3,100 words
We live in an age when ordinary standards of civility have collapsed yet somehow there is universal agreement that even morons and criminals deserve to be treated with “respect.” We are urged to extend respect even to other species and the planet as a whole. Sometimes self-respect is enjoined upon us. Within my experience, the most common such injunction is addressed to men, who exhorted ad nauseam to respect women. It would be a bold fellow indeed who presumed to disagree. When was the last time you heard anyone suggest that men ought to hold women in contempt?
In fact, it took me several decades of living in this world before I realized that I had never once heard anyone speak of the desirability of having respect flow in the opposite direction as well. But shouldn’t we want to see mutual respect between the sexes? And is it reasonable to expect male respect for women never to falter in the absence of any reciprocity?
Talk of the respect men owe to women is not exactly new, either. In Victorian Britain, land of old-fashioned gallantry, one sometimes heard references to “the respect due to a lady.” But a closer look reveals that respect was not always their due. For example, I recall reading an anecdote from that era concerning a woman who was successfully prosecuted for cruelty to animals. In reporting on the case, a newspaper remarked that the defendant had “forfeited the respect due to her sex.” In other words, she was rightly punished for her actions as any man would have been.
Strictly speaking, “the respect due to a lady” is an inaccurate figure of speech. The merely biological fact of having been born female clearly does not entitle anyone to respect. What the Victorians really meant was that every woman should enjoy a presumption of respectability—i.e., should be treated with respect “on credit,” as it were—unless and until her behavior proved her unworthy. A sexual indiscretion was one important way in which a woman could lose respectability, of course, but there were others. Savagely flogging a defenseless horse is not ladylike, as that Victorian newspaper reporter correctly perceived.
In other words, respect in the proper sense must be earned by one’s behavior. A presumption of respectability is a mere point of courtesy, and may apply to men as well. Demands for universal respect are in part symptomatic of a decline in conceptual clarity, specifically, a growing inability to distinguish between genuine respect and mere civility.
Perhaps the advocates of “respecting women” assume any fellow deserving the slightest regard from the ladies can be certain of getting it in full. But I am not so sure. Women have participated in the general decline in civility characteristic of our time. They swear and tell dirty jokes as only sailors used to do, and even saying “please” and “thank you” may be too much to expect from some of them. I have on occasion been simply shocked at the rudeness I have observed women practice both toward myself and to other men, and I have heard other men make similar observations. This is less likely to be a response to male unworthiness than a failure to socialize our daughters properly. They might have benefitted from being taught early in life by some authority figure such as their parents that women should treat men with some minimal degree of civility. This ought to be possible, for women have clearly internalized the message that men owe them unlimited respect with marvelous success.
If we want to consider the matter of respect between the sexes thoroughly, we must start our inquiry from the beginning, and that means asking where the phenomenon we call respect comes from. This question comes under the heading of what the philosopher Nietzsche called the “genealogy of morals.” For respect is a moral idea and found in many forms, from the crudest to the most refined. Yet its origins are best grasped not in the highly civilized and ceremonious forms of etiquette which might be found (for example) at a royal court, but precisely at the very lowest and crudest levels of human existence.
If the reader wishes to go where he may hear respect discussed most frequently and with the greatest possible sense of practical urgency, I recommend he visit a maximum-security prison. Inmates obsess over the “respect” they believe themselves owed by others, and are beside themselves with rage when they do not get it. Wardens must run a tight ship to prevent mutual demands for respect from boiling over into deadly riots.
It does not take an intelligent observer very long to realize that what jailbirds mean by respect is simply that other people should be afraid of them. At its most basic and primitive level, respect is fear, specifically the fear of physical violence or death. At the dawn of human history, and even earlier in primate bands, life was harsh and unpredictable. A victim of aggression could not simply call up the police to enforce laws or attorneys and judges to regulate disputes. To avoid being victimized by others, it was useful to respond as aggressively as possible to any threat. Even today, after many centuries of civilization, social environments like this can still be found. Think of playgrounds with insufficient adult supervision, or urban slums—and most especially in the prisons where so many slum-dwelling “badasses” end up. Such men will be happy to regale you with plenty of talk about respect, but they never mean by it anything much going beyond the sheer physical fear they wish to arouse in others so as not to be victimized by them.
A similar lesson can be drawn from the history of religion. The idea that God should be worshipped for his goodness took a very long time to develop. At its origins, worship of gods and spirits was motivated by sheer fear of their power. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes (who uses the term “honor” to refer to what I have been calling respect) noted how plentiful the proofs of this are in classical literature:
Nor does it alter the case of honor whether an action be just or unjust, for honor consisteth only in the opinion of power. Therefor the ancient heathen did not think they dishonored but greatly honored the gods when they introduced them in their poems committing rapes, thefts, and other great but unjust or unclean acts: insomuch as nothing is so much celebrated in Jupiter as his adulteries, nor in Mercury as his frauds and thefts. (Leviathan I:10)
Primitive religion imagines gods and spirits as concerned in much the same manner as prison inmates with receiving the honor and respect they are owed in the form of rituals and sacrifices, and ready to lash out at humans who fail to do so. Religious worship is candidly motivated by a desire to placate powerful beings, and has little to do with any concept of moral goodness. As long as such a god receives his proper respect in the form of worship and sacrifice, he takes little interest in whether his votaries then turn around and indulge in theft, adulterous trysts, or even murder. The concept of a God who deserves to be loved and worshiped for his infinite goodness rather than his awesome power, and to whom honor can best be shown by a lifetime of devotion to duty and proper behavior, took a very long time for human beings to develop. It is a product of advanced civilization, not an original fact of human nature.
This origin in the fear aroused by others’ power to harm us explains why we still teach children respect, as well as good behavior more generally, through punishment. It is what first teaches the child to respect its parents, then gradually to respect their wishes, and finally (in the most successful cases) to internalize the principles the parents mean to inculcate through the punishment. A whole history of human moral development, whether in the individual or the race, might be written as the narration of such a process of increasingly refined and internalized discipline. But the beginning of moral education lies in fear; and since the world in a sense begins anew every time a child is born, fear can never be dispensed with entirely.
Just as human coexistence and religious worship took a cruder form in primitive societies from what can be observed today, so relations between the sexes were probably not originally marked by any very ennobling conception of male gallantry or female decorum, nor by any very demanding sense of honor in either sex. Many still-observable sex differences are traceable to the sheer fact that men are on average a good deal bigger and stronger than women, so much so that the average man is physically capable of killing the average woman with his bare hands. In a state of savagery, a man can get sex or anything else he happens to want from a woman (e.g., foodstuffs) simply by using force. He can also seriously harm or kill her out of mere anger.
Such male behavior is, of course, sternly punished by law in all civilized societies. But the danger of rape or other violence from uncivilized men must have had at least one positive consequence: primitive women probably respected men in the original sense of the term, viz., by being afraid of them. If they pressed a man too far, they might find themselves in serious danger. This set some limits upon how bad their behavior could get. In a shameless feminist girlboss society of “liberated” females, there really are not many such limits.
And it is not as if women had no means of countering male violence, real or merely threatened. Most of female psychology comes from their evolved ability to get what they want without using force. Women attain their ends using lies, deceit, scheming, manipulation, backbiting, innuendo, and a whole arsenal of ugly tricks whose only common denominator is an avoidance of direct confrontation and force such as would correctly be described as “unmanly” if practiced by a male. The battle of the sexes, in other words, is a battle between force and cunning, and as in other contexts, cunning usually proves more effective.
Even in civilized societies, men continue to oppose force to cunning in dealing with women, but the force is generally that of law rather than their fists. Traditional European marriage law, for example, granted primary custody of children to their father. As Hobbes saw, there was nothing natural or necessary about this:
If there be no contract, the dominion is in the mother. For in the condition of mere nature, where there are no matrimonial laws, it cannot be known who is the father unless it be declared by the mother. And therefore the right of dominion over the child dependeth upon her will, and is consequently hers. (Leviathan I:20)
Paternal investment in offspring is very rare even in the great apes which are our closest evolutionary cousins, probably because apes do not grasp the causal connection between mating and reproduction. Fatherhood in more than the bare biological sense is not a fact of nature but created by the laws of matrimony, established once primitive men discovered their own contribution to reproduction. It was quickly found that men would invest heavily in children if they could be certain the children were theirs. Marriage began as a male invention designed to give them paternity confidence.
We may be sure women objected to the idea of lifelong marriage when it was first introduced, for it meant they could not longer mate as they pleased. In practice, this meant mating exclusively with high-status men: in primitive hunter-gatherer bands, sixty percent of men fail to reproduce. Marriage allows more men to become fathers, but also means that some girls get stuck with low-status “losers.” Men were stronger, however, and carried their point, creating the patriarchal, male-headed family.
Eventually women themselves became the biggest champions of the institution of marriage—they have always been the more impressionable sex—whereas men more frequently sought to expand their reproductive potential with extramarital escapades. But we must not be deceived into thinking this familiar situation is how things began. As Nietzsche understood, the origins of moral institutions often bear little resemblance to the behavior observed in more civilized eras and societies. Marriage was almost certainly invented by men in response to their discovery of fatherhood. Its advantages over instinctive Darwinian mating must have quickly become apparent. Perhaps the best testament to the institution’s success is the ease with which later generations of men were brought to believe their women “naturally monogamous.”
We may hope that the force of law and social shaming were used more frequently than husbands’ fists in inculcating marital fidelity upon those first wives, but as we have already pointed out, force of some kind cannot be dispensed with. It is how respect first arises, and is the original instrument of moral training, whether of the child or of the human race as a whole.
And in primitive societies that do not enforce monogamy, men as a group do not enjoy a great deal of respect from women. I once attended a lecture by the late anthropologist Henry Harpending, who spent much time with the bushmen of the Kalahari. He reported that women in bushman society commonly regard the men as silly creatures. Most of the time they seem to wish the men would just go away and leave them alone.
It struck me upon hearing this that Dr. Harpending need not have travelled all the way to the deserts of Namibia to observe such a society. We Americans have been instructed for several decades now that women can do everything men can do. Their professional careers can be just as successful and lucrative provided only they are not “discriminated against”—and any failure of work to be lucrative and “fulfilling” for them is proof of such discrimination. Lesbianism is a perfectly legitimate alternative to marriage, and it is a moral outrage if such women are not allowed to adopt or conceive through artificial insemination. Women have a right to divorce their husbands for any reason or for no reason at all, and are not to be criticized for separating their children from their father, who is merely an optional add-on and not a necessary part of the family. In short, as we’ve been told, a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. And the thanks men get for stoically putting up with all of this—they have not, after all, had much choice—is to be portrayed as “abusers” by feminists with masochistic fantasies!
Declining phases of civilization are marked by a recrudescence of the primitive. The “women’s liberation” movement has in effect made the ways of some of the most backward peoples known to anthropology into an ideal which our own society is condemned for failing to match. But our failure has not been for any lack of trying. Radical changes in marital and employment law over the past several decades have been motivated by a determination to render men superfluous (although this has often been done by increasing women’s dependence upon the state, i.e., upon men as a faceless collective). The result is a society in which women regard men as a kind of optional economic resource and occasional sperm donor. Why depend upon a husband to provide for you when a “family” court can simply extract resources from him by force? It is impossible that women should continue to respect men under such circumstances.
Samuel Johnson wrote: “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.” This is correct. The tendency of law in traditionally arranged Western societies has been to make up for the natural advantages women enjoy in the battle of the sexes. Reforming the laws to increase women’s natural power rather than mitigating it results in an unworkable imbalance. When we take from men the possibility of using the force of law and institutions against women, yet leave women their full powers of sexual attraction and cunning, we get not equality but female despotism. And there are no grounds for hoping that women will prove an exception to the rule that power corrupts. “Liberated” women simply run roughshod over their own families and society as a whole.
You can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
I cannot furnish the objective data I might which for in this matter, but I do catch wind of relevant anecdotes, such as the wife who starts filling out divorce papers any time her husband does not let her have her way. Knowing what would be in store for himself and his children, the unfortunate husband simply gives in every time.
It would be hard to exaggerate how unnatural and unhealthy such a relationship is. It is difficult to imagine likely that even the woman herself is happy with it. Normal women want to respect their husbands, but are unable to do so as long as they are permitted to wield arbitrary power over them. Most men also sincerely enjoy gratifying their wives’ wishes where possible, but this cannot mean submitting to their commands under threat of being hauled into divorce court.
As Johnson seems to have perceived, manhood relies on the force of law in a way that femininity does not (at least assuming men do not want to go back to simply using their fists). Respect between the sexes can be re-established, but not by mindlessly exhorting women to it, as is now done with men. The laws governing work and family must be restored to something like their former state, returning to men their ability to support a wife and children as well as the proper legal authority that goes with this role. In effect, men get respect from women by demanding it. It would, admittedly, be nice if women could learn to respect men out of sheer recognition of the goodness of our hearts, but this is simply not how respect works. Respect has its origins in fear, just as all authority relies ultimately upon force.
Women who accept the traditional conditions of marriage and fulfill their duties as wives and mothers to the best of their abilities will most often find themselves enjoying the respect of their men. If and when that happens, perhaps we will finally cease to be deafened by female demands for “respect.”
38 comments
When was the last time you heard anyone suggest that men ought to hold women in contempt?
When was the last time you saw a woman, or girl blush? 🙃
Women have participated in the general decline in civility characteristic of our time.
I lost respect for the female sex years ago, that tattooed from the toes to the top of their head, body, and facial pierced, purple, or green haired viragos with gauges in their ears, mouths foul as the lowest nigger, get no respect from me. 🙃
Several years ago, a lot of whites started to get ear piercings similar to what some jungle tribes get. They would stretch their earlobes overtime, causing it to get long. In a way, it’s more of an ear modification than a piercing. I saw a news report about that, which mentioned the fact that many of them regretted it years later and wound up going to plastic surgeons to get some type of corrective surgery. They interviewed one of the surgeons about it. I don’t know what these people who had this corrective surgery looked like afterwards, but some of these plastic surgeons were getting a significant number of patients because of it. I wouldn’t be surprised if laser removal for tattoos becomes more common in the future as well.
The reversing regrets industry I predict will become the next big thing and a clean skin canvas as maximum ideal. A return to value and natural beauty craved for in an ugly artificial jewish world. Perhaps regulated color that fades over time like Marvin Acme’s disappearing ink. Death to the body mod industry.
As long as such a god receives his proper respect in the form of worship and sacrifice, he takes little interest in whether his votaries then turn around and indulge in theft, adulterous trysts, or even murder.
That little passage reminds me of the movie The Cabin In The Woods, which I watched last week, great cosmic horror in the Lovecraft tradition, which I recommend everybody watch. 🙃
Thanks for the tip, I think I’ll watch that one. BTW, is your name from another horror story, Turn of the Screw? I love the film version, The Innocents with Deborah Kerr.
Yes it is. 🙃
Passages like this and from Hobbes have inadvertently turned me away from Heathenry. Christianity is still not an option, so I guess I’m left with a vague feeling of spirituality with no formal religion…
Maybe Gnostic Neoplatonism?
The question is whether someone like Thomas Hobbes even understood what the long-dead religions of the Pagans were about. The biggest mistake people with a Christian background tend to make is to interpret colorful stories about Gods and mythological creatures in a literal fashion, which means missing all the symbolic layers.
For example, Plutarch explains the multiple symbolic meanings that figures like Horus or Osiris had in ancient Egyptian thinking: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/home.html
Course righted, thanks for that.
Also, if the gods were truly that powerful and inclined, we could be like the isopod in Sandy Peterson’s throat:
https://x.com/SandyofCthulhu/status/1980407879179071921?t=1Rqlh079V8l222AX8Yh3pQ&s=19
Actually I still have reservations against this.
The commoner doesn’t have time, inclination, or often capacity to appreciate the esoteric meanings of pagan myths. The superficial reading is as deep as they will ever go, and now you’re in a situation like Islam permitting child marriage and first cousin marriage with detrimental effects to the populace.
Hobbes has identified the major weakness of classical heathenry and it seems that it is useless for the spiritual growth of the holistic nation. This apology is too high browed and high horsed to be practical.
I believe that Hobbes was simply wrong and that ancient people, even commoners, had no problem understanding an obvious metaphor as metaphor. For example:
“LEDA A queen of Lakedaimonia (southern Greece) who was seduced by Zeus in the form of swan. She laid an egg from which were hatched the Dioskouroi twins–one Polydeukes was the son of Zeus, the other Kastor the son of her husband Tyndareus.” [https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/ZeusLoves3.html]
A swan cannot physically mate with a human, and human women don’t lay eggs. Nobody with an IQ above room temperature would have interpreted this in a literal (or non-magical) way in any era.
When you see it:
https://counter-currents.com/2025/09/a-life-of-seneca/
Marriage began as a male invention designed to give them paternity confidence.
Exclusive “breeding rights,” and “sexual gratification,” backed up by the forces of church, and state. 🙃
…for it meant they could not longer mate as they pleased.
With man, or BEAST. 🙃
Someone’s wise to the Morning Glory Milking Farm…
Most of female psychology comes from their evolved ability to get what they want without using force.
I have been mulling over a hypothesis for some time, that women invented “witchcraft,” et al, to take advantage of men’s gullibility. 🙃
And then a Freemason invented Wicca to take power over women… Not bad!
“Most of female psychology comes from their evolved ability to get what they want without using force.”
I don’t think it takes so much advanced psychology, just knowing how to cook, acting sweet, & being flirty.
“I have been mulling over a hypothesis for some time, that women invented “witchcraft,” et al, to take advantage of men’s gullibility. 🙃”
Nobody is that gullible, imo. My theory, & I’ve not gone back & read details about the Massachusetts witch trials, is that those weird loner, “cat ladies” were the unhinged, anti-social leftists of their time. They were self-centered & preoccupied with being their own god, ‘cursing’ others & trying to will others to forcibly do what they wanted.
Dr. Ed Dutton, aka “the Jolly Heretic”, just made a recent podcast about how it’s been scientifically shown that cats (half of which have toxoplasmosis) will frequently turn single cat-ladies into volatile raving lunatics.
Talk of “respecting women” mainly comes from the Black side of town. Whites rarely talk about that, including feminists. Of course the battle of the sexes is found in every racial and ethnic group, but the specific details between groups can be very different.
It is mostly nonsense because women don’t really care if men respect them, they just want to be treated a certain way.
I agree. I recently heard on the radio that the hit song ‘Respect’ was actually written & performed by Otis Redding, years before it became Aretha Franklin’s big hit.
Mr. Devlin, you’ve offered so many interesting points of conversation in this piece.
One of the things that’s always puzzled me, when it comes to respect between the sexes, is the use of conspicuous physical force as admonishment. In old 1950s-1960s movies, I’ve seen male characters spank their dates in the living room in front of other family members, and nobody flinches. I’ve also seen women characters slap a man across the face in public. Again, nobody flinches. (What, if any, are the ‘rules’ for this behavior?)
Another situation that comes to mind, regarding respect between the sexes + the use of physical force, is from ancient stories I’ve read. One, just off the top of my head is from the Old Testament: While crossing the desert, when a man is asked by another, “Who is this woman you are traveling with? He answered, “She’s my sister,” even though she’s his wife. He knows, in that ancient world, if he says, “She’s my wife,” he will be killed, & the new stranger will take her as his own wife. So instead, the husband lies, and makes his “sister” temporarily physically available to the stranger. (I do believe I’d have a difficult time with mustering internal feelings of “respect” for said husband.)
It is a fact that women initiate the majority of divorces today. I think that in a future healthy White society, the state should encourage couples to take marriage preparation classes because people need to learn about the nature of the opposite sex. Also, if couples have children and want a divorce, they should be required to take couples therapy.
This is an excellent article that holds back no punches on the psychology of men and women.
Old World societies (both Western and non-Western) not only limited women’s participation in society, because wanton hypergamy (aka, whorism) would not only destroy society, that pathway would destroy the women.
We are 50 years into this Jewish feminist Hell and the roosters are coming home to roost for the women that wanted to Thot, divorce their husbands and damage their children.
Bitter, drunk, lonely, crazy spinsters are the only White demographic increasing. In fact, they are the sole bedrock of the rump Democrat party. Women do have an innate caring role in society. This has always been geared toward children. If women don’t have children or abandon them, this innate quality does not disappear–it’s transferred to social freaks and immigrants.
Women need some structure and the influence of her male family members to keep her on track.
Feminism was the real death blow against our people by the Jewish academic hivemind of the mid-late 20th Century. (E.g., no feminism in Israel.)
But the beginning of moral education lies in fear; and since the world in a sense begins anew every time a child is born, fear can never be dispensed with entirely.
This highlights the ludicrous and de-civilizational lie of FDR’s freedom from fear, a microcosm of the de-civilizational nature of liberalism.
My views on women as a group have changed over time, and not really for the better to be frank. All of the potential manipulation stuff in the article is true.
But women aren’t really guided by the things men are, and it’s really hit me over time that women are vastly more blank slates then men, so upending society to ’empower’ women as a group, to turn women into managers or leaders, doesn’t make any sense from any perspective, other than a gutter economic one.
And nearly everything women do, including ‘modern don’t-need-no-man’ stuff, is ultimately bestowed on them by men. The same men who could in theory beat them to make them do what they want, as the article states. It’s a strange situation that’s somehow held up by the usual sentimental arrow of progress nonsense, “We were backwards and sexist once, and now we’re enlightened”.
But yeah, women as blank slates… They are designed to be that way. They usually fit themselves to their husband’s world, and we see that as desirable in this kind of discussion. It also means they are generally much more malleable, and that means politically, or they think they need to do something to be trendy they will do it. If other women online are posting images of George Floyd, “I better do it too”.
If Musk rolls out the neuralinks, letting you pay for your Starbucks latte with your thoughts and will also receive advertising messages directly into the brain, women will be first in line, because it will be marketed to them heavily first as the undefended entry point, and they don’t want to be out of step with other women. They are very concerned with their social conformity status, particularly among other women, and expend quite a bit of energy on this…
So, the theme of this article, respecting women. Respect reality first, then we can talk about respect for groups and what that means or doesn’t mean.
women will be first in line, because it will be marketed to them heavily first as the undefended entry point
Exactly. Why do you think the serpent targeted Eve rather than Adam?
Right. I know the Bible is often the subject of criticism in our circles, but there’s a certain amount of poetic truth in Genesis. I can’t see a reason to pretend otherwise.
In the interests of balance, I have criticisms of men as a group too. It’s not that women are stupid and men are wonderful. A lot of men are complete garbage, and men need to be led too. They need some leadership figure and values to guide them, even to be inflicted upon them, by better men than them, otherwise we have the rule of misshapen animals, sewer creatures and white niggers. And that’s just within our own race. Never mind the problems with other races.
But if women are elevated to some arbitrary status as a group, it probably makes pursuing and implementing all that harder. It complicates things for our group as a whole. It changes the dynamics. There is an argument this is why our enemies have sought to put push female empowerment in the workplace. It’s another way of inflicting instability on our entire people.
Also true some people in our circles take these things too far. I really wasn’t into that White Sharia crap. Women are how they are. We are how we are. We are, together, part of some larger whole and it’s easy to forget that.
Interesting, something I didn’t know, found out a year or 2 back on wikipedia, there was a certain of kind of our, or adjacent to our, propaganda but targeted at women on social media. Well we can’t have that. This is was “racist anti-elite conspiracy theory hate mongering disguised as sweet memes taking advantage of women’s nurturing instincts”.
They want a monopoly over the female mind. They want to fill it with their ape-worshiping-LGBT-immigrants welcome crap. No one else is allowed to sway it in a better direction. So they have identified a very legitimate interest and target that should be hitting.
…men need to be led too. They need some leadership figure and values to guide them, even to be inflicted upon them, by better men than them
I agree. Most White men are pretty decent, but there is a troublesome cohort that will scheme, cut corners, cause trouble, etc. I used to repair & flip cars to make extra money and I dealt with it pretty often.
I am not advocating an authoritarian society, but we need law and order.
Well, I have nothing against respect for the women at all, but I do not and will not respect tattooed creatures, with cigarette butts in mouth and with the foul language.
Quite a few posts have mentioned tattoos lately. The statistic that I heard is that roughly 25% of Americans have tattoos. Among whites it is no longer predominate among groups like sailors or bikers, is has increased to all social classes, including the upper middle class and the wealthy. I don’t have any tattoos, however, I don’t have anything against tattoos per say, some CC readers might have one or at least have relatives, friends, and associates that have one. What I have noticed over the years is that a lot of whites seem to go overboard with the number of tattoos that they get. I’ve seen a lot of attractive white woman decrease their level of attractiveness because of an excessive number of tattoos. I’m sure that some white women have the same opinion of some white men who have too many tattoos. Another thing that I’ve noticed about some people, is that they are getting tattoos on parts of their body that people haven’t normally got them in the past, such as their hands, fingers, and necks. Some peoples necks are completely covered in tattoos, you didn’t see that in the past.I also see a lot of blacks with numerous tattoos as well, that is another type of odditty because quite often you can read their tattoos until you get close to them. Our people shouldn’t ruin our features and attractivness with an excessive amount of tattoos.
Wolf Stoner on the whitebiocentrism.com explained very well, why tattoos are bad for white men, so here I can only add that they are much worse for white women.
The tattoos themselves are maybe not so bad, bad their use in modern times is bad. In the pre-Christian “pagan” world the tattoos of ancient peoples of Europe, Germans, Kelts, Slavs and Balts, just like pre-Islamic “tengrian” Turks in Asia, were of RITUAL meaning, so the use of tattoos was restricted by religious rituals, and not to transform people into freaks.
One of the factors that amplifies America’s gender wars is that, in addition to racial and ethnic differences, there are class based disparities in behavior. American culture is highly egalitarian, so people deny that this matters.
The truth is that I don’t see a lot of upper middle class White girls getting decked out in tattoos and purple hair. Or look at the issue of cultural decay. I’ve seen a lot of toxic behavior from rural working class Whites but the Dissident Right tends to gloss over it.
I’m a GenZer and when I have tried to talk to Patriot Front members about the importance of networking and bringing in high skilled White men and women… they don’t want to hear it. I was even told that my plans were “Jewy.” I am an entrepreneur and I gave up on PF because I saw no ability for it to grow past its current size.
From my perspective, one of our main goals should be to develop an alternate economic network that allows those in it to be debt free, develop multiple passive income streams, and achieve the economic freedom necessary to achieve collective political self-determination. That would help young men meet high quality women and form good families.
If we don’t do that, I think the most likely outcome is that the Castizo Right will eventually win out due to demographics.
https://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=4708&hilit=stoner&start=10
Tattoos, rock-n-roll, guns and politics
I cannot say it better, than Wolf did
A veritable treasure trove of memetic magic composed of sortals [only because im reading Hirsch] dripping with no pulled punches. (as per usual with RFDevlin) I hope someone got the tip. Ill always give the source for my upcoming meme quotes even though noone sees them. (my memes on x that is) Tell me if you hate it – EdWeirdMartian <https://x.com/edweirdmartian/status/1985880935263584625>
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.