words, constantly remain exciting to their women.
Building and maintaining the greatest civilization in human history is an onerous task. White men are busy building spaceships, unraveling the mysteries of human nature, sequencing genomes, etc. Such activities require utmost concentration, efficient usage of valuable time and energy, and full dedication. Inevitably this necessitates long working hours and often sleep deprivation, which is, among other things, known to negatively affect testosterone levels. Keeping a woman bound to him, while at the same time making a contribution to civilization therefore becomes a huge burden on the white man under modern circumstances. His energy should not be squandered on finding and keeping a woman if our great civilization is to sustain itself.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance that Western society is re-arranged in such a way that a decent white man can find a suitable woman and keep her in marriage with minimum effort and without the need to be constantly exciting for her, the latter quality being entirely dependent on womens’ attraction to civilization-destroying traits in men (narcissism, Machiavellianism, sociopathy). That potential effort is better spent on civilization-building activities.
Our Faustian striving for infinity induces us to dissect natural phenomena and to understand their roots. This applies also to long-established customs. In our insatiable desire to reject anything that does not conform to rational explanation, we have rejected long-established traditional gender roles and removed social mechanisms that had served to restrain women. This unique aspect of ours is the source of our greatness but also at the same time has been our tragedy. By breaking the social mechanisms that had served to put a check on women, we had the unique experience of observing and thereby unravelling their true nature. And now we recoil in horror from what we have learned and are experiencing a civilization-wide trauma.
White men are trustful and idealistic, the qualities that manifest themselves also in our treatment of women. Therefore, as a civilization we idealized them. However we are becoming disappointed and growing cynical now that we realize the detrimental results of our naivety.
We have been naïve as a civilization in our belief that our women will be grateful to us for having removed obstacles in their lives, for granting them equal rights and the freedom to act according to their desires. We did not see any logical reason to restrain women’s sexual choices and hence dispensed with long-established customs serving that purpose.
We can, however, commend ourselves for being unique in human history to have systematically dissected and understood the true nature of women, this most mysterious of all phenomena that has taunted the ancients. In fact, the emergence of manosphere with its utilization of the concept of game, with its scientific/systematic approach to understand the sexual behaviour of women and utilize that knowledge to seduce them is also something that could have occurred only in our Faustian civilization. Our inherent qualities that make us strive to overcome nature using empirical knowledge also made us develop an empirical system designed to overcome women’s sexual instincts.
Coherent, useful, and corroborated with robust empirical evidence though it may be, the manosphere does not have the potential to save our civilization. After all, since the end goal of game is the seduction of women, its essence inevitably involves satisfying their sexual instincts. However, the pillar of all higher civilizations from time immemorial has not been satisfying women’s sexual instincts but dismissing them, since, as mentioned above, the character traits that arouse women are inherently civilization-destroying.
If game does not have the potential to save our civilization, what does? The answer is the restoration of patriarchy, e.g. ending sexual liberation, strengthening the marriage bond, and involving parents in the choice of a mate. But there will be an important difference. This New Patriarchy will be established in light of the empirical evidence and our traumatic experience of witnessing the true nature of women once the social customs designed to put a check on their sexual choices have been dispensed with. This new patriarchy will be in a sense superior to the original (i.e., traditional) one, since tradition presupposes blind obedience to customs, whereas we now have scientific/empirical understanding of their utility.
This longing for a New Patriarchy is first and foremost the revolt of honorable, and at the same time naive and trustful white men, who had the chance, or rather the misfortune, of glancing into the abyss of sexual freedom and acquiring knowledge of the hidden nature of women. It is the reaction of honest red-pilled men who are aware of woman’s essence, but who are not of the scheming and manipulative nature to utilize that knowledge as pick-up artists do. It is in essence the revolt of white Faustian man’s frankness against hypocrisy pervading gender relations in our modern age.
It is a revolt against the hypocrisy of women who believe themselves to be strong and independent, yet at the same time are ready to submit to the first dominant and abusive male. It is also a revolt against other men, who enjoy relative success with women, yet at the same time continue spouting PC talking points by claiming to value gender equality and respect women as individuals, unaware that their very success with them belies those assertions.
Moreover, this New Patriarchy is primarily a guide for white men on how to treat themselves, and only after that about how to treat women. Its concept is meant to relieve the white men from the burden of dealing with women as a separate endeavor in itself and instead encourages them to fully concentrate on improving their civilization-building qualities. It instills in white men the rightful entitlement to their women, by virtue of them being the builders and guardians of the greatest civilization in the history of the humankind. This alone is sufficient justification for white men to have wives, without any other qualifications.
The New Patriarchy removes the satisfaction of women’s sexual preferences from the equation. But, as game would predict, once this attitude is internalized by white men, it will actually sexually arouse women and lead to success with them as a corollary effect – which, needless to say, is necessary for the propagation of our race and civilization. It is important to note however that, unlike in the worldview of pick-up artistry, the satisfaction of women’s sexual instincts is not its primary goal, but rather simply a fortuitous by-product.
The New Patriarchy is therefore bound to herald a new development in our civilization. As a teenager or youngster becomes wiser with regards to women and relationships as he matures, so does our civilization. In our youthful idealism and romanticism we had idealized women and cherished romance. Through our unique experience of having to witness the bare instincts of women left unchecked in real life, we will become more cynical as a civilization.
In fact, the notion of romance is usually regarded as a uniquely Western phenomenon. This is probably due to ours being a relatively young civilization in comparison to others. Though it may sound upsetting to some, one can certainly foresee the disappearance of romance from our civilization as well. Gender relations will henceforth be regarded in strictly functionalist terms and with a certain dose of cynicism in light of the traumatic experience of our generation. We will, however, make sure that this unique experience of ours and the valuable knowledge obtained thereof is carved in stone and serves as a guiding principle for the future generations of white men, so that they do not make the mistake of letting women run wild ever again.
25 comments
“the Alpha Male Pill.” The final red pill.
blue-haired SJW whales already took that pill
Joking aside, I think the reality is that many of us internalize the leftist parody of masculinity; It’s like how Satanists only superficially reject christianty by embracing “Satan”, yet are affirming the Christian paradgim in so doing.
I see this all the time in some who consider themselves National Socialists. I’m reffering to the people attracted to NS because it is depicted as demonic by the current dispensation–they embrace this image on an emotional-psychological level; they internalize it and draw from it as a source of energy.
Actual National Socialists from NS Germany would be totally perplexed and disgusted by this. I think actual Patriarchs would feel the same way about the manosphere and the Vandal Borthers’ White Sharia ideology.
An excellent comment.
The 1960’s Australian Labor Party figure ‘Joe’ Chamberlain held that the ideal society was one where women, freed from domestic drudgery by technology, enjoyed a better lifestyle centred around the family and home. Men would do socially useful work in the community and earn enough to comfortably support a wife and children.
There’s nothing inherently ‘oppressive’ about this, indeed it offers a degree of liberation from the work that formerly weighed on stay at home women.
Compare this outcome to today, where women are expected to earn a full time wage AND do the bulk of the child rearing, housework etc.
The more enlightened manosphere is well aware of game having this parasitic aspect to it. A bigger problem with the manosphere is its advocacy of trying to find women in Non-European parts of the world, primarily Asia. Another problem is the pessimism constantly emanating from it, just as in this article. The pessimism may even be warranted in the grand scheme of things. But it also demoralizes mainly younger men in addition to the demoralization foistered upon them by Western societies being as they are. The manosphere should concentrate more on trying to show them ways of how they can proceed in their private
and professional lives nevertheless. Things are not quite es gloomy as they are often portrayed in the
manosphere. As men grow older and acquire experience and resources, their mating prospects rise even
in today’s world. The manosphere should concentrate more on telling men to stay out of cultural-marxism-infected higher education and corporations while developing skills and furthering their careers elsewhere. It should also concentrate on telling young men in very clear terms what predicament they are in considering their high levels of testosterone in combination with the hypergamic tendencies of many women, particularly young ones. Constantly lamenting or propagating game or MGTOW does not help.
The lamentation has its place as do game and MGTOW for some men. Most are better served by telling them how things are and that they need to hold out, stay in shape and improve themselves.
“…the manosphere does not have the potential to save our civilization. After all, since the end goal of game is the seduction of women, its essence inevitably involves satisfying their sexual instincts.”
Exactly, and that is what I have long said is one fundamental paradox about the “manosphere” – it is allegedly about men’s interests, and yet the advice given is for men to modulate their every word, action, and behavioral nuance to satify women’s hypergamous instincts.
Of course, the “game” crowd will answer this essay with “well that’s all well and good, but what should men do right now – before we restore the patriarchy?”
Perhaps one needs to distinguish “game” as a temporary tactic from “game” as a strategic worldview. In today’s age, a bit of “game” may be necessary (which is one reason our civilization is crumbling) but the attitude of “men who care about race and civilization – they get no poosy” and that we should all just “sit poolside” while all around us crumbles – that needs to be rejected. The long-term strategy is patriarchy (which is NOT the same as “White Sharia” nonsense).
Is patriarchy really the long term strategy or should we not define in a much better way what we mean
by patriarchy? Historically, there have been many indo-european societies that may have been patriarchic
on the outside but where women played leading roles too. The Nordic societies of the Viking age come to mind here. We know, for instance, that the wifes of Viking warriors held power over their estates when these warriors were absent. The way a traditional indo-european society generally seems to work is that there always are female communal leaders, often of older age, who direct and lead the other women. These leaders work together, and are often married to, male chieftains and kings who formally hold overall power. New patriarchy ought to be defined as a modern adaptation of this concept. That would make it much easier to coopt the sane and capable of today’s women in trying to actually get there. Voting reform could also be couched in cooperative terms instead of just saying that universal suffrage should be abolished. Married couples could be required to cast their votes in unison, with one spouse being able to cede the choice to the other in return for being provided for or other rights. That together with raising the voting age and giving additional votes to families with children should go a long way towards abolishing the left-wing bias of the electoral landscape as it presents itself nowadays.
To the contrary, Patriarchy provides a stable framework in which women can express the highest degree of femininity. Women in this sense aren’t competitors but rather assistants. As assistants they can serve a higher goal.
The model of the female rep, or clerk or secretary is an important model for all civilization. Mostly women fit into the roles which her nature best fits. There will always be exceptions but the evil occurred when feminism began to portray the exception as the rule. Then every woman began to feel that she could DO whatever she WANTED to regardless of ability or whether it was good for her community.
Very well expressed.
Does anybody know if Savitri Devi has essays on feminism or women’s rights? I remember there is that part in DEFIANCE where she is disappointed that she doesn’t know how to do any traditional household crafts, but besides that she doesn’t seem to have much interest in being the ideal Aryan woman.
Does anybody know if Savitri Devi has essays on feminism or women’s rights?
She touches on the subject here:
Feminism and National Socialism
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/feminism.htm
Thanks for posting. I just wish she had given more detail about how her particular lifestyle fit into all that. You would never know that that essay was written by a woman.
“In fact, the notion of romance is usually regarded as a uniquely western phenomenon. This is probably due to ours being a relatively young civilization in comparison to others. Though it may sound upsetting to some, one can certainly foresee the disappearance of romance from our civilization as well.”
What do you mean by “romance?” Would this mean idealized or sentimental kind of narrative love? Or is it the “mysterious” and youthful/innocent/inexperience kind of love young people feel?
Is romance a byproduct of the nature of white relationships?
I think this article is too pessimistic about the nature of women. While there are certainly women who are attracted to civilization destroying (i.e. Dark Triad) traits, such traits do not represent the whole of women’s sexual preferences. In general, women are attracted to men who are charismatic, masculine, and have high social status. Such men can be very destructive to society when they decide to be, but in general they are a benefit to it. Indeed, contrary to what the author implies, men’s desire for social and economic success does not exist in opposition to their desire to impress women, but often serves to compliment it. Empirically speaking, men who are financially successful are more likely to be married and have children than men who are not. So the desire of men to impress women in order to acquire a mate is actually a benefit to civilization, not a hindrance. Now, sexual promiscuity and hedonism is certainly harmful, but the ability of women to select their own mates is generally not.
[women] operate in a completely different moral universe at odds with a man’s understanding of decency and honor.
Is your mother like that? Or your sister? Are they both incapable of understanding decency and honor? Do they inhabit a moral universe completely different from your own?
In other words, I’m sure you don’t really believe what you wrote.
We shouldn’t overgeneralize about half of the white population. But if I were to break my own rule, I would generalize that women have historically been more likely to enforce conservative ideas of sexual morality than men. The sexual double-standard (now called “slut shaming”) is a good example. Men are naturally more promiscuous than women, and women have traditionally stigmatized other women who too often give them what they want.
Since men are in fact more promiscuous than women, the social mechanisms that you claim were designed to restrain women are more accurately viewed as valuable devices to restrain men.
Back when we were all reading sociobiology rather than pickup artistry, no one on the far right would have disputed the preceding.
naive and trustful white men
Since we’re dealing here with stereotypes and generalizations, which can often be valuable, I’ll note that my stereotype is the opposite. I think white women in general are more naive and trustful than white men.
the mistake of letting women run wild
I disagree with most of your arguments, but why not phrase them more ecumenically? Any profound social changes can only come about if both men and women believe they are advantageous. That means you have to convince women as well as manosphere men.
According to your own argument, “alpha males are the primary beneficiaries of sexual liberation.” In fact, it is obvious as well that sexual liberation has made it much easier for any unmarried man today to gain sexual access to an unmarried woman that it was in, say, 1850. From the perspective of natural male inclinations, sexual liberation has been a clear victory for our promiscuity. Getting rid of it would be a restraint on men, who would no longer be allowed to run wild.
Since your New Patriarchy would restrain men at least as much as it restrains women, there should be no need to identify the latter as enemies. You are in fact calling (among other things) for the re-imposition of traditional sexual restraints on both sexes, but much of your language suggests something quite different.
White women are not an enemy population, and WN men shouldn’t talk about them as though they are.
“White women are not an enemy population, and WN men shouldn’t talk about them as though they are.”
I wish more WN’s thought this way. Unfortunately, it’s become very trendy lately to view women as the number one enemy responsible for every catastrophe.
I’m not exaggerating. After Trump dropped a bomb on an airstrip in Syria, half of the alt-right have lost their minds it seems.
Well said. I agree 100%.
“We shouldn’t overgeneralize about half of the white population. But if I were to break my own rule, I would generalize that women have historically been more likely to enforce conservative ideas of sexual morality than men.”
Introduce easy access to reliable contraceptives, and watch this whole picture crumble.
Your argument about the male promiscuity being the big obstacle without even considering the female hypergamy makes it rather one sided.
I have a suggestion:
Hold a speech in front of a large female audience. Put up a picture of Brad Pitt on the screen, and check how many in the audience recognize the man. It would surprise me if anything under 90% did not recognize him straight away.
Then put up a picture of Earle Haas, and ask the same question. I’ll eat my old slippers if you get the same degree of recognition. Now who the h… is Earle Haas? Oh, he is just the white man who invented the tampon. Do women care? They could not care less.
And yes, I know, I know, nobody is talking about Earle Haas, so the reaction should be obvious. But why is nobody, and in particular no woman, ever promoting the man? Maybe because he was as boring a man as the article insinuate?
And by the way, I have two grown daughters in their early twenties. Despite trying to coax them into looking for these good reliable men, I have seen first hand how slightly excited they turn just from attention from obviously no-good men. I am sure they will succeed in finding a good male partner one day, but it is rather disappointing to see the effect of them from these useless slick tongue actors. Even if my daughters never act upon it.
The fact the makes Elizabeth Bennet such an exceptional heroine in Jane Austens ‘Pride and Prejudice’ was the fact that she rejected almost everything because og decency and honour. Todays women claim her to be ahead of her time, and more in line with the modern woman. She is not so by any stretch of the imagination. She would be even more unusual today than she was then.
No sane person would argue that we should allow male aggression to run rampant while at the same time build a civilization. It must be controlled. Why not so with the female sexual tendencies?
I appreciate your level response to Mr. Durand’s writing. As a fairly new WN, even as I recognize a lot of validity in what is said in these circles about white women, I find myself despondent after reading things like this article. I wonder the same thing as you about the men who write such things – do they feel this way about all of the women in their life? And then I wonder, how can I ever feel solidarity in a movement that considers me part of the enemy camp, or at least considers my group to be untrustworthy and childish as a whole?
The white man’s skewed view, and misunderstanding of women began with Christianity, and only got worse when chivalry came along. Read Michelle Langley’s “Women’s Infidelity” which was reviewed on this site in 2010, or 2011. Read Otto Weininger’s “Sex And Character.” Read Simon Shepard’s “All About Women: What Big Sister Does Not Want You To Know.” Read Nietzsche!
Another thought-provoking article about one of the most controversial and hotly debated topics.
To the point.
“This New Patriarchy will be established in light of the empirical evidence and our traumatic experience”.
Here one hears echoes of Marx. Paraphrasing: “up until now mankind has made history unconsciously; after the proletarian revolution it will make history consciously”. One could easily transpose this idea to the idea of a rational patriarchy or even a rational traditionalism: “before, tradition was unconscious; the traditionalism of the (archeo-)future will be a conscious one”. I find the idea of placing the Western tradition under the looking glass of the Faustian Man in order to unravel and potentialize its strongest and most useful elements, discarding the superfluous ones, an interesting, albeit sacrilegious one.
On a more practical note.
“(…) [I]nvolving parents in the choice of a mate”.
This, in my opinion, would also incidentally reduce mixed marriages to a minimum. Make sure that marriage will not be recognized by the state, and the couple will not enjoy rights and benefits, without the written consent of the father or male tutor of the bride, no matter the age of the bride. The state will not celebrate, recognize rogue, informal, default unions.
But this and other measures would never be accomplished without state power. Clearly the sexual-counter revolution cannot be separated from the larger, political counter-revolution (not implying anybody thinks otherwise.)
I think the whole idea of romance comes from white women manipulating men from an earlier time. When romance is done away with, a new patriarchy will be born. After that, a new concept of romance will begin again.
Gentlemen, I have no idea how many of you have, or have not, been gang raped by the so called justice system at the behest of a woman. Female lawyers, female prosecutors, white knight judges, etc. I have and believe me, it ain’t pretty. My crime was being a traditional, hard working, tax paying, patriotic, decent, and loyal man. She committed a multitude of actual crimes, but no sins, as she, as I have learned, was merely doing what women do.
That was 5-1/2 years ago. I have largely recovered, but there is now a hole left in me that cannot be filled. I view America, and its inhabitants, as an alien realm. I refuse to interact with women except in a public business setting. I will not be alone in a room or elevator with one. I see most men as white knights, which they are, totally aware of reality until it happens to them.
I feel no sense of belonging or of duty to my country or my fellow human beings, which in all truth, I am embarrassed to a member of the same species. In short, I have had it shoved up my ass in spades just how much my people, the law, my own DNA and the Constitution actually care about me. I now have the same feeling for all of them, also in spades.
I am, or was, the prototypical white man this article addresses. I am far from alone, there are countless millions of like minded victims, in not giving a flying shit about a civilization that has turned on me. Let it burn. Brown and black skinned men won’t make the same mistake.
With miscegenation, casual abortion and a lowered “white” sperm count, facing the predicted catastrophic population contrast between our peoples and others, especially black Africans, the survival of our own race must be a priority concern.
This requires effective reproduction, and therefore complementary and co-operative affection, rather than hostile competition, between males and females, and affectionate, responsible concern for their offspring and productive upbringing. The traditional two-parent heterosexual marriage bond has been a major context, albeit neither always perfect or uniquely successful, for this. Further, the children conceived and raised should be as healthy and as clever as possible.
Whatever fashions or practices prevent this process should be opposed, especially the capitalist commercialization of the orgasm and the communist “race-gender-class” ideology which is its “de facto ally” (notably in the homosexual sphere).
WOW!!! LOTS of woman-haters here!! Guess many of you must be partisans of the utterly disgusting concept of “White Sharia”, right??! Treating women fairly is the badge of Honor for White Civilisation, and hasalways been its halmark and specificity. Women are prominent in many White Identity group, in case you don’t know!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.