Forget arguing with liberals. Point out that liberalism is about the subordination of men, and it is happening in real life, everyday, all around you. Roissy writes about this all the time, and I realized that for most of my life, I had internalized the rules about the subjugation of men.
The TV and movies constantly depicted masculine men as people who got out of control and destroyed their own lives and the lives of people around them. The Jewish media message “Testoserone makes you stupid.” There is perhaps the slightest grain of truth to this, but they took this message and delegitimized the father as the head of the family, and turned generations men into supplicants.
The reverse of the coin of the Jewish message is “women are wiser.” Thus we were taught to defer to the estrogen wisdom. So much misery has come from this upending of Nature.
Some alternet liberal, Josh Holland, was writing yet another finger shaking post about a naughty, naughty South Carolina politician who used the term “raghead” to describe Obama:
I guess it doesn’t matter that this is an accurate, if not genteel description. (As an aside, I have no animus left for President Obama 44, as Bush 43 took it all).
At any rate, a commenter on Holland’s article was going on about “Authoritarian followers.” I put in a quick comment, “Authoritarians get the hottest babes though,” and a light bulb went off in my wingnut brain! It’s true!
It’s amazing how a generation of men was slyly convinced to not be men! To give up manliness, and paternal authority, as though it was some sort of sin! Truly a severe case of culture poisoning. Amazing.
And need I add — women despise this. They condition men to be obedient betas — they’ll tell you that’s how a guy should be, but they sleep with the men who do exactly the opposite. I will quote a brilliant Roissy post in full:
Relationship Advice From A Supermodel
May 24, 2010 by Chateau
An Australian supermodel, Miranda Kerr, has put together a list of tips men should follow to keep their women happy and their relationships strong. (Article courtesy of reader J.N.)
Kerr revealed her top 10 romance tips to readers of AskMen.com, who voted her most desirable Australian woman in the world. They are:
1. Buy the right size
2. Listen to her
3. Connect with her
4. Know what you want
5. Don’t be afraid to show her love
6. Tell her she is beautiful and romance her
7. Get a baby sitter
8. Be healthy
9. Pamper her
10. Treat her like a goddess
Fascinating! In the interest of generous reciprocation, I offer my list of Chateau-approved tips for women to help keep the romance alive in their relationships.
1. Spend his money to buy yourself clothes in the right size. Men like it when they are made to feel like dutiful ATMs.
2. Talk to him. Constantly.
3. Connect with him emotionally. Sex should be an afterthought to connection.
4. Know what you want from him.
5. Don’t be afraid to withdraw love. Men like to chase.
6. Tell him he is your best friend. Punctuate with warm hug and three pats on the back.
7. Get a baby sitter so that he may spend lots of money on you at fancy restaurants and the theater so that you return home too tired for sex.
8. Be healthy. Duh. This needed its own tip?
9. Ignore him.
10. Treat him like a therapist… who also happens to be penis-less.
~~~
Naturally, Chateau decorum insists on the utmost adherence to sarcasm when the moment calls for it. This was on of those moments. The lovely Miranda Kerr’s list may as well have been titled “Top 10 Romance Tips for Men Who are Already Alpha Enough to Afford Handicapping Their Attractiveness”, or perhaps “Bottom 10 Romance Tips for Beta Males Who Yearn for the Closure of Being Dumped”.
Similarly, my list would work great for 9s and 10s who are dating men so grateful to be with them that the men will put up with all sorts of shit. For the rest of womankind, my romance tips would have any man with a shred of dignity and a molecule of testosterone left in his sack running for the hills.
Kerr’s list — and just about all female relationship advice — neatly demonstrates one of the Chateau’s maxims:
CR Maxim #57: Never trust a woman’s advice on how to please women. Her advice is designed for alpha men she already finds attractive and from whom she seeks signals of attainability and commitment.
Corollary to Maxim #57: A woman’s sex and relationship advice isn’t meant to help men; it’s meant to distract men from what really works to turn women on.
Then I remembered an especially illustrative example of liberal betatude and this same sort of “bad advice for men” that Miranda Kerr proffers — a video ad by a liberal feminist for a book called “Over the Cliff” by the anti-white David Neiwert. I wasn’t able to embed the video, but here’s the link to the post It’s all about women slapping men for consuming conservative media, and the men of course taking it like good beta herbs. And then one of the herbs “does the right thing” and opens wallet (isn’t that always the beta male role) and buys his shackup girlfriend a copy of the Neiwert book, and so the woman agrees to have sex with him.
So that’s how it is in liberal-land? Even after you are living together, you are still supplicating and paying, paying, paying? Eternal supplication to the wiser, leftier woman? Ouch! Imagine if she caught you reading Occidental Dissent! She’d have to throw you out of the fashionable loft apartment . . . like . . . NOW! You fascist wingnut bastard! And she’d probably try to demand that you pay the rent for the rest of the lease. And a beta liberal herb would probably do it.
You want to be able to argue our side effectively with unawakened White men? There you go.
Roissy is a degenerate and is a part of the problem. If we took his advice seriously, nobody would get married and have children for the white race because being a responsible father is a “beta” trait according to him.
Furthermore, the whole alpha/beta classification that many like Roissy expose is bogus.
It does not accurately describe human social structure. Alpha/beta/omega are terms used to describe the social structure of pack animals like wolves. The terms do not accurately extend to humans – there is no “alpha male” in human society. There are winners/losers, leaders/followers, and varying degrees of male aggressiveness, male attractiveness, and so forth that determine where men fit on a hierarchy, but it certainly cannot be dumbed down into a alpha/beta/omega sort of structure.
Find a different set of values to spread to the “unawakened”. Otherwise, one might as well tell people to watch Seinfeld – I’d get the same general message from that TV Jew as I would Roissy.
I disagree, Donald. Roissy’s is timely advice, and good for married men too. It’s helped me a lot.
See, the thing about Roissy is people admonish him for being crude, sexist, a loser, and so forth. But his advice, and I whole heartedly agree with Kievsky, is timely indeed and ultimately true in relation to not just women, but every social interaction you will ever encounter.
White Nationalists need someone to show them how to hold our own against the opposite sex. That’s why there are so many, much to my initial surprise, White Nationalists subscribers.
Roissy’s reaction to today’s world is defensible, in that it is obvious to me that he is at heart a romantic and nothing lashes out with cynicism with more fury than a wounded romantic.
And how could one be a romantic and not deeply wounded by the world as it is today?
The good news about him is that his simply act of cultural sabotage–of blowing up the “pretty little lies” as he calls them–will, at the end of the day, lead more young men to our doorstep than years and years of fruitless white nationalist organizing have done….
‘Roissy is a degenerate and is a part of the problem.’
I agree.
Excessive sexual desire is effeminate; the ideal man has sex but does not live for sex.
‘Roissy’s reaction to today’s world is defensible, in that it is obvious to me that he is at heart a romantic and nothing lashes out with cynicism with more fury than a wounded romantic.’
There are extenuating circumstances for Roissy’s degeneracy. There may even be roses growing from the dung, if Kievsky learned something useful. But Roissy is not the solution.
Roissy has many followers. Thus he is a fact of the information terrain, and one must be aware of the situation. But the goal is to control the situation, not to passively adopt the status quo.
Modern women are a product of modern indoctrination plain and simple. They grew up being told what they want, or rather what they should want, but instinctually, they want something much different than what they are taught. According to this Manicheanism of masculinity, only two kinds of guys exist: ‘nice’ guys and bad boys (similar to the one we are taught when young: smart guy/strong guy dichotomy). Since ‘nice’ guys follow the modern rules, women are supposed to want them, but instinctually yearn for something else, and since modern society only offers one alternative to said ‘nice’ guy, she goes in for the masochistic relationship with a bad boy.
Rising above this requires a man to know when to hold em and when to fold em. A real white man needs to be all things to all people and know the proper time to reveal any given aspect of his being: Strong and smart, caring and cold, understanding and immovable. It’s a non-misogynistic Taming of the Shrew (or probably more like the Svipdag/Mengloth relationship in Svipdagsmal) and the only way to land the right kind of mate, which is a woman who is the same, but on a feminine scale.
It takes a long time to find her, some measure of time to get her, and a lifetime to keep her, but it is worth it. You poor guys who grew up steeped in the modern Manicheanism of masculinity, I feel sorry for you. I was born into a tradition of strong marriage: my grandparents have been married for nearly 60 years, my folks nearly 40, and my own marriage 10 so far. Maybe one needs to have grown up in the shadow of a good example of the transcendent third way in order to have one for himself…I dunno, but I think that all of this alpha/beta crap is quite simply the reactionary nihilism of someone gettin burned at some point in his life.
In the Sexual Ecology, men have become far too disadvantaged. Good men, what Roissy would call “betas.”
Roissy is saving thousands, if not millions, of “betas.” Hell, I’m a proud beta. I raise my kid! Alphas abandon their kids, or don’t have any.
Roissy helps domestic betas mimic the alpha effect. A man should be a Patriarch in his own home. There is much more peace in the house when the man knows who he is.
My kid tests the boundaries of my authority pretty often, and I have figured out how to draw that line. It basically amounts to putting the kid on a “privilege diet.”
One of the reasons kids are so messed up is because of working mothers. Working mothers let the kid do anything because she’s tired from work and wants to “keep the peace” at all costs. So the kids walk all over them.
A mother who is at home all the time demands obedience, and will occasionally call upon the Patriarch to enforce the benevolent despotism of Mother. (see Gorky’s novel “Mat”” for an example of this). This was how village families worked for millenia.
Modernity is hell, but I think it’s a blip on the radar. It’s a red tide bloom. The population of the earth in 2100 will be like 50 millilion and much more sustainable.
“A mother who is at home all the time demands obedience, and will occasionally call upon the Patriarch to enforce the benevolent despotism of Mother. This was how village families worked for millenia.”
This pretty much says it all about the alchemy of a properly ordered homelife!!!
Roissy’s reaction to today’s world is defensible, in that it is obvious to me that he is at heart a romantic
Just like it’s obvious that Keith Olbermann is a misunderstood white nationalist.
In reality, Roissy is an indefensible degenerate and Olbermann an unregenerate anti-white leftist.
Excessive sexual desire is effeminate; the ideal man has sex but does not live for sex.
I agree.
However, the resident libertines and “everything goes” crowd on this blog will denounce you as a “Puritan” for daring to endorse sexual restraint.
Real man cannot be feminized. It doesn’t take.
Liberalism does not feminize men, it attracts already effeminate men.
I allowed myself to be subordinated for years because I was a child of divorce and I feared women and feared the divorce complex and I subconsciously bought into the “manly men cause destruction” meme because it was drilled into us so efectively. I didn’t know my own power until I discovered Mind-Weaponization and Roissy.
I dunno…I wonder how many potential real men were psychologically castrated in their youth…
I put in a quick comment, “Authoritarians get the hottest babes though,” and a light bulb went off in my wingnut brain! It’s true!
I guess you don’t subscribe to the principle of “think before you speak” then.
The notion that straitlaced “authoritarians” get the hottest babes is rather dumb, to put it plainly, especially when compared to the alternative thesis that, cultural conditions being what they are, insouciant libertines do.
Roissy a wounded romantic. Oh gawd. More like a self-confessed loser with no greater purpose in life than satisfying his primal urges who can occasionally turn a phrase power-tripping on the readership his shock jock blogging has attracted. Not that his prescriptions don’t work; they do. But they derive from a masculine mindset which could just as easily achieve the same results without debasing itself with filth and degeneracy.
White Nationalists need someone to show them how to hold our own against the opposite sex. That’s why there are so many, much to my initial surprise, White Nationalists subscribers.
Most of them are “race-realists,” not WNs. Any forum that doesn’t censor racial speech will see it being expressed, so you can’t tell much by that alone.
WN men need to get hold of White women now in the current multiracial environment.
In England, there is no alternative way to meet young White women.
So Roissy’s advice does some good
“However, the resident libertines and “everything goes” crowd on this blog will denounce you as a “Puritan” for daring to endorse sexual restraint.”
So Mr. Miggles, I take it you’re not a Puritan. If you’re not, explain to us why. What’s your brief against Puritans?
Roissy has some excellent critiques of feminism – I’m not arguing against that point.
What I’m arguing against are his prescriptions that are essentially on the opposite pole of degeneracy from feminism. There is nothing defensible about devising a system of manhood in which traditional European monogamy and high-investment parenting is seen as “beta”-ish. Roissy is locked in this sort of Seinfeld-esque fantasy of viewing women as mere cum dumpsters.
And again, I have to repeat: the alpha/beta/omega classifications DO NOT apply to human social structures. It is way too simplistic to be considered an accurate system of classification. It’s time to grind this little weed that exists in the HBD-sphere back into the ground.
If you want to call some men whimps, some men macho, some men weaklings, some men players, and etc. go ahead, but calling your average boot-lipped negro an “alpha male” because all he can think about is his muh-dik can’t be taken seriously. Calling normal men who get married, raise their kids, and invest in reproduction as loser “betas” is condemnable and reflective of the same sort of degeneracy that exists in feminism.
As others point out, there are enough intellectually serious writers on the topics of masculinity and counter-feminism in general to avoid having to step into the gutter of Roissy.
“Imagine if she caught you reading Occidental Dissent! She’d have to throw you out of the fashionable loft apartment . . . like . . . NOW! You fascist wingnut bastard! And she’d probably try to demand that you pay the rent for the rest of the lease. And a beta liberal herb would probably do it.”
That paragraph perfectly describes the relationship between liberal men and liberal (feminist) women.
So Mr. Miggles, I take it you’re not a Puritan. If you’re not, explain to us why. What’s your brief against Puritans?
Italian-American “Euro” is trying to be too clever for his own good.
It should be noted that Euro himself is part of the “everything goes” crowd that fulminates against “moralistic puritans.” (See this comment:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/01/25/whiteness-and-game/comment-page-1/#comment-33744 )
Euro’s comment here is similar to someone saying “However, the resident anti-white leftists on this blog will denounce you as a ‘racist’ for daring to endorse racial separation.” and an “anti-racist” responding by saying “So Mr. _____, I take it you’re not a racist. If you’re not, explain to us why. What’s your brief against racists?”
Just as I suspected, Miggles. You are a Puritan. And therefore also a hypocrite. The next time you castigate anyone for calling you a Puritan kindly leave out the quotation marks.
Or better yet, don’t castigate them at all. Own up to your Puritanical mentality, Mr. Miggles.
Just as I suspected, Miggles. You are a Puritan. And therefore also a hypocrite. The next time you castigate anyone for calling you a Puritan kindly leave out the quotation marks.
Or better yet, don’t castigate them at all. Own up to your Puritanical mentality, Mr. Miggles.
Hilarious. Just like the “anti-racist” responding by saying:
Just as I suspected, _____. You are a racist. And therefore also a hypocrite. The next time you castigate anyone for calling you a racist kindly leave out the quotation marks.
Or better yet, don’t castigate them at all. Own up to your racist mentality, Mr. _____.
Mr. Miggles, the nonsense term racist and the term Puritan are not interchangeable. Do try and keep up.
By the way, if you’re such a “family man” why didn’t your hero Madison Grant father any progeny for the Master Race? Was he some sort of fag or something?
To Kievsky or to whoever added ‘The Coming Depression’ to the sidebar here – a blog you all might like: “The Economic Collapse” – http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/
“Women are wiser” may be true for negroes, as black women have a higher average IQ than the men. Mongoloid men cluster more around the mean like women, but White men in contrast have a higher average IQ and we have many more great geniuses.
By the way, if you’re such a “family man” why didn’t your hero Madison Grant father any progeny for the Master Race? Was he some sort of fag or something?
Was George Washington a fag, was Hitler? Some men are dedicated to their people and nation, that’s their family.
Mr. Miggles, the nonsense term racist and the term Puritan are not interchangeable. Do try and keep up.
You do understand what an analogy is, don’t you?
Using “Puritan” as a term of abuse is similar to using “racist” as a term of abuse.
All White nationalists are puritans to some degree, we want racial purity.
Some White men are biologically sterile, and more of them are married to biologically sterile women. You might as well blame someone for having a clubfoot.
“You do understand what an analogy is, don’t you?
Using “Puritan” as a term of abuse is similar to using “racist” as a term of abuse.”
Of course I understand what an analogy is, Mr. Miggles. I question the validity of yours. But you’re too stupid to see the distinction.
Not surprising for someone who thinks that Latin is a Germanic language.
Of course I understand what an analogy is, Mr. Miggles. I question the validity of yours.
Your objection is that the definition of Puritan is not the same as the definition of racist, which indicates that you do not understand what an analogy is.
“Your objection is that the definition of Puritan is not the same as the definition of racist, which indicates that you do not understand what an analogy is.”
No. My objection is that the analogy you use is superficial, stupid, ridiculous and false.
Expound upon the differences between using “Puritan” as a term of abuse and “racist” as a term of abuse. Include definitions of the words “Puritan” and “racist” in your explanation.
ugh…here we go again. I musta clicked on ‘Occidental Dickheads’ by mistake. Yer pseudo-intellectual pugnaciousness is probably the reason you can’t land chix.
Puritans were a particular sect of British Protestants, notoriously strict and severe in their moral and ethical precepts. One could either praise them or condemn them for this severity. If one does not wish to be associated with Puritans and their mores, logically this can only stem from disagreement with their principles. On the other hand if one esteems the Puritans and their culture I don’t see why one would take offense at the use of that appellative, even when used by those who don’t intend it as a compliment. In this latter case, the dispute, properly speaking, is not with the term Puritan per say, but rather, with the implied criticism in the way that it is used. Important distinction if you ask me.
In either case we are dealing with a concrete reality. A real people with it’s own distinct culture, traditions and identity. A concrete reality which may be rejected or embraced as each person sees fit.
The term racist on the other hand is not concrete at all.I won’t go any further than that. It can mean anything to anyone, and therefore doesn’t truly mean anything at all. Everybody here knows what a fandango it is.
Jewess Hanna Rosin proclaims “The End of Men” – http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/
“What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?”
I’m not saying women are better suited, but it brings to mind Julius Evola’s idea that in a decadent era where the moneyed pariah classes have risen to ascendancy over the traditional estates of the realm, woman’s ascendancy, like that of the jew, is fully expected and indicative of such a lunar-feminine age.
I certainly hold the New England Puritans in high esteem. However, I am not a Puritan, and out of respect for the Puritans I must object when I am (derogatorily) called a Puritan.
When the “everything goes” crowd denounces “Puritans” they are not talking about 16th and 17th century English Calvinists. They are using “Puritan” as a general term of contempt for those who advocate any sort of sexual or moral restraint. They are using the word incorrectly and it is thus entirely proper to use scare quotes to indicate this.
Those who hold unfashionable moral views are denounced as “Puritans.” Those who hold unfashionable racial views are denounced as “racists.” In this sense the use of “Puritan” as a term of abuse is similar to the use of “racist” as a term of abuse.
That article from The Atlantic seems to deal largely with blacks. Not worth responding to, since can’t sort out what what is going on with white people specifically.