Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Rules of Manhood’ Category

He’s not handsome but, you know, chicks dig a man who’s killed a mountain lion with his bare hands.

***

According to news sources, he wrestled the puma to the ground and got the big cat on its back, pinning it with his body, and from that position he was able to grab a rock and bash the cat’s head.

PS There’s the Thousand Cock Stare, and then there’s the One Cock In A Thousand Stare, which this woman has for him.

Read Full Post »

I suggest replying to interview requests from enemy media with this:

“Learn to FOAD”

How will you know who is enemy media? Due diligence. If you ever get solicited by a media whore for an interview, look up the whore’s publication history and check out the website of the media organization which employs the whore. It won’t take longer than a cursory skim to glean the ideological bias of the players involved.

If you want a shortcut, just assume 99% of whorenalists reaching out to you for an interview are deluxe shitlibs. If you’re unsure, then do a background check.

It’s time for political dissidents to get smart about their media exposure. That means identifying and supporting allied media who won’t twist your words or omit context or blatantly libel you and your ideas for clickbait.

Why give narrative-shaping ammo, reputation validation, and shekels to merchants of enemy propaganda?

Read Full Post »

Astute. Porter has made the best defense of “don’t punch right” I’ve yet read.

A reader adds,

It’s because the Left has successfully established a framework in which left is moral and right is immoral. Thus, the extreme left is at worst impractical, but the extreme right is barbarous evil.

‘Don’t Punch Right’ doesn’t mean you lovingly embrace beady-eyed social rejects with swastika tattoos and defend them at all costs from attack. It means you do what the Left does with their sanpaku-eyed social rejects with neckbeards and post-op vaginas: you don’t join your enemies to attack them. Instead, like the Left, you change the subject, mildly defend them on abstract principles of “giving a voice to all”, or mildly rebuke them for the minor sin of “letting their justified anger get the better of them”. If all else fails, you ignore them or pretend you don’t know what’s going on and dodge any questions about them.

This is something I believe the normally smart blokes at MPC lost sight of.

AntiDem writes,

Mostly true, though the Pelosi old guard is doing everything it can to keep the AOC wing of the Democratic Party in check.

Sure, but do you hear Pelosi the Clapping Seal directly attacking the character of the Shriekin’ Reekin? Do you hear Pelosi calling for her to apologize or accusing her of “not being who we are”?

No.

Pelosi is doing what I wrote above: in between mildly snarking at AOC, Pelosi is ignoring her.

Another reader notes,

The left is in power and had powerful people in their favor even before they took over. Rules of engagement change with circumstances.

Absolutely. The Left only has to fight one enemy: straight White men missing the grovel gene.

The Right has to fight Leftist freaks, massive institutional power, the bureaucracy, and, most critically, an Enemy Media.

The circumstances are different for us, and we have to fight like guerrillas against a much more numerous and logistically powerful foe engaged in asymmetrical warfare.

Our source of power to date has been Counter-propaganda (COPROP), and the Left knows this, which is why they have redoubled their efforts to kick us off every platform that matters and to demonetize us from existence.

Nonetheless, those asymmetrical circumstances which call for a smarter handling of our “extremists” compared to how the Left handles their extremists does not necessarily also mean we throw our front line warriors under the bus with ostentatious sanctimony, sniveling like house eunuchs begging our despotic overlords to spare us the ignominy of association with our own side.

Ignore Right, Chastise Right, Excuse Right, but don’t punch Right.

PS Porter writes at the Kakistocracy. Check him out.

PPS Another reason not to punch right: it shifts triangulation patterns. Triangulation for the flank-protected Left means the middle way is located between the center-Left and the extreme-Left. Triangulation for the flank-sacrificed Right means the middle way is between the center-Right (which has become the official “extreme-Right” absent its flank) and the extreme-Left (which has become the official “center-Left” from the pull of its protected flanks). Both triangulations are Left-ward shifts. The Right needs its flank, or its center is exposed to heavy fire.

PPPS Greg Eliot on why there isn’t an equivalent ‘don’t punch Left’ garment-rending national conversation,

The simple reason for this is that men on the Right have a more natural sense of objectivity and a deeper sense of right and wrong… we like the idea of brotherhood and comradeship, but a sense of personal honor also demands that you don’t countenance lies and deceit, even in a brother.

Of course, it’s hard to gainsay the argument that White men had better start thinking tribally, above all else, if we are to defeat the enemies that have been doing so since time immemorial.

But it is hard to try and rewire what God and/or nature already wired so thoroughly.

Greg is right. This isn’t idle conjecture either. Besides our lyin’ eyes, there is a growing body of evidence from the sciences that the races differ in empathic ability.

That “sense of personal honor” — aka integrity — is a notable trait of the White race, and there are racial differences in how willing people are to police their own. Whites are the undisputed racial group champs at policing their own. Other races are extremely tribal when it’s them vs us. No other race but Whites so thoroughly trashes their own to appease the Other and to abide a personal code of honor that imparts moral agency solely to Whites.

But the Integrity Gap exists within the White race as well as between races. Conservative Whites are generally more integrous than shitlib Whites. Again, not idle conjecture. Haidt has shown in his moral foundations theory that conservative Whites place equal emphasis on all moral dimensions, while shitlib Whites emphasize only two: fairness and harm. Shitlib Whites are so morally underdeveloped that they cannot even fathom the moral thinking of conservatives. It’s not an exaggeration to state that the morality of shitlib Whites is like a child’s view of the world.

Owing to this intra-White morality difference, Whites on the Right tend to be more sensitive to the failings of their fringe, while Whites on the Left can more easily tolerate the sins of their own fringe. Hence, the natural outcome of ‘don’t punch Left’.

Which is all a roundabout way to say this isn’t getting resolved except through another civil war.

Read Full Post »

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 »

When toxic masculinity ruled the world…

From Empa Froga III,

BADASS

The ZWEIHÄNDER SWORD that belonged to GRUTTE PIER (1480-1520), FRIESIAN PIRATE AND WARLORD.

From the link,

Now would be a good time to point out that Pier was seven feet tall, carried a six-foot-long greatsword that weighed approximately fifteen pounds, was so strong that he could bend a coin between his thumb and his forefinger, and was such a fucking maniac berserker in combat that he allegedly once decapitated seven enemy soldiers with one swing of his weapon.

The White Aryan quotient of this post should hit DEFCON WAN.

America needs less intersectionality safe space and more zweihänder.

Froga adds,

How many men in this age can use a weapon half the size of that sword?

How many men in this age can use their micropuds without crying in shame?

Read the bio of the guy. He was a quiet farmer until Saxons killed his two kids and his wife, then he turned into a berserker and the blood flowed under his feet.

Today, we have American “men”, whose daughters and wives were killed by illegal immigrants, going on social media to mewl that not all immigrants are like that.

The fall from grace has been, in a word, precipitous.

Read Full Post »

We have a contender for the crown of Most Alpha Pose.

The current holder of the crown is the contrapposto pose:

This alpha stance is not random. It’s a classical pose called contrapposto that Michelangelo sculpted for his masterpiece David. It suggests a relaxed and vulnerable appearance, exactly the sort of self-possessed mental state an alpha male would convey through his body language. I believe girls are hardwired deep in their electric hams to be sexually drawn to a man standing contrapposto.

Contrapposto looks like this:

Michelangelo’s David stands in the contrapposto. It’s an oddly familiar, mythic pose for a good reason: chicks dig it.

Hold on, an upstart dares to challenge contrapposto for the title. Meet the Holbein Pose.

In 1536, King Henry VIII suffered from a tiltyard wound in his right leg that never healed. Because of the chronic wound, the king grew stout, haunted by the ghost of his previous athleticism. After several wives, he still had not produced an heir. Daily, the king needed to perfume the wound to keep the leg from stinking up his surroundings.

In 1537, German Artist Hans Holbein, produced one of the “best pieces of propaganda ever” painted. It was an illusion to a king that had once been: strong, capable, and virile. Moreover, it was the first portrait of a king in full figure — legs spread , feet apart, a fist on his hip, striking the now famous Holbein Pose.

[…]

The legs spread, feet-grounded pose has become a staple of strong and connected masculinity for centuries. In 1950, when RKO produced the television show, Superman, starring George Reeves, the ad executives turned to the Holbein Pose for guidance. The image reverberated so much so that Warner Bros. pulled from the same icon in 1978 when Richard Donner brought the series to the big screen with a movie starring Chris Reeves.

[…]

The pose was confident and strong. I adapted it into my own life until it became second nature. I used it in board meetings, staff meetings bars, and family gatherings — any function in which I needed to appear as king.

One thing I did learn through market research is that a man on a horse is a buzz kill. The viewer sees the man on the horse as powerless. The horse has the power. If you are advertising a Western, keep your guy on the ground and spread his legs a tad.

This is why women look sexy on horses (and why (mostly BPD) women like to ride horses): the fulcrum of a woman’s sexuality is her vulnerability. Her powerlessness — which is the opposite of a man’s fulcrum of sexuality.

A powerless woman astride a powerful horse amplifies the woman’s sexuality. A man on a horse, unless it is galloping and he is swinging a broadsword cutting down enemy infantry, is diminished by the greater power of the horse, and therefore his sexuality is also diminished.

Chicks dig powerful, masculine men who can provide protection.
Men dig beautiful, feminine women in need of protection.

As for which pose holds the crown, I’d give the nod still to contrapposto. The Holbein Pose is no doubt kingly, but it’s also a bit over the top, and could seem comical in a modern soy-drenched context. Contrapposto is the more relaxed of the two alpha male poses, and more suited to courtship arenas that flow with alcohol instead of enemy blood.

Holbein is aggressive, contrapposto is ZFG. These poses project two alpha attitudes that occupy complementary spheres of social relevance, but only contrapposto truly captures and leverages the spirit of the 21st century American sexual market.

We need one alpha male pose to rule them all
one pose to find them
One pose to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

PS Straight talk from Gregory Hood: Western Civilization is White Civilization.

It’s not surprising that “Western Civilization” is offensive to those who are offended by “white identity.” Defining Western Civilization into nonexistence or defining it in universal terms amount to the same thing. It robs whites of their past, a prelude to robbing them of their future. The classical world shows whites they have a real, positive identity deeply grounded in history. Whites aren’t just a newly invented “social construct.”

For that reason, if whiteness is to be destroyed, leftists must abolish the idea that whites are the heirs of the classical world. Similarly, just as conservatives won’t admit the link between whites and American identity or whites and American conservatism, so they defend Western Civilization only in terms of its openness to non-whites. Of course, just as America would not exist in any meaningful sense without whites, Western Civilization would not exist without whites.

Western Civilization is white civilization. No one can credibly claim to “defend Western Civilization” without defending the people that created it. “To read about your own culture is a revolutionary act,” said Jonathan Bowden in one of his speeches. In today’s world, there is no greater act of rebellion—for whites—than to defend their own identity. To be a white person is to be heir of a tradition and culture that stretches from the Greco-Roman and Germanic civilizations of the past into the limitless horizons of a potentially glorious future. Yet that future will be ours only if we have the moral courage to defend our right to exist. That battle starts by claiming ownership of our own history.

A-fucking-men. My only added thought is that Hood should begin capitalizing “White”. It bothers the degenerate freak mafia.

Read Full Post »

Anecdotally, I know a man who’s been on a zero-grain lifestyle for ten years. He says he hasn’t had a single cavity in that time, and hardly any plaque build-up. His dentist appointments are five minutes long, ending with the dentist scratching his head in wonderment at the youthful quality of this man’s oral health.

There is a fairly well-established literature showing an association between gum disease and heart disease. The theory is that bacteria enter through compromised gums and get into the cardiovascular system, causing inflammation and damage to arteries.

However, the causality may be upstream of the bacteria hypothesis. It could instead be the grains directly causing heart disease and gum disease independent of each other.

If so, the left wing fad for a meat-free, grain-heavy diet to “save the earth” might wind up making all of us unhealthier, suffering bleeding gums and seizing hearts.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: