Monday, April 27, 2015

Leftism - and Feminism - is About the Murder of the Father

Leftism - and feminism (which is leftist) - is about the Murder of the Father. You can call it "patriarchy" if you want, but it amounts to the same thing. Why? Because leftism is based on envy, the urge to bring others down, to kill them if need be, even if you destroy yourself.

Everyone must be "equal," out of envy.

The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explained it well, many years ago.

This article was written by him.

The year 1989 A.D. was the cause for celebrating the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution in many countries. By the year 1880 in France, July 14, the day of the fall of the Bastille, had already been the occasion for all sorts of frivolity. By then the last witnesses to the revolution were long dead. One was dependent by then on historians who idealized this far-reaching event in our history, because with the French Revolution, democracy underwent a revival after the moral nose dive it had taken with the death of Socrates.

Place de ConcordeThe French Revolution, however, didn't come like a bolt out of the blue. Charles I had been executed 140 years before In Whitehall by religio-political fanatics, and as Jean Lacroix has convincingly argued, the Republic rests on "the death of the Father." Fraternity and Equality can apparently only be realized through parricide. The impetus for change in France came not only from Switzerland, rather it came from French Anglophiles and a completely false understanding of what had just happened in America. It was, in a way, the first great Euro-American misunderstanding. On the other hand, Governor Morris, the American envoy to Paris, told the conceited Lafayette at the beginning of the revolution: "I am against your democracy, Monsieur de Lafayette, because I am for freedom." In 1815 he began a speech with the words, "The Bourbons are back on the throne; Europe is once again free" -something which today hardly an American would understand after so many years of school-inculcated fatuity.


The vulgar interpretation of the French Revolution (not unlike that of the Russian Revolution) is based on the theory of the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction. The impoverished and oppressed people, led by highly intelligent idealists shook off the unbearably oppressive rule of monarchs, aristocrats, and priests and created a new order, in which Liberty, Fraternity and Equality were realized. Hadn't Goethe already told us that legislators and revolutionaries who announce Freedom and Equality simultaneously are frauds and charlatans? When there is no such thing as a "natural equality," it can only be brought about by raw violence. In order to bring equality to a hedge, one needs garden shears. Equality, the left-wing ideal, is closely bound up with identity. One hundred pennies makes a dollar, but each dollar of a certain year isn't identical with every other dollar printed at that time.

The first phase of the French Revolution, which played itself out as economic boom, as well as state financial crisis and a series of liberal reforms, had a predominately aristocratic character. The "new ideas" of the first enlightenment - the misunderstood American war of independence, Anglomania, the visions of Rousseau, Voltaire's (a man who held the common man in contempt) critique of religion, and the still turbulent Jansenist controversy - all this had confused the spirit of the upper classes. Freemasonry, newly imported from England, also played a role in this transformation. It is possible that even Louis XVI was a freemason. Beyond a doubt he was a devoted reader of the Encyclopédie. As a result a huge vacuum of belief came into existence, which was quickly filled by radical left-wing ideology, which just as quickly infected large segments of the population. The left-wing "Intelligentsia " acted as the ice- breaker for the revolution in such a way that, at the beginning at least, the monarchy's existence was hardly questioned, while aristocracy and clergy abdicated and "married" the bourgeoisie.

The signal event of the French revolution wasn't so much the alliance between the estates after the meeting at Jeu des Paumes as the storming of the Bastille, in which one man played a role every bit as crucial in the course of events as that of Rousseau:

I'm talking about the Marquis de Sade. He is mostly known now as the eponym of "sadism." However in his endless pornographic and extremely boring writings, there are long philosophical and political passages in which he reveals himself as a rabid, left-wing, materialist atheist. He was primarily responsible for the storming of the Bastille because at the request of his mother-in-law he was - thanks to a lettre de cachet - held prisoner in the Bastille along with seven counterfeiters, cardsharps, fools, and people in debt. From the Bastille, Sade incited the people of the quartier through his makeshift megaphone into coming to their assistance and liberating them. De Launay, the governor of the Bastille, was helpless. He didn't dare put the prisoner in a straitjacket (or in a dungeon) but instead asked the king to deliver him from this prisoner. As a result Sade was transferred on July 4, 1789 to the hospital for the criminally insane at Charenton and released in 1791. He then became chairman of the revolutionary Section des Piques in which "Citizen Sade" was active as a radical Jacobin until he quarreled with Robespierre and was once again committed to the hospital for the criminally insane. Sade, along with the masochistic neurotic Rousseau, who wrote pedagogic novels and committed his children to orphanages, is the true renewer of democracy in our time and naturally also a hero of our left-wing intellectuals.


The storming of the Bastille on July 14 and its immediate consequences showed what the French Revolution was all about, namely, the consequence of a moral collapse that had been prepared by the left-wing, radical chic, literati of its day. De Launay negotiated with the mob, which promised him and his tiny garrison of invalids and Swiss mercenaries free passage. Yet no sooner were the defenders in the open, than the mob attacked them and murdered in the most brutal manner possible. It was above all the invalids, who couldn't flee, who were torn to pieces. For a while the mob tried in vain to decapitate de Launay; however, their knives were too dull. Finally someone got a hold of a butcher's assistant, qui savait faire les viandes, to cut the governor's head from his by then cold body. It was then carried in triumph through the city.

Attempts to establish a constitutional monarchy failed. The drive for identity and equality, brought to a boiling point by hate and envy, prove the truth of Benjamin Constant's words: "In some epochs one must travel the entire gamut of madness in order to come to reason again." Everything even remotely different was damned and persecuted. Conformity celebrated orgies.

Only the fall of Robespierre in July of 1794 hindered further leveling plans, which Babeuf in all probability would have realized. So Robespierre planned not only to put all Frenchmen (and women) in uniform (like Mao's "blue ants"), he also planned to raze all church steeples as "undemocratic." They were higher than the other buildings and as a result stood out because of their "aristocratic" bearing. (In Strassburg, preparations were already underway for the barbaric mutilation of the cathedral there.) Another problem that needed to be solved was the language of the Alsatians, qui ne parlent pas la Iangue républicaine, otherwise known as French. Someone suggested taking the children away from those in Alsace-Lorraine or resettling the entire German-speaking population throughout out all of France. Those were costly plans and as a result a more practical solution was worked out, namely, the complete extermination of the germanophone population. As one can see, the French Revolution was not only interested in the good Doctor Guillotin's deployment of mechanical mass murder, it was also interested in genocide and not only in Alsace but also in other regions of the République Une et Indivisible.

The French Revolution has been seen by most authors as predominately a political, social or (under Marxist influence) even as an economic event. Burke, Young, Rush, as well as other British and American visitors to France before the revolution point the finger at the aristocracy, the clergy and the upper classes; however, both skepticism and atheism had made inroads into the highest circles, and there existed among the clergy what Spengler called the "priestly rabble," or what we would call today our left-catholic "progressives." Censorship in the hand of the forerunners of the liberals, who suffered from moderno-snobbery, favored the left-wingers and persecuted the right, so as not to be labeled "reactionary. " All that gradually influenced the middle and lower classes as well.


There is no other way to understand the nightmarish circumstances surrounding the slaughter of Princess de Lamballe. This friend of the queen was arrested but refused to take the oath to the constitution in the La Force prison. As a result of her refusal she was handed over to the screaming mob. That happened just before the September murders of the year 1792, so carefully organized by Danton, a "moderate" Republican. The protagonists in this bloodbath received six livres apiece and all the wine they could drink for their troubles. The jails were emptied in a veritable orgy of killing, during which not only political prisoners but also prostitutes and juveniles, often mere children, were slaughtered. Scenes which remind one of Goya's desastres de la guerra took place in Bicetre and Salpetriere. (The extermination of prostitutes was also carried out mercilessly by those favorites of the left, the Spanish Republicans, probably brought on by the spread of venereal disease among the brave defenders of democracy.) In the year 1792 at the fall of the Tulieries, the Swiss guards, true to their oath, fought to the last man. The Swiss who fell into the hands of the mob alive were then mutilated and cut to pieces. A cook's helper, who attempted to defend the royal couple, was basted in butter and then burnt alive.


From these and other similar occurrences one sees something else very clearly: from a purely quantitative point of view the atrocities of the red and brown socialists were worse than those of the French Revolution, however, from a qualitative point of view the whole business takes on a different hue. The crimes of the National and International Socialists were carried out for the most part in concentration camps and dungeons by their own trained thugs, whereas the atrocities of the French Republicans were committed under the slogan of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality to a great extent by the people themselves or at least accompanied by the applause of delighted spectators - all in broad daylight with full publicity. The guillotinings were not just general holidays; they were carefully thought out, sadistic happenings, during which (to give just one example) an aristocrat with his hands bound and his head already on the block was forced to listen to a long-winded ironic speech about the victories of the Republican armies so that he could share them with his forbearers in the afterlife. The completely natural transformation of democracy into socialism, from political to financial equality, had its beginnings back then. Not only aristocrats but the rich as well because of their wealth were handed over to notre chére mère la guillotine. (Actually only 8 percent of those guillotined were from the aristocracy: over 30 percent were peasants.)

The "moderates" fared just as badly. Cities like Lyon, Toulon and Bordeaux, which were led by the Girondists against the Jacobins, were partially leveled and their inhabitants decimated. When the guillotining threatened to go too slowly, many victims were drowned and others were executed with shotguns, so that the crowds could revel in seeing them slowly bleed to death. (Napoleon, a Jacobin, and close friend of Robespierre, achieved his first victory by subduing "unruly" Toulon.)


The French revolution didn't really become one huge sadistic sex orgy until after the uprisings in Brittany and the Vendee were crushed. One must keep in mind that the Vendee was a peasant's revolt that carried the aristocracy along with it. The leadership of the Chouannerie was partially peasant (Cathelineau) and partially aristocratic (Larochejacquelein); in addition Charles Armand Tuffin, Marquis de la Rouerie, a friend of Washington, met their end in this battle. (His corpse was dug up and decapitated after the fact.) The terror involved in this deliberate genocide was announced in advance by the atrocities in Paris, especially in the extensive defiling of graves and cemeteries, because the main who can rage against the dead - against kings, and aristocrats but also against saints - will have no qualms about doing the same thing to the living. (I have to confess here, however, that the defilement of corpses practiced by the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War - especially in the cemetery of Huesca - is in the same league with what the French Republicans did.) In his forward to Reynold Sechers' book. Le Génocide Franco-Francais. Professor Jean Mayer says that the author held much back and that the worst could not be described here. The truth is much more appalling.

The German Revolution, which began in the year 1933, also went through a relatively humane phase; however, June 30, 1934 was a flaming warning signal, which was followed by a steep and ineluctable plunge, like the kind described in Greek tragedy, into the hell of totalitarian left-wing tyranny. As with the French Revolution, the way had been paved in this direction from the beginning. The same thing is true of Russia. Just as in France it was the writings of the Encyclopedists, Morelly, Rousseau, Diderot, and Sade, and in Germanic countries, the writings of Haeckel, Chamberlain, and Rosenberg as well as those of Hitler and Goebbels, so in Russia it was the writings of Marx, Tschernyschewsky, Plechanow and Lenin which determined subsequent political development. What eventually took place in the the French Revolution, especially in the Vendee, in Brittany, and in Anjou was in its internal logic simply the realization of the great materialistic atheism of the first Enlightenment.

In situations like this we are forced to confront once again Dostoyevsky's dictum:

"If there is no God, then everything is permitted."


Even in Arras, where the Jacobin leader Lebon observed the mass guillotinings from his balcony with his dear wife, the decapitated corpses of men and women were undressed and then bound together in obscene poses as batteries nationales maniacs out of Sade's 120 Nights of Sodom. Similar practices took place in the Noyades in the Loire where men and women were tied together naked and then thrown still alive into the river as a "republican wedding." When the mob couldn't find enough men and women, they organized the "tying of the knot" in homosexual fashion. Carrier, who also finally ended up losing his head, was the director of all this. He called these atrocities, Le flambeau de la philosophie, an expression he got from the Marquis de Sade. Quite naturally the main victims of these male-perpetrated atrocities were women (as well as their children, often murdered before their eyes.) The sadistic misogyny of the Revolution reached unbelievable proportions.

The story of the atrocities perpetrated by the Jacobins in Girondist cities has yet to be told. Most of what we know concerns the pandemonium in the Vendee and neighboring regions. Here the Republicans (as well as their brave Girondist collaborators) planned nothing less than the complete extermination of the population, even if that entailed the destruction of "patriots" and their families as well - One couldn't be too choosy. An entire "treasonous landscape" complete with its inhabitants was to disappear from the face of the earth. We're talking here not about the type of genocide practiced by the Russian international socialists or the German National Socialists; we're talking her about the satisfaction of perverted sexual lust, something undertaken with diabolical thoroughness. Saint-Just had declared that not only the traitors but also the indifferent would have to be exterminated. Danton had said that aristocrats and priests were guilty because they placed the future in question by their very existence, and Robespierre wanted a "quick, strict and unflinching Justice as result of the virtue and consistency of democratic principles." All of this focused itself on the Vendee, whose name was officially changed into "Vengee," or "revenged."


General Westermann eventually reported to the welfare committee: "There is no more Vendee, my republican fellow citizens! It died beneath our sabers along with its women and children. I just buried them in the swamps and woods of Savenay. According to your orders, the children were trampled to death beneath the hoofs of our horses; their women were slaughtered so that they couldn't bring any more soldiers into the world. The streets are full of corpses; in many places they form entire pyramids. In Savenay we had to make use of massive firing squads because their troops are still surrendering. We take no prisoners. One has to give them the bread of freedom; however, mercy has nothing to do with the spirit of the revolution." Westermann, however, soon met his nemesis; he was guillotined a short time later with his friend Danton.

Le Mans was the scene of further brutality; women, the aged, and children hiding in the houses of this large city were discovered and then under the eyes of Barbott and Prieure had their clothes torn from their bodies with sabers and bayonets; women and girls were raped, and since there weren't enough living females for the "boys in blue," the corpses were violated as well. This at least partially necrophilic orgy ended when the mob, accompanied by the rejoicing of the government's soldiers, bound the cadavers together as "republican batteries" as they had done at Arras. In Angers, however, the mob decapitated those it had already hanged and demanded of the doctors that they prepare the heads so that they could place them on the battlements of the wall surrounding the city. Since the physicians were too slow at their work, the mob quickly decapitated another group of prisoners, among who was a saintly, 82-year-old abbess.


Another amusement for the "Bleus," who referred to themselves as colonies infernales, was to roast women and children in baking ovens. In order to get maximal sadistic pleasure from this practice, the victims were placed in cold ovens, which were then heated. One general, who couldn't stop this sort of entertainment among his troops - Mergeau Desgraviers - became so melancholy that he was happy to die in 1796 in the battle against the Austrians. General Turreau was told that his soldiers behaved worse than cannibals; however, he he himself had given the order to burn down all houses (which was also carried out). Everywhere one could see the batteries nationales made up of human corpses. Turreau, the leader of these Promenades, as the death marches were termed, was to go onto a long successful career. From 1803 to 1811 he was the French envoy to the United States (where he worked on the alliance against England); he was later immortalized in stone on the east face of the Arc de Triomphe.

Queen Marie-Antoinette & her children, as we have already indicated, the Girondists were hardly less involved in these atrocities than the Jacobins. Barere, who began his career as a Girondist, declared that he intended to to transform the Vendee into a cemetery. It is, however, especially the units which were promoted in the last years of the revolution, which reveal its fully sadistic and masochistic character. Because the men of the Vendee fought in battle, the atonement had to be made by their women and children - even the smallest. (The British did the same thing in principle in their concentration camps during the Boer Wars.) In the Vendee, however, a particularly popular sport among the Blues was to throw children out of windows and to catch them with their bayonets. Equally popular was the practice of slicing open pregnant women in order to chop their unborn children into pieces and then let the mothers bleed to death. Other pregnant women were crushed to death in wine and fruit presses. Also popular was the burning of victims in houses and churches. This bloodlust increased so vehemently that Commander Grignon gave the order that everyone they met was to be immediately killed, even if they were Republicans. A particularly gruesome case involved one girl who was tied naked to two tree branches after being raped and then had to undergo repeated attempts to cut her in half. The Bleus lacked nothing in imagination. With hindsight, one can see the hardships, the unending suffering that the "progressive" defilers of people, graves and churches have brought over all of Europe. (The interiors of old French churches show to this day what these brutish barbarians have destroyed.)


Did the French Revolution leave anything positive to posterity? Only the metric system, which admittedly grew out of the democratic predilection for eternal measuring and counting. What about then the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen? It was a purely anthropocentric document, a typically declamatory product of the first Enlightenment, which was conceived in 1789 and finally engrafted into the constitution of the Sadist-Republic in 1793. In the schoolbooks one reads about the period of the terror, "Le Terreur était terrible mais grande!" Even with all that a good number of moderates came under the blade too. Historically they had it coming because they hadn't considered what happened when one destroyed the old order. Charlotte Corday d'Armont, an enthusiastic Girondist, murdered the bloodthirsty Marat and was executed; Andre de Chenier, the great liberal lyric poet, died on the scaffold; the Marquis de Condorcet, chief ideologue of the "moderates," committed suicide in order to escape the chére mère. Madame Roland de la Planière, also a Girondist, exclaimed from where she was to be executed, "Oh liberty, what crimes are committed in your name. (Metternich on the other hand comments in the face of such flourishing "fraternity" that if he had a brother he would now just as soon call him a cousin.) Especially tragic was the fate of Chrétien de Malesherbes, a highly enlightened Liberal who remained true to the king. He defended Louis XVI and had to stand by and watch as his daughter, his son-in-law, and his grandchildren were decapitated before the guillotine brought an end to his own despair.

One shouldn't forget that much of what may appear positive to us today - liberality, intellectuality, humanitarianism - had all been already brought to us by the liberal, courtly absolutism, while the French Revolution which used all these words in reality did nothing more than brutally extinguish them. One is reminded of the reaction of Caffinhals, who replied to the uproar created by the defenders of Lavoisier, who cried, "You are condemning a great learned man to death," by saying, "The Revolution has no need of learned men." The good man was right; since the French Revolution only quantities, ciphers and numbers, have any value. The speech of the elite is hardly tolerated anymore.

From an intellectual point of view, the French Revolution was a conglomeration of un-thought out but fanatically believed inconsistencies, but it showed clearly, as so many other revolutions have, the true character of the great majority of the Genus Humanum.

The year 1989 A.D. was the cause for celebrating the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution in many countries. By the year 1880 in France, July 14, the day of the fall of the Bastille, had already been the occasion for all sorts of frivolity. By then the last witnesses to the revolution were long dead. One was dependent by then on historians who idealized this far-reaching event in our history, because with the French Revolution, democracy underwent a revival after the moral nose dive it had taken with the death of Socrates.

In Revolution only quantities, ciphers and numbers, have any value. The speech of the elite is hardly tolerated anymore.

From an intellectual point of view, the French Revolution was a conglomeration of un-thought out but fanatically believed inconsistencies, but it showed clearly, as so many other revolutions have, the true character of the great majority of the Genus Humanum.

In the French Revolution the scum of France succumbed to blood lust and opened the door to evil. In our day of electronic stultification, it's a sure bet that now, 200 hundred years later, this monstrosity will be the focus of orgiastic celebrations. The average man always clings despairingly to cliches. If one takes them away from him, he has to do his own research, his own thinking and deciding and has to begin anew. One can't really expect this sort of elitist behavior from such poor folks. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first rob of their reason.

"Love, Sex and War"

In Greek mythology, Hephaestus (who was a blacksmith who made all the weapons) was involved with Aphrodite (who was the goddess of "love"). Aphrodite (an adulteress) was also involved with Ares, the god of war. "Love," war and weapons all go together. Unfortunately.

The ancient Greeks understood human nature a lot better than we do.

This is from and was written by by John Costello.

Since love and war represent the extremes of human experience, it is no surprise to find that a ‘total war’ had profound emotional and sexual consequences for many of its participants. ‘We were not really immoral, there was a war on,’ was how one British housewife explained her behaviour during World War II. So pervasive was this attitude that it seemed that sexual restraint had been suspended for the duration, as the traditional licence of the battlefield invaded the home front. ‘By most people’s standards we were immoral,’ admitted an American soldier, ‘but we were young and could die tomorrow.’

The urgency and excitement of wartime soon eroded moral restraints, and life on many home fronts appeared as cheap and short as life on the battle front. Soldiers had always claimed fear of death on the battlefield as an excuse for sexual licence. ‘In war a man has to love, if only to reassert that he’s very much alive in the face of destruction,’ explained a US army sergeant. ‘Whoever has loved in wartime takes part in a passionate reaffirmation of his life.’

In the same way, many British women attributed their wartime immorality to air raids.

The emotional turbulence of war left a lasting impact on many marriages. Traditionally wives had waved their husbands off to war on the assumption that strict fidelity was incompatible with soldiering, but such was total war that even on the home front many wives were confronted by new choices and opportunities. One English woman who confessed she had ‘enjoyed herself’ conceded that the old dual standard of feminine fidelity was no longer acceptable to wives.

‘Dear John’ Letters

The constancy of wives and sweethearts became a preoccupation for all servicemen and a gnawing anxiety for front-line soldiers in World War II anxiously awaiting every letter from home...

Many British women, through loneliness and circumstance, broke social conventions and their husbands’ hearts following the ‘friendly invasion’ of American troops in the year before D-Day. ‘Our own servicemen were set aside for the Americans, who appeared more glamorous in every way because of the movies and their generosity with money,’ recalled one British woman. ‘There were fights between them and our men over girls. I knew of two young wives that left and divorced chaps they seemed to have been devoted to.’

Next to an enemy bullet or mortar shell, the receipt of a ‘Dear John’ letter from home confessing marital infidelity or desertion was the worst blow that could hit an infantryman in a front line foxhole. A group of GIs in North Africa had organized a ‘Brush-Off Club’ whose admission qualification was to have been jilted. Most American girls interviewed in a December 1944 newspaper survey agreed, ‘to jilt a soldier is a serious offence’; but one of the more forthright interviewees insisted, ‘those guys over there aren’t just shy-eyed sheep in a jeep.’

Not every soldier could count on the spiritual comfort of the girl he was fighting to get home for. ‘I haven’t got what you call a real girlfriend and on a night like this, it sure hurts,’ confessed one GI to his parents in a letter before he embarked for the D-Day invasion. ‘A guy gets lonely out here and should have somebody to want to come back to and share building a wonderful life together, hand in hand. And that means a girl you’d want to marry and have for the mother of your kids, and who would wait and pray for you on a night like this.’

‘It is my contention,’ reflected one GI, ‘that when a man loves a woman, she always remains a vivid memory.’ This particular staff sergeant’s ‘sensual nymph, with brown eyes and red-black hair,’ had been a tap-dancer from Spokane, whose memory haunted him before he went into action. ‘Now that I may soon die on the battlefield nine years later, I realize more forcibly than ever that I am still in love with her.’

The extensive personal testimony to the emotional impact of World War II suggests that what men and women were fighting for had less to do with abstract notions of freedom or patriotism than with the need to protect the personal values represented by sweethearts, wives, and families. Sex, therefore, played an extensive role in the war experience. Whether it was pin-ups of Hollywood stars, well-thumbed pictures of ‘the girl back home,’ ‘Rosie the Riveter,’ the archetypal female factory workers, or women pilots, World War II acquired an undeniably feminine aspect.

The postwar trend towards liberalization of moral attitudes and the coincident ‘liberation’ of the female population was accelerated rather than set in motion by World War II. – Wars have always been powerful catalysts of social change. The Carthaginian Wars brought the first recorded campaign for women’s liberation in 215 BC, when the Roman senate repealed the discriminatory Oppian tax law – despite Cato the Elder’s warning that ‘what women want is complete freedom – or, to put it bluntly, complete licence.’ The Hundred Years’ War saw the patriarchal authority of the church challenged by Joan of Arc when she led the French troops to victory over an English army at Orleans. She was condemned for daring to dress as a man, ‘in violation of canon law, abominable to God and man.’ Yet three centuries later, American women were increasingly drawn into the active prosecution of war after the Union recruited them to take over the clerical and factory jobs of male conscripts in the Civil War. World War I mobilized industrial and human resources on such a scale that Winston Churchill was moved to write, ‘All the horrors of the ages were brought together, and not only armies, but whole populations were thrust into the midst of them.’

The historic distinction between civilian and fighting fronts, already eroded by the partial female mobilization of World War I, was finally demolished by the more extensive mobilization of women into the armed services and the production battle of World War II.

War Aphrodisia

‘War aphrodisia,’ as it has been called, accentuates the disruptive physical impact of war on family life. The loosening of wartime moral restraints acts as an incentive to extramarital promiscuity and the unshackling of unsatisfactory marriage bonds. Historically it was a phenomenon confined to areas adjacent to the fighting, but the mobilization of entire populations necessary to fight a ‘total war’ spreads the hedonistic impulse throughout a society.

Why The Manosphere is Full of Liars

What he is says is true. A skank can be a slut. A fat ugly neckbeard cannot.

In high school I met several guys who claimed, I fucked this girl, I fucked that girl. They were lying, just the way I encounter men on the internet bragging about their "plates." They, too, are lying. Same with Roosh and Roissy and Krauser. Liars, all them, doing what they do for money and attention.

I have met fat, ugly women who were sluts. In high school I once encountered a line of high school boys outside a trailer. I immediately knew what was going on. When I asked who the girl was (turned out there were two of them) I recognized the names. Both were fat and ugly.

By the way, the few PUAs I've known have always targeted unattractive women.

If there weren't any overweight unattractive women the number of sluts available would just about collapse.

"Sex and the Pareto Principle"

What I started noticing in high school is that everyone hung out with certain groups; jocks with jocks, partiers with partiers, etc. I was in the party group, and we ended with seeing the party girls. So years later when I found out about Pareto's Rule, I realized it wasn't "universal" but had to be applied group by group. The girls in my group despised athletes as stupid jocks, for example. I also saw that in college.

You can't apply Pareto's Rule universally to all men and women, when it comes to sex and romance, without taking other things into account. You can't compare Sean Connery to, say, Richard Simmons, without taking certain variables into account.

I also found the truly promiscuous girls, who were a very small minority, saw the promiscuous guys. I knew most of these girls in high school because they were included in the party girls.

When I owed a taxi I finally encountered groupies who went after athletes and rock stars. I found the vast majority of them were unattractive and were mental cases. It wasn't a case of going after "Alphas" but trying to attach themselves to someone rich and famous so they could convince themselves they had some worth.

Because of my experience in life, I have never taken seriously Roissy, Krauser, Roosh, Vox Day, "The Rational Male," etc. I once told Roissy, "I have more experience than you" and he thew a I predicted he would.

This article is again from Susan Walsh at Hooking Up Smart. There are many graphs so I'm going to post the first few paragraphs and then post a link.

Do 20% of the men get 80% of the women? I’ve come across this claim repeatedly, though the application of the 80/20 rule varies. Sometimes it’s stated that 20% of the men get 80% of the sex, which is actually a very different claim.

I felt the need to understand exactly what the data says, if anything, in support of the Pareto Principle as it applies to the distributution of sex. Are we talking about 80% of all women? Sexually active women? Women in their 20s, when they are at their peak of fertility and beauty? Or, as in Hollenhund’s version, is it just a question of the frequency of sex, even with one partner? In that case, how to incorporate the male preference for sexual variety?

Read the rest HERE.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

"The Beta Bux Myth Debunked by Science"

In my life I have never met an Alpha (all men are a combination of that Greek alphabet soup). I have never seen Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks (getting off the "carousel" and marrying some spineless wimp who they don't love? - get real). I have never seen women chase "Alphas" (all the relationships I have seen have been associative mating). I have seen fat, unattractive, stupid women think they should get guys way out of their league. All the PUAs I have known have been cowardly douchebags. All the Bad Boys I have known have been drunks, drug addicts and criminals; most have been in and out of prison, and are now murdered or in prison. I have never seen any of them be popular with women. Most the "sluts" I have have known have never seen married and if they were are divorced. Some, though have had successful marriages, but I have found that the biggest sluts I've known are still sluts. I have never seen 20% of the men get 80% of the women. A number of men who get divorced hate women and many women who get divorced hate men. (By the way, I have been around a lot and simple-minded criticisms that "things have changed" or "you need to get out more" are just that - simple-minded.)

Many of the concepts in the Manosphere are nonsense. They're just easy to understand, like feminism or Marxism. And like feminism and Marxism, their explanatory power is poor.

This article was written by Susan Walsh and is from Hooking Up Smart.

I’m feeling feisty today and reader Kevin sent me a link to an interesting article, so…

Let’s bust a myth!

Are you familiar with the phrase “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux?” It refers to the widespread (heh) practice of women having sex with noncommittal alphas until they go over that pesky SMV cliff at 30. Then they scramble like mad to find some poor provider sap to serve as their workhorse and emotional punching bag. Oh, and they never have sex again once they snag him.

Well…it turns out there is some merit to the idea of settling, but you may be surprised by the booby prize.

Anyone who has watched a lonely friend shack up with a useless buffoon can relate to this new finding: People really do settle for less in a relationship when they fear being single.

A study of 3,000 Canadian adults of all ages showed that:

Participants with stronger fears about being single were more likely to stay in relationships they were unhappy with – and more likely to date people who weren’t good for them, the researchers concluded in a paper published in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology."

How did people settle?

1. “They settled in the area of personality, choosing someone who might come off as more of a jerk or uncaring as a partner.”

2. “People who were more afraid of being single were more willing to date someone unattractive.”

Was it primarily women who settled?

“It was roughly the same for both men and women – they both expressed similar levels of fear of being single and we saw that affecting their relationship positions in similar ways.” Did people settle more as they got older?

“Interestingly, [no].”

And another myth bites the dust…I’ve always said that the alpha chasers don’t “change lanes” to marry decent guys. The carousel is the ride that never ends, it just goes round and round forever.

Oh, before I forget:

Someone else has finally written an intelligent response to that stupid SMV graph. In a post titled "People Doing Statistics Badly," the blogger at "Midnight in the Garden of Epsilon and Delta" explains why the manosphere depiction of female vs. male SMV is completely bogus, and how the red pill objections to my analysis were groundless. He did point out something I had missed:

Should a person’s peak sexual value drop because they live longer? Men and women do, on average, have different life expectancies in the USA and as a result if we assert the area under both curves should be equal, then we are penalizing the longer-lived sex with slightly lower sexual value for the rest of their younger years in order to have some left over for those extra couple years of life.

So there you go, ladies. You’re a little hotter than you thought.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Swedish Cops Break Up Subway Fight - In The U.S.

These men are deescalating, which they are trained to do.

Now imagine how many American cops would act - shoot the nearest dog, beat the people with nightsticks and fists and feet, tazer them....and all the time screaming, "Quit resisting arrest!" Then they would claim they "feared for their lives" after shooting them 25 times while they were unconscious on the floor.

I've said it before: fire 90% of the police, arm the citizens - and crime will drop 90%.

By the way, I had a cop tell me 10% of cops have no business being police officers.

"Techno-Materialism as a Drowning Pool"

This is something thoughtful people have considered for a long time. There is such as thing as life being too easy, i.e., having no meaning for purpose to it. As an example, teenagers are notorious for being bored.

You can't get meaning or purpose from what the author calls "techno-materialism." Meaning, purpose, feeling alive - nope.

It's not just techno-materialism. It's the expansion of the State, although the State uses techno-materialism to oppress people. Even if it's not intended.

Speaking of being a teenager, I can clearly remember being bored, especially in high school. I felt like a cog in a machine, even with all the technological advances. Weekends were a different story, though.

My friends and I used to go camping a lot on the weekends. Why? It was a bit of a struggle, yet fun. But now, kids seem to do little more than play video games. This can't be a good thing.

When I was in college one male student just disappeared. There was an article in the newspaper about it. Soon it turned out he had run off and joined the Marines. I knew why he had done it. He wanted a challenge, which these days is hard to find. Even the intellectual aren't being challenged in college anymore, not with all the soft leftism.

Used to be society had rites of passage for boys, at the age of 12, in which they suffered and were introduced to the world of men - and away from the mother (which is what feminism is). And we are paying and paying for this lack.

This article was written by Mark Citadel and is from Social Matter.

Off the back of Reed Perry’s article ‘declension of the rich‘, I had that old Reactionary adage running through my head, “technological advances mask societal decay”. What does this actually mean?

To expand, this adage is to say that people will be unawares of deep structural problems in their society, even as said problems metastasize to a choking largess, because they will be according undue praise to technological advancement as a measure of civilizational success. In other words, similar to how it is prophesied in the Hindu Doctrine of the Ages that the measure of men will become their wealth, the measure of the society at large will be its level of technological development.

During the Cold War, a distinction was made to divide the world into three camps.

1. First World countries: aligned with the United States and participant in capitalist economic structure

2, Second World countries: aligned with the Soviet Union and participant in communist economic structure

3, Third World countries: non-aligned typically adhering to what were perceived as lower, undeveloped forms of economic structure

Not many people actually know this is the origin of the ‘World’ classifications for countries, mainly because it has little relevance in the post-Cold War era. However, the terms remain in popular usage, particularly ‘third world’, which has simply come to describe any country that has lower levels of technological development. For example, Laos would typically be described as a ‘third world’ country, despite the fact that it has been second world since 1975. It’s one of the few states to remain (albeit as more of a title than anything else) a declared communist, and therefore second world country.

Increasingly, this is the metric for how functional and healthy a given society is. So it makes sense that if a country is experiencing greater technological advancements, this will overshadow any other problems that might previously have been recognized and addressed. So long as we’re not scraping in the dirt like those poor brown people, then our society must be a success with a positive trajectory going forward.

This is fundamentally wrong. The technological advancement of any society, beyond a certain point, is completely irrelevant to that society’s health, and to the degree that it does have an impact, it is that untempered it is a decay accelerant.

When all of man’s ills and petty desires can be cured and secured with the push of a button, the flick of a switch, or the swipe of a screen, he ceases to be engaged in any kind of struggle. Struggle is an essential part of manhood in particular and so without it, you end up with varying degrees of feminization amongst men. Why be an ascetic when you can just watch Deepak Chopra on DVD? Why be a hero when you can just play on the joystick with a predator drone? With no counter or substitute to the paths that led man to his true virility in these dual qualities, he simply doesn’t achieve them. The level to which he fails is largely determined by his socioeconomic status, with the faux Modern elite proving the best example of full wussification. In his article, Perry points out the popularity of sodomy and other sexual deviancies in the upper echelons of our society. This is a marker of the declining health of what was already an illegitimate aristocracy.

The more man is provided for not by his labors, duties, and a spiritual/mental sustenance, but by technological comfort, the more he comes to attach the meaning in his life to this telluric source, the material wealth that he can accrue. This does not only become the means by which he lives his life, it becomes his life in and of itself. We see a very direct warning of this in Scripture.

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.”
– John 2:15-17

In the book by Marty Glass ‘Yuga: An Anatomy of Our Fate‘, the Hindu Doctrine of the Ages is examined, and the following is said about the Dark Age that we currently reside in.

“In the Kali-Yuga we ‘get the job done’, as never before; but ‘we’ are machinery, ‘Technique’, and a machinery has nothing to say about itself, because there’s no one left to know anything and to know: there’s no one there, it’s dead. Titanic, inexhaustible, ceaselessly moving, shaping, tearing down, building up, creating and achieving. But nobody’s home. In more than one sense.”

The soul of man is entirely absent in this age, as is any connection to its origin in the Divine Realm prior to man’s Fall. The society is now enthralled to “the world” and as such reaps the consequences with eyes wide shut.

Alas, the elite caste in any given hierarchy face the same peril. They must parry the fancies of the flesh lest they be consumed by materialism and the dedication to the finite rather than the infinite. If there be three divisions of the elite caste, then they must employ methods of combating the telluric urge, even in the face of great technological prowess.

1. The priestly class must suffer the grueling trial of the ascetic life, drained by a zealous commitment to the Divine forces that they mediate to on behalf of man. They must be forever aware of their subordination to higher realms of being.

(Undermined in our age by ‘health and wealth’ spirituality focused on the success of man rather than giving glory to God. Our priests, by in large, do not fulfill the Traditional priestly role and not only in the political sense of that role)

2. The warrior class must have an eternal heroic character, tested by external threats and the constant critical eye of the aristocratic class as well as the pressures of strict masculine meritocracy.

(Undermined in our age by the creep of affirmative action in the military, and the mechanization of war which first turned conflicts into an apocalyptic battle against crude machines where the gladiatorial heroism of the past was destroyed, and then later managed to turn the art of war into a video game in which the warrior became totally detached from combat)

3. The aristocratic class has the hardest trial of all. Lacking the inherent ascetic and heroic virtues of the roles given to priest and warrior, yet with the grave responsibility of high governance, these men are at the greatest risk of corruption by the materialist strain. This can be combated through intermingling with the warrior class, high sport and hunting traditions, as well as the universal rejuvenation brought through the ‘great threat’, whether imagined or real.

(Literally everything undermines this class in our age, in fact its safe to say this class doesn’t exist. It has been usurped and replaced with demotic powers (politicians) and a depraved artistic elite represented by the modern celebrity)

I challenge the notion that atheism leads to materialism in a society, rather I think materialism leads to atheism instead, in addition to other societally degenerative tendencies which unfortunately rot the head of the fish (the elite) first. The greater we become technologically, the more incapable we are of seeing the problems that surround us. First man becomes blind to the spiritual world, ceasing to harness its power against chaotic forces, and then he becomes blind even to common sense. Obviously terrible things are allowed to occur in the name of progress, because technology has become our metric, our material well-being the be all and end all, and it will indeed end all.

In becoming a society centered around the merely physical virtues of techno-materialism, man has ceased to struggle in almost every aspect of his existence. He has plunged himself into a drowning pool thats warm waters provide the comfort that his aching limbs and mind crave, it is in essence a return to the safety of the womb with these liquid confines bearing the hallmarks of the usurping feminine principle, but water is water and we are no longer unborn. Unless we somehow manage to surface, such depths will be the death of us.