Archive for the ‘Inner Beauty’ Category

Are men lonelier now than they have been in the past? What is the nature of male loneliness? Does it differ in quality from female loneliness? Is an epidemic of loneliness a harbinger of social collapse? Can loneliness be a force for good?

These are important questions that never get asked in our anti-male climate of hate, except among dissidents for the truth. Zero HP Lovecraft wrote a fantastic Twatter thread on the topic, which I will reprint in full here.

I was reading in an old book yesterday, and the author remarked, only in passing, that young men in particular tend to feel very lonely. It’s striking and shocking that he could say a very obvious thing like this without “evidence”, which is an appeal to authority

If you make a statement about the nature of men or women, there is a kind of luminary who will come out of the woodwork to ask, incredulously, “evidence?!” as if she would read a scientific paper and change her mind, as if social science research were anything but fiat

But back to loneliness, and obviousness. Things that once were obvious are now quite hidden; we have rejected the wisdom of the past in favor of modern ideas. Who could doubt that we, from our vantage point atop a mountain of smart phones, know better than all of our ancestors?

(There is a treasure we can find in modernity, which was denied to people as recently as 2 generations ago; the joy of discovery. All literary works written prior to the 20th c. have been so defamed and hidden that we may discover them anew, as if we were the first to read them)

I was thinking about loneliness, and the loneliness that a young man feels, and I think he feels lonely in three distinct ways.
1. He feels loneliness for a woman.
2. He feels loneliness for a brotherhood.
3. He feels loneliness for a lord, which we may think of as being for god

And these three types of loneliness are not commutative, and the satiation of one will amplify the emptiness from the others.

Fulfillment of one desire has the curious property of reminding a man of other desires still unfulfilled. How often among you, men readers, have you felt the pang of lost male friendship or dispiriting purposelessness right at the moments in life you were most sexually satisfied with a rotating queue of eager beavers?

And in modernity we men have been forced to pretend that these feelings are inconsequential, or wicked, or non-existent, respectively

We have been told that these three forms of loneliness that a man feels are instances of “toxic masculinity,” and the cure for these problems is supposed to be a systematic abandonment of masculine ways of thinking and being

Our loneliness, they say, comes from our alienation from our feelings. Women, who are obviously “in touch” with their feelings, do not have OUR problems, but because we “suppress” our feelings, our suffering traps us, and we even impose it on women!

The component of male lived experience that is wholly unaccessible to women, more than any other, is the colossal and abyssal apathy of the universe towards you. Women cannot relate to this, except perhaps women of exceptional ugliness, childless crones, and FtM transexuals

AKA the Fundamental Premise.

My friends, we lack the language to articulate the magnitude of this monstrous insult, but fortunately I have been blessed by the good lord with the gift of the gab, so let me see if I can elucidate.

Kant taught us that an object is monstrous if by its magnitude, it annihilates the end that its concept constitutes. This means that a thing can become so vast as to become incomprehensible, and then we can no longer discern its telos, its purpose

First, the loneliness that we feel for a woman, we are told, is a case of entitlement, which is an unjust belief that one deserves something. We are not supposed to suppress our pains, we are supposed to “be vulnerable”, but only in ways that women have prescribed

Only an entitled loser who can’t get laid would ever express the pain that he feels from his hardships attracting a woman, of course. So this is not a pain we are allowed to feel, because this pain imposes on women, even if only in general. Only “toxic” males feel this pain

Second, the loneliness that we feel for a brotherhood, we are told, is an engine of oppression and exclusion. When men are allowed to form mens’ organizations, they use them to systematically exclude women from power and influence. Therefore, all male spaces must be denatured

In this program for society, any group of men assembling together for any reason must be seen with suspicion. If men do wish to associate on the basis of shared masculine interests, the only option they have is informal purposeless groups built around an interest in drinking

But men need male friendship, and in particular, they need to be able to struggle together towards mutual goals. No one ever questions that women might have or pursue this need, but if men express a desire for exclusively male spaces, they are defamed as gay or misogynistic

Third, there is the loneliness that we feel for a lord, which is the desire to follow a worthy leader. This is the hardest to understand, especially in America, where we are taught that all leaders are evil, and that the ideal is to be “free,” which means to be leaderless

If there are leaders, we are told, there will be abuses of power, and somehow it would be better that the whole world devolve into a centerless shamble than for even one person ever to abuse their power. And no one even thinks of the abuses we suffer at the hands of the void

In older times, the pain of having no lord was well known, as in the famous Anglo-Saxon elegy “The Wanderer”, a poet laments:

Since long years ago
I hid my lord
in the darkness of the earth,
and I, wretched, from there
travelled most sorrowfully
over the frozen waves

I have shared this fragment of a poem with you because I believe that verse can awaken us to an emotion we had hidden in ourselves, even when we had no awareness or language with which to find it.

Nearly everyone wants to follow a strong and powerful leader, though many are unaware of it. Leading is very hard, and it weighs heavily on the soul. Only a truly callous person could carry the burden of leadership without feeling its weight

To follow a great leader is far more freeing than the filthy rags that leftists have the shamelessness to call “emancipation”. Sartre referred to the awareness that you alone bear responsibility for your actions as nausea.

If a truly great leader appeared, if a man could truly tell us the way to be, if he could preach a gospel of radiant power, most would gladly follow. But we see no leaders like that today. You would gladly be a sheep for the right shepherd, my friends. It would be so liberating

To compensate for our lordlessness, we fall into the worship of celebrities, or CEOs, or politicians, or even twitter gurus, and we build a proxy of the aura of a leader; a little from here, a little from there, never quite filling the gap

We men are guilty of suppressing our emotions! That’s what they say. But is a child guilty of suppressing his incontinence? Is shame not the right reaction when you piss yourself in public? (Oh god, that’s ableist!) If we showed you our true emotions, you would shriek ever louder

Women don’t want to know what men really feel and think. The knowledge would poison their hearts if it didn’t first scare them stiff.

We do not have your PERMISSION to tell you of our loneliness. These emotions do grievous harm to you: the need for a woman, the need for brothers, the need for god. These emotions oppress you, my love, and when I say “my love” I refer to all women everywhere, truly

In the deranged thought of the devil, all differences between men and women are seen as aberrations. Man does not emerge from the womb fully formed; to be worthy, he must be tempered, and the shame he is made to feel for showing weakness is part of the fire that forges him

The proper emotions of man are not the emotions of weakness, which are the emotions of children, and which are suitable for women, because they must raise children and be among children, the better to empathize WITH their children.

And again, man does not emerge from the womb fully formed, which is why he must learn mastery of his emotions just as he must learn mastery of his bladder. Only the most contemptible kind of idiot imagines that induction into manhood could come without pain, or without sacrifices

This is what they want to take from you! Is it pleasant for the block of marble to be struck by the sculptor’s chisel? Do you think order, and prosperity, and security could come without a cost?

In our soft androgynized city lives it can be hard to see the value in masculine strength, which is developed through galvanizing pain. Certainly the only people in our nice safe neighborhoods who live by violence are poor and low status. We must unequivocally renounce them

Feminists call the structure of society the “the big Other” and by this they mean all social orders are antagonistic to them. When a father teaches rules to his child, they call this castration. Could anything be more alien, more alienating, or more opposed to life and humanity?

Every time this topic comes around, I see people asking, “what about toxic femininity?” I’ll solve the puzzle for you. Toxic femininity already has a name in polite society: they call it feminism.

I’d add a fourth kind of male loneliness: the loneliness he feels for the man he has yet to become.

Thwarted passion, a decision to avoid a risky venture, procrastination…these things will deprive a man of the ideal he always strives toward, and in the depths of that deprivation he will feel lonely for the company, and the mentorship, of his idealized self.

Game — learned charisma — will help relieve at least three of the four kinds of male loneliness. A more charismatic man will attract women, will be admired by other men, and will advance towards his idealized self.

Only the loneliness for a lord, or a leader, resists the panacea of Game, because inherent in Game is pride, a necessary salve for a generation of men soaked in the soyjuice of toxic feminism, but nevertheless a salve that contraindicates the humility required to accept a lord in one’s life, and to follow him. However, this natural opposition is superficial and short-lived, because a newfound, deeper pride is summoned when a man has purpose, and a banner under which to fight.


One more thing I’ll add. Men want to be part of something larger. Women don’t have that urge, at least not in the way it’s expressed and felt in men. If men are denied participation in a greater calling, they feel the loneliness for numbers 2, 3, and 4 (brotherhood, lord/leader, idealized self or, as a commenter pessimistically put it, the man he could have been). This is why vapid consumerism and obsession with the gossipy mundane doesn’t fulfill men like it does women. Men are outward-focused; women are inward-focused. Evolution has seen to it that women, as the generators and nurturers of family, direct their attention to close interpersonal relationships and are unmoved by the callings that speak to men.

Sure, you could say the pussyhatters — predominantly comprised of middle-aged catladies and bitter post-wall shrews with a smattering of quasi-female soyboy lackeys — are an example of women being part of something larger than themselves and their tiny fiefdoms, but you’ll notice how quickly the energy of that movement fizzled, and that’s because it wasn’t about working together to achieve a goal or realize a shared vision; it was about venting.

Women are unhappier than they have ever been, but the source of their loneliness is the severing of those family bonds and generational continuities that they are stewards over and which give women meaning in their lives.

I firmly believe that the fight against globohomoism is today’s greater calling that will stir White men to embrace once again the primal virtues which reverberate in men’s souls.

Read Full Post »

Shitlibs should come with the automatic “disingenuous” qualifier, because they are phonies through and through. Case in point: I was amazed (but shouldn’t have been) that shitlibs thought Christine Ballcutter-Framejob was “credible”. To my eyes (and ears), she was nothing of the sort. Kavanaugh’s authentic unguarded emotion stood in stark contrast to Ford’s scripted artifice, and made him seem the much more credible of the two.

Are shitlibs lying to themselves and everyone else about their inability to read human emotions, or are they getting stupider and more psychotic from decades being insulated in their UMC shitbubbles?

I’m glad to know that I wasn’t the only one to notice that Bitch-Fishwife was an oddly emotionless drone. From emailer Brown Berry,

Like many, I’ve been following the confirmation hearing of BK (mostly on youtube). I was interested enough to even listen to the complete testimonies of BK and CBF while I worked last week. I also watched quite a lot of commentary including the body language examination you’ve sited.

From all this, I had some hunches about what might be true vs. what might be utter bullshit, but frankly I didn’t have enough data points to be at all certain about anything substantial.

So I decided to get some more…I re-watched (actually watched, carefully) their testimonies in full. I was interested especially in what would trigger emotional responses. To my delight, the video showed plenty more than what’s been reported on and more that what the audio I previously heard conveys. I wonder if you see the same as I…


She showed absolutely zero emotion, none, in her prepared statement and throughout a majority of the questioning. It’s very strange because many people I talk to say how emotional she was, how she was crying, etc. I saw no such emotion. Even quite the opposite – she was working very hard at something beyond her abilities. Excepting for a few moments of trying to “cute” herself to Senators and some moments where she felt relief or familiarity and cracked a smile, she was ice cold.

Even when the Senators acknowledged that she is doing her “civic duty” (her own words!) her body doesn’t agree/vibe with that at all. I don’t think she even nodded in the slightest at the saying of the words “civic duty,” ever. Only when they spoke about her being a “hero” did she, for the first time, show emotion, and it really poured out every time they praised her as a hero, watch for it. [ed: classic pathological narcissist tell.]

Does she see herself (have they convinced her) that she is an anti-trump messiah? Inside, she tells herself that she’s inferior to BK, that her husband is inferior to BK, that her kids are inferior to BK’s kids, and that her party is a loser party. What’s even worse is that martyring oneself for that loser party gets you nowhere. Watch KH and CB dismissively thank her for “telling the truth” as she leaves the room. She’s a nobody to them.

When they held her up as “heroic” all the dissonance, her desires, the pressure to please all her omega friends, her marital problems, makes her explode. She believes she’s a loser, but they tell her she’s a hero, but she’s still actually a loser, in life and in the party. That’s a shitty ride to be on.


BK shows emotion when people insinuate that he’s not a good man. He probably beats himself up inside over every sin he’s ever committed and tries in earnest to be a better man every day of his life. He probably wants his father to be proud of him. He cries when the Senators amplify his “inner critic” (conscience) and simultaneously devalue all the hard work he’s put into being a good, ever-better, man. This is a big simultaneous shit on his father and family name. Everyone has a button and BK’s is his family. If he had taken some darker paths in life (like maybe rape-fucked and roughed up a few girls, even consensual, or stole from the collection plate, etc.) then I reckon he wouldn’t be offended at all and would have sat there with perfect manners…

The whole “CBF was credible” talking point has been gaslighting by an enemy media. She wasn’t credible; she was robotic. Coldly sociopathic. Coached by her (((handlers))).

Most pleb-libs swallowed that line whole (it’s what natural conformist suckups do), but I suspect the shitlib power movers in the media and government felt the same cold sociopathy radiating from CBF that I and other sane people felt, but all must be sacrificed — including their integrity — to prop up a faltering Anti-White Man Blood Libel. Who knows, maybe the Dems identified with CBF’s sociopathy.

Does a nation becoming stupider also become less adept at reading faces, tones of voice, and other cues of genuine feeling? I think so. Which will mean these clown shows aren’t ending anytime soon. They’ll get worse, and the dwindling contingent of sane White men will think themselves crazy for being out of step with the growing number of easily gulled Narrative regurgitators.

Read Full Post »

Angry Gamer delivers an insight that bursts through the dark matter of post-America:

I always enjoy looking at these pictures. I enjoy looking at the girls around the central guy. There is something elementally human about a guy with a few girls around and the girl looking up at the man with affection.

It’s like looking at a world that makes sense.

In contrast, when the cosmic order is violated — as when closeted homosexual Maricon wedges himself between two dead-eyed marauders, his broad submissive smile betraying an illicit ardor — our hearts recoil at the sight, and we beg for a cleansing fire.

Read Full Post »

Women will be led. It’s in their nature. They will be led by their husbands, by the government, or by the media.

Only one of those three will provide benevolent leadership.

In 2018 America, there is more government, more media, and fewer husbands. How’s this working out for us?

Read Full Post »

Not much further commentary necessary. Tucker Carlson used to be a GOPe cuckservative, but his big, beautiful White family has wonderfully refocused his mind onto what’s important to preserve, and now he spends every evening sticking the righteous Trumpian shiv in the scabby hides of Leftoid Equalists and Globohomo.

Read Full Post »

The Fake News Media menstruates over Trump’s “lies” but what they don’t see is that their agenda is driven by psychological projection of their own Big Lies onto Trump, who has committed the sin of telling Big Truths, which is a crucifix and garlic to the vampires of the media who traffic in pushing a decades-old Narrative that defies reality and sucks the lifeblood of healthy, humanized nationhood.

Trump’s very existence — and by extension the existence of an Army of Shitlords who voted for him — is a corporeal rebuke to the Lords of Lies. As I’ve written, Trump’s hyperbole is on the level of little fibs meant to drive his foes over the edge of sanity, exposing their inherent extremism, a provocation to which they dutifully comply. But in the world of Real News, Trump tells Big Truths, which daily reminds media whores that they sacrificed their integrity to tell Big Lies to push an agenda driven by self-fluffing fealty to their elitism.

The media are adept in telling Little Truths — adherence to semantics and trivial “fact checks” that hide more than they illuminate — to cloak themselves in the garb of trustworthiness and to conceal their real purpose as manipulators of consensus, but Big Truths like the kind Trump tells every day expose Big Lies to bleaching sunlight, which explains the incoherent rage of the media, deep state, and uniparty.

They can’t stand that Trump effortlessly and routinely belies their pretensions and exposes their malevolence simply by “telling it like it is”.

Trump tells more stone cold truth in a few days than the Globohomo Establishment — media, deep state, bureaucracy, academia, entertainment — tell in their miserable lives.

And that is why they hate him.

Read Full Post »

Add another hatefact to the Diversity + Proximity = War reference list (liberally forward to your libshit friends for cogdis hilarity!). US News editors compiled a “best state to live” ranking, but unlike previous rankings they gave more weight this go-round to scores in categories that mattered most to people, according to survey answers. (h/t Beeschelhoff)

Consequently, “Quality of Life” scores had more prominence in evaluating state livability. Quality of Life is defined as

…largely a result of their interactions with those around them,” U.S. News writes. “Studies show that when people feel socially supported, they experience greater happiness, as well as physical and mental health.”

Careful, veering close to crimethink there. (Someone page Pleasurecel so that he can update his SCALE archives with this latest confirmatory evidence.)

On this basis, the top five states with the highest quality of life were

North Dakota
New Hampshire
South Dakota

The state with the lowest quality of life was California.

Related, the percentage share of Whites in each of those states, as of 2015:

North Dakota: 88.7%
Minnesota: 84.8%
Wisconsin: 86.5%
New Hampshire: 93.7%
South Dakota: 85.0%

California: 61.8%

It’s well-known by now to those who aren’t self-deluding that Diversity™ reduces social trust. The more racially disparate groups crammed together in geographically close quarters, the more miserable, alienated, and socially atomized everyone feels. So it’s predictable that vibrantly diverse Mexifornia would have a shitty quality of life convincing its unhappy (White) residents to flee to other states for relief, while mostly homogeneous states like New Hampshire have a good quality of life and happy residents who feel like they belong to something bigger than their buttplug collection and anime porn.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: