Furthest Right

On Women

I must be a knight because I have had so many Lords and Masters through my life. Under their auspices I have learned that nothing is, can be or ever has been, equal. The world is in fact an irreducible place where nothing corresponds to anything else. Two chairs are not the same, and the same chair is not itself, even by the passing of just one second.

This realization stretches over three areas that are quite essential to have a good world view: gender, ethnicity, and class. Modernity consists of ignoring these three factors. In this age of lies and illusions, the lies have been perfected, and the only remaining “freedom” consists of pushing aside the artificial world that propaganda makes in our minds.

Let us look now at the first of these: women, sex, and gender. Children are now taught that the genders are completely equal. Not only that, but women are always a little better than men, and are not to be criticized in any manner. If you criticize women, you are unrefined. If you don’t think women are a little better than men, you are inconsiderate. If you believe there are differences between the genders, you are the worst kind of ignorant.

Provided you hold the conviction that society should be structured in accordance with gender differences, you will probably be labeled as insane, unless you come from a protected group (minorities, homosexuals, Hunter Biden). Because of this “learning” from our nannies, gate keepers, and prison wardens, people who else way would be among the best of us walk around and believe in all the nonsense.

A Little About My Friend

I have a good friend who is stronger than me, and more intelligent, among other things. He told me that for half of his adult life he believed women to be really just another variant of men. Just as rational, wanting the same things, and possessing exactly the same abilities, except for coming in a smaller form and having round eyes, he said. The only difference being how the emotional life of women is sacred and exalted. Beyond all, women could never have bad intent.

Then he met me. Now he says he can’t take women seriously in any matter. In fact, what women write seems like a parody to him. The truth often has this effect, if you have been lied to. You jump into the opposite stance, and that is quite stupid. Well, maybe except for the parody part. Women always were the generic representatives of an age, and this age is a low-rent parody of itself.

Feminists View Women as Inferior

Chauvinism is a bad thing and was never my purpose. I am fond of women, and the last thing I’d want is to tell them to shut their mouths and stand behind a kitchen counter. For me this article isn’t about beating my chest over my own preeminence or being mean. One ought to take women seriously because they are often very knowledgeable and possess a good intuition. In pagan times they were beyond all else respected for their wisdom. I’m very concerned with respecting women. Without women we’ll get nowhere after all, in more than one way. In every way, as a matter of fact.

But one doesn’t show respect for someone by never being allowed to utter criticism, never asking questions, never being allowed to marvel, never understanding and never having the license to think, especially if there’s anything that can be thought of as disadvantageous. Something like that is to create an inflated absolute, which is bound to be based upon feelings of inferiority. And this is what feminism is and does.

Feminism is an implicit admission that women are inferior to men, since it believes that they must be protected against criticism and be put into positions and societal functions by affirmative action, not according to ability, but because of gender-based identity politics. This shows the fear of men being better, instead of admitting that in some ways, men are better. Men are, generally speaking, better body builders, carpenters, mathematicians and engineers, amongst others, while women are better with language and in human relations. This is because the abilities vary. Feminism seeks to erase this variation, because the ideology itself fears inequality above all else. Then someone might be perceived to be better in some case or another. Something which has always been the state of things. Feminism and egalitarian thinking are based upon fear, because the one feeling inferior will always seek equality.

I stand firm by this: women are not inferior, but different from men. To come this realization demands an elemental form of personal maturity, and this without resorting to chauvinism or hysteria in any direction. We must accept the conditions of nature, not fight against it in every conceivable way. Then one ends up with terribly bad results.

Equality of opportunity is not the point. Men and women should never compete in the same areas, because this creates hostility between the genders and neglect the specialization and variation created by nature.

A Little About My Female Friend

I chanced upon the trail of something important by listening to a woman I was acquainted with as a young man. This is what she said: There can’t be so many physical and bodily differences between men and women, without there at the same time being differences of the soul. By her words the first of the three essential truths had dawned upon me. Men and women are not equal. Now I’m going to show you in the simplest way how women and men are different, and with that reject the view modernity demands you to have, the notion of women and men being equal in ability and behavior. Are you ready? You should be.

The Simplest Proof of Gender Differences

  • According to The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism men produce 20 times more testosterone1 than women.
  • Testosterone has a profound effect on behavior connected to aggression and dominance2 as noted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).
  • Testosterone effects men’s ability to self-reflect3 in a negative way, according to the very same NCBI.
  • Being injected with testosterone gives women a better directional sense,4 according to ScienceNorway.
  • All this comes in addition to testosterone having a critical effect in the development of gender characteristics of the body,5 according to Endocrine Reviews.

Therefore, men and women are not equal when it comes to behavior, body and ability. Note that this shows the effect of a single sex hormone. There are other structural differences of the body as well as evolutionary differences between men and women also.

According to the Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology6 men have a greater variation in intelligence than women. There are more stupid men, and more intelligent men, although the median level is more or less the same.

Kindly repeat after me:

No one is equal. No one is equal. No one is equal.

Is that understood? Excellent!

With these examples I have in a simple way rejected the demand of seeing men and women as equal. Well, as I have used to say: The greatest lies are presented as if they were a matter of course. Soon we’ll look closer at gender differences on a far more advanced level, but first, a personal anecdote.

Feminists on a Cabin Trip

At one point I was in the company of several families that had rented a cabin somewhere far up in the mountains. We drove in heavy snowfall and had to park a long distance away because all the roads were blocked. All of the adult women in these families can only be described as fanatical believers in Marxism.™ Not only have they swallowed modernity in its entirety, they are also prepared to strike down the smallest forms of dissent by draconic measures.

At one point, when I stated that young girls have a greater sexual power than boys at the same age, the reaction of one of them was to run out of the room. One of the mothers even made her five-year-old boy walk around in a skirt. When I encounter such great injustice, I lie and conceal who and what I am. Fortunately, they did not understand, and have never understood that I am as far away from them in my world view as it’s possible to be. I am capable of putting up a camouflage and being an observer. This is what I saw:

As we arrived at the cabin, the men immediately started carrying in supplies and equipment. This was heavy stuff, and the journey to the cars was long, even potentially dangerous, because there was a blizzard raging outside. In the meantime, the women were quite busy unpacking the boxes as they were brought in. Food supplies, trinkets and decorations, and Christmas gifts. At the same time, people were provided with different tasks and were assigned sleeping quarters based upon occult knowledge of who could best endure each other. As so often happens when I observe women, they seemed to do all this simultaneously.

And here’s the thing. This division of labor didn’t happen because someone had been mean, evil, chauvinistic or having oppressed someone, perhaps even having been mentally ill — as these Marxist™ women would have claimed if someone pointed out the disparity between their strong convictions and behavior. The division of labor happened spontaneously, because it’s the role each gender prefers, in accordance with nature.

From this we may learn: never accept the definitions of your opponent, because these formthe framework of what you’re able to think. This is why the Left is so concerned with language. Language is important. Body and realities are more important. You can’t use language to manipulate yourself out of the realities of your own body. If you try, you end up with terribly bad results. I may say I’m the best sprinter in the world; the statement is not made real because of that.

Most men get tired in the head when they try to do several things at once, and think it’s terribly boring to unpack trinkets at the same time as discussing who goes where. Most women do not like moving boxes from one place to another, while the only communication going on is perhaps a grunt now and then. Maybe there are some men that want to be with the women and unpack trinkets, and then they of course should be allowed to do so. The same thing with a woman that wants to join the men in boy’s activities. To each their own, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What we must understand is that this is a case of tendencies. Nature is full of exceptions and unforeseen events, but at the same time leans strongly in certain directions. As Darwin said, generalization is the foundation for all science. As Hegel said, to generalize is to think. Our anxiety towards nature and reality has now grown so large because of our need for equality in one and all that we always choose to see the exception and never the larger picture. And then we don’t understand much. Then we never get very far. Fear must never be allowed to rule over your intellectual life.

A More Advanced Approach

It is said that you are the sum of your habits. What you do shapes your character and your abilities. The brain of someone who plays soccer adjusts to the play on the field, the same with the brain of someone who plays computer games. If it is true that you become what you do, it must be even more true that you are the result of what your ancestors have been doing. You are the sum of a developmental line that leads up to you, and you carry in you the qualities that are inherent in these struggles. If your family consists of brawlers and alcoholics, it is probable (a tendency) that you have some of these traits.

This is the background for thinking based on evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, fields that long have been neglected in our atomized age. Today one is to understand as little as possible, and not draw lines of coherence neither forward nor backward in time. As it is said, you often see the result of political decisions only in five years, the result of cultural changes in fifty years, and the consequences of religious transformations in five hundred years. The revolution of the 68’ers probably seemed splendid as long as the West was wealthy, but the result is that we have lost our cohesion and ability to create excess, not even have children. Beyond all, the nuclear family lies in ruins. Not that the nuclear family is the best one can have. That position falls upon the greater family.

Such as one must think forward in time to understand consequences, one must also think backwards in time to understand the order of things. Like Admiral Cunningham said: “It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition.” I call that and raise: our traits and abilities run three hundred thousand years back in time, before the inception of modern man. What our ancestors did and the conditions they lived under shape the qualities we have today, which are hardcoded in us and which no social engineering can change. Tabula rasa is a lie that in a literal sense is superficial. Humans are not a blank slate whereupon morons can make their drawings. Nor are they pieces of Lego in malleable plastic that can be put together without considering background and heritage. If you want to understand humanity, you have to understand the space between these extremes: we are the sum of our parts, but not solely that, so we can neither be treated as programmable droids nor as identical droids by category.

This also includes the qualities of women. Before we were humans, we already were a dimorphic species, where each gender was doing different stuff, and were filling different roles — and brought about traits that are distinct. With this as a background, let me speak more about women and their qualities. What have our foremothers really been doing?

Women See the World as Relations

All who are honest, know women are better than men at reading body language. Especially a disparity between what is stated and what is otherwise displayed will make women angry. In that way one might say women have better intuition.

Imagine a cave in a stone age society. The men are out hunting. The women are at home and make sure the needs of everyone are met, and then these needs must be understood, at the same time as one secures oneself against freeloaders. Then change the stone age cave to an iron age village, to a city state, to a medieval society, to Norway in the fifties. The tools and means may have changed, but the conditions in what had to be done and the roles always were the same. One cannot decide with a paragraph that this is to disappear.

Even though modernity in its need for equality seeks to remove the differences between the genders, one will always fall back to default, which is our ancestors. Furthermore: Those who give adherence to these differences will win and breed more. Those who do not give adherence to the differences will lose and disappear. These are traits and patterns which always will reproduce themselves and create their own enhancement. Woe the one who stands against nature. It will be as the boy who put his finger in the dike to hold back the sea. According to Edward Dutton white liberals won’t exist in a hundred years, simply because their anti-natural lifestyles means they will reproduce less than conservatives.

With activity in a world of relations it follows that women are more sensitive. Outer stimulation has a greater effect, both in a positive and negative direction, and remain longer as an inner impression. I know a girl who even into adulthood remembers with terror how a dog suddenly barked towards here in a store when she was a child. On the opposite hand, men have a tendency to forget about potentially dangerous episodes. One can realize why. Men are better equipped to handle physical confrontations, and men are to a certain extent supposed to seek out risks. Men mainly see the world as objects, and it’s by relating to and manipulating objects men have their success. Women have a strong need for domestic harmony. Where men from broken homes get emotionally damaged and turns to substance abuse to compensate, women from broken homes get their logical centers hyperactivated and turn to ideological fanaticism for it to never happen again. This is a strong accusation against modernity and all its ills, especially the breakdown of the family.

The genders do not understand each other’s perspective, world and understanding of reality. Women are frightfully naive when it comes to the world as objects and physical consequences, simply because they as a gendered collective never have been in touch with these areas. Why not remove all borders? If everyone decided to be kind to each other, everything would turn out well. All problems can be solved by negotiations. Or what? Men don’t understand the need for tactfulness, manipulation and diplomacy, and therefore miss opportunities and are easy to lead, like a bull pulled by his nose ring. To say it a little crude, and this was widely recognized knowledge in the 1800s. Men view women as cowardly. Women see men as stupid. There is a certain truth to this.

Women See the Word as Distribution

Have you noticed how men always function as plumbers, forklift drivers, and truck drivers in so-called hard professions, whereas soft professions are dominated by women performing as nurses, kindergarten teachers, and social workers? Not only does this reflect the tendency of men to see the world as objects and women seeing the world as relations. These mental differences have made the genders equipped for widely different assignments. Men, as a whole, have since before agriculture always been focused upon the production of resources. It is by single-minded attention to the prey a male has been capable of succeeding as a hunter and bringing the food home. The man who was busy talking to his fellow hunters and focusing on all other things would be unsuccessful as a hunter and presumably get less access to concrete forms of gratitude from females, meaning fewer opportunities for mating. As a consequence: The genetics of a talkative hunter would have become less prevalent.

This quality, quiet determination if you will, where the world is seen as an object for the purpose of producing resources, did not disappear with agriculture, it just entered a new form. A man with his muscular strength is better suited to break up the soil, and seeing the world as objects is perfectly suitable to put up fences, borders and limitations, not only for the fields, but for a family, which is put underneath a similar control and boundaries. Hint: monogamy. We may say that the male perception of reality is the foundation of our civilization. The formula remains. The more one sees the world as an object, the more it can be submitted, mastered and forced to be productive, something which is a man’s purpose, according his understanding of reality.

Women also want to master their world, but do this in an entirely different way. The more they are able to comprehend and manipulate their relations, the better they get to distribute the resources produced by males. I have after all said that mankind is a dimorphic species, and one cannot take for granted the assignments are to be distributed equally. Even in modern western economies, where vast resources have been out in to create equality between the genders, women still make out a gross loss, both in the economics of society and in working life.

At this point I’m going to use some Norwegian sources and numbers. It is what I’m familiar with, after all. According to Statistics Norway, women cost about $13,000 more than men7 every year.

Men would create a surplus, if it weren’t for the immigrant population, as we can see in the numbers that have been cleverly hidden8 by Aftenposten™ as “abuse of immigrant data.”

Women also take 70% more sick leave9 from work than men. What one must understand is that it’s supposed to be that way, because women have other assignments to take care of, like sick children and other family matters. As Aristotle said:

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Where women are healthy and not gripped by materialism and individualism, the lack of restraint from modernity, missing context, over consumption and the avoidance of a greater order, this distribution of resources will be allocated for the good of the tribe. For children and those who need it. On the opposite hand resources will be denied to those who don’t follow the rules of the group, or those who are inclined to be lazy. In hunter gatherer society, female focus was upon foraging. These are tasks that demand less concentration, more opportunism and more occult knowledge about where berries and roots are to be found, knowledge that can be attained through social means. At the same time such tasks can be done in a social context, as one performs and move around like a group.

Men are always going to produce. Women are always going to distribute. Now the job isn’t properly done, even though it probably always will be made an effort at. Because of the dissolution of the family unit, boys don’t learn practical skills and a manly mindset from their fathers. With another word, they turn into poor producers. Maybe worse, women are sitting and distributing resources to the enemies of the tribe. The more they can give away, the better it is, they believe. For then they have bargained safety, but only for the moment. Both genders prefer leaders who are more masculine10.

Most human beings prefer masculine facial features for those who relate to out-groups, and feminine facial features11 for those who concern themselves with what is relevant for the in-group.

Translating this: women are not qualified to relate to an external enemy, and neither do they prefer to do so. Here men must straight up take on the mantle of leadership.

A Little Philosophy

According to Wilfrid Sellars, philosophy is about understanding things and their connection in the broadest possible sense. That is to say, a form of holistic thinking is demanded. In this way it’s striking how functionality and behavior follows the shape of both the body and the genitals. Men have their center of gravity located at the shoulders, because they are meant to use the strength of their upper bodies more. In fact, men have an average 40% more strength12 in the upper body and 33% more strength in the rest of the body.

Having a beard protects the jaw13 against blows. The faces of men can handle blows better14 than the faces of women. From this we may understand that men, to a greater extent than women, are directed towards combat and acts of violence.

The shape of the male genitals itself points(!) in the direction of being intended for direct action. All who have been honest a day of their life, know that men are more straightforward in their speech and action that women. This direct approach leads to a logical conclusion. Men are to possess and conquer, the characteristics of his body and the shape of his genitals are in themselves for supporting such a way of conduct. Here we are back at the realities of our bodies I talked about, as the total sum of our ancestors.

Women have their center of gravity at the hip and store more fat in the body.15 This is to retain energy, not only for themselves, but for children and per extension, the tribe. Women’s shape of body is in this manner directed towards having a nurturing function. Someone who has played strategy games knows how important it is to have a synergy between different units and tactics. Likewise, one’s social and mental qualities preferably ought to build upon and be supported by the abilities of one’s own body, and in any case not run contrary to these abilities.

A man weaker than other men who constantly picks fights on the basis of a higher level of testosterone, can literally wake up to a lower production of testosterone16 after having been knocked out. In this way his behavior is better adjusted to reality. Women’s nurturing body will on the opposite hand be accompanied by caregiving instincts and a higher empathy. In this manner bodily qualities and behavior are interconnected. Not only that. Bodily abilities and personal inclinations are meant to enhance each other, because then they’ll work the best.

The female genitals are enclosed and turned inwards. From that we may surmise that women are indirect in their speech and manner of conduct. Only a little experience is enough to know that women often say things indirectly. The encasement indicates that women are secretive in their purposes. One has to be, if one is committing to social manipulation. With the words of Emil Cioran: Lies are the essence of social life. Where a male enemy will harm you directly, a female enemy will harm you indirectly.

Moreover, I would like to say that this form of philosophy and broad thinking has been unrightfully neglected in our time. Behind observed reality there often is a purpose and a probability we can infer from shape and form. We also have a duty to operate from probability, because there is very little we really know with any sort of certainty. Truth is an approximation and an indication of direction, not at all something that is exact.

Reservations When it Comes to Women

All that is great has a shadow. You can’t have a good quality without having a correspondingly bad quality. A person able to protect you can also cause you harm. A person capable of showing care might withdraw this care or strangle you with it. Every great strength is also a weakness in this way.

From this we may comprehend that women, with their abundance of desirable qualities, still have a darker side. As I have touched into, respecting someone doesn’t mean freezing thoughts and any assessment because of fear and the need for equality. It’s about seeing the full extent of qualities and understanding how all this put together might make out strength. Any form and quality are despite it all a demarcation and limitation.

This is what women say when they think they can trust me. From one woman I got to hear that when she married her husband, she knew the marriage wouldn’t last, but she did this for the sake of herself and her child. Another woman gleefully rejoiced in how she and her female friend had sex with their teachers in colleges and universities to get better grades. She thought this was funny and expected me to think the same. By the way, such immorality is pervasive among liberal and leftist women. Well, just because I’m quiet, it doesn’t mean I don’t judge you.

Women are the pragmatic gender, men the idealistic gender. Men copulate downwards, women upwards. All this in accordance to certain Darwinist requirements we soon enough will see the monstrous implication of. Women are dependent upon extracting resources (solipsism), men are dependent upon making their tribe strong, lest one is to be crushed by another tribe. Women want a man with as high of a status as possible (hypergamy), while men readily spread their genes around. Those who wanted this is our ancestors, because it was they who were successful. Therefor we want this too. Evolution is after all a self-referential system.

Women are especially given to the female imperative to always further the needs of women before those of men. Loyalty to the sisterhood is stronger than any standards men have constructed. To the degree women adhere to any standards at all, it’s just from the vantage point of their own pragmatism and fear. Women have also no problems with internalizing such standards as something morally exalted and something they themselves wish, and without any problem submit themselves to a new order and new masters when the situation calls for it. As Sophocles stated: I write the oaths of women on water. Or as Odin says it in Hávamál about women: for on a turning wheel have their hearts been formed – and levity in their breasts been laid. Conversely, women are capable of applying logic only if it’s only presented as a mathematical formula. They just prefer not doing so. With the words of Shakespeare: a hot temper leaps o’er a cold decree. This is probably twice as applicable for the female gender. A conservative woman I know even admits to her brain turning off if she sees a negro child stand there with a collection box. The question isn’t if aid agencies and the media take advantage of this, but to which extreme degree it happens.

I have presented myself as the greatest misogynistic of the country. And how can I not hate women, when they stand there holding the gate open for our downfall? The truthful know what I talk about. A typical woman of today will fly into a rage if you point out logical connections for her, even the very simple ones. If you import a thousand Afghans to the village, your daughter in bikini will be raped. It simply doesn’t register. The result is that it has become impossible to show dissent.

Women are after all emotional fanatics who operate under logical absolutes, a typically distinctive feature for those lacking ability within the area. No one are better informants, spies and zealots for a cause. Neither has anyone a more naive and simplified view of in and out-groups. Women are in many ways natural communist. If you don’t believe that, I challenge you to read the Roman Statesman Cicero. He states that women would prefer to live in a cave and eat grass, rather than having things be unequal between someone.

Women can only attain civilization in partnership with men. The needs of women are important. The needs of men are more important, because men are stronger, and because women are meant to be submitted to men. Only in this manner one can achieve the necessary synergy of qualities, as bred forth by evolution. Both the prophet Muhammed and the Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus are in agreement: A nation led by women cannot succeed.

Before we look at why it is this way. Hatred betrays a great love. What we call hatred is really indifference. For my part, I’m angry with women because I care about women. A little cryptic: to love women you must hate women, and the other way around. The opposite rules over all things, and the coin is constantly turning. It is widely known that the greatest misogynists are developed from men that are either very successful with women, or very unsuccessful. In this I invite you to draw your own conclusions. Don’t ask me directly. A clever girl doesn’t tell you her secrets, neither will it be that way with me.

Siren’s Song to Chaos

For whence do women’s need for destruction, lacking civilizatory ability and siren’s song to chaos derive? It might seem like where there is peace, women create war, and where there is order, women create chaos. It seems this way because it is this way, but behind it all there is a purpose. A purpose also lies behind a delightful backside, but that is perhaps another matter (not really).

First and foremost, it is important to know that we have more female relatives17 than male ones. Imagine a city state conquered by enemies. All men and male children are killed. All the women are enslaved. The women who resist are killed. The women who adapt to the conquerors survive and may in time take part in the wealth, resources and even bloodline of the winners. This scenario is world history in a nut shell. It has been this way, always. Because of this historical line with perpetual conquests, the genes of particularly principled women have not survived, while the genes of pragmatic women are prevalent everywhere. If one has knowledge of Charles Darwin, one will know that particularly successful genes after a while will be widespread with every member of a population. To rage against this is like raging against water being wet. A man of dignity knows the nature of women and take it into consideration. Your genetic code makes it so that if you have a daughter, she too will be in possession of these qualities.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, it is said. Where a genetically successful man wishes to spread his semen as broadly as possible (men who manage to do this become genetically successful, and therefore this quality is more or less universal among males), a female may only be pregnant with one man at a time. That is to say, she wishes to have as high of a quality as possible. This need for a strong man outranks all other needs, because it’s so genetically important, even the needs for civilization, principles and standards, as well as the lives of brothers, fathers and husbands.

The greatest love stories that have been told, such as Romeo and Juliet, Tristan and Isolde, and Kristin Lavransdatter all contain the same tale in different clothing. The female casts aside societal standards and her family to be with the superior man. This is a hard lesson. In practical terms this means that even your own mother will cast you and your tribe aside, if just the circumstances are right. This question comes by the way up in the Odyssey, where Penelope “does not ask about her children anymore.” As Friedrich Nietzsche states about the matter: In love affairs a woman is more barbarian than a man.

That is to say, women have an interest of seeing the strongest party win, no matter who it is. Women keep in league with the strongest party at any given time. In the primitive mind this is registered as the one who displays dominance and aggression. Therefore, she in her unconscious mind creates the conditions for conflict between individuals, groups and even civilizations. A primitive woman is happy to flirt with several men she knows are rivals, for then there will be a fight — over her. Advanced women now invite in the third world, because white men don’t dominate them enough. This dominance doesn’t just mean hard sex, but also oppression and the man telling her what to think and do, and then the female will submit. This is what she always wanted!

I get enraged when I see beautiful, blonde women stand there with a refugee or preach “50 is not enough” as part of a campaign to bring in refugees on Facebook. I do right to be enraged. I also do right in my solution, which is to flog such women. They just want to be taken hard from behind by a dominating and fascist man. This is what women are and do; what they always wanted to have.

Women can sleep their way into any in-group, or be raped into a new in-group. If she were to be given away to a group of gypsies, she would adjust. What a man must know and understand is that women never can display the same idealism and loyalty as a man can do. Men may fight to the death for a failed cause. Women will adjust. Well, even our idealism is an adaptive feature which is about making our group as strong as possible. On the other hand, women are often fanatics. Understand this: fanaticism never stands upon a steady ground.

Some Esoteric Insights

What if I told you I once entered a cave. Inside I found insights of tremendous value. Now I can no longer enter the cave. Luckily my long-term memory is good. As long as I live, and beyond, I hope to never forget these insights. However, for the sake of brevity, I can only touch into these matters very briefly. It’s a cue into further thinking. To do the insights justice, they would need articles of their own.

First, I must mention the genius Otto Weininger and his brilliant work Sex & Character,18 which you can read and download for free. It’s impossible for me to sum up his insights here, but I can mention something representing a red pill moment for me. Once seen and understood, it could no longer be denied. Why do women so often concern themselves with caretaking and the sick? Must be because of their heightened empathy, right?

A lesson from me: any quality can be turned on its head. Weininger claims this is because women are drawn to and find great meaning in suffering, particularly if men are humiliated in the process (probably because of Nietzschean resentment). This is damning claim, but I know it’s right. Around these parts we call a spade a spade, and I’ve worked in what in plain language is called a madhouse. From my observations there I realized that women indeed were drawn toward suffering. No one suffers like the mentally ill, probably. Furthermore, many of my colleagues were quite eccentric. If not an affinity for suffering, you at least need a streak of madness to be attracted to such a profession.

With this knowledge of female nature through Weininger, I’ve come to view women’s caregiving under quite another light. I’ve realized that when women come there and show care and empathy for you, it’s because they see you as very weak. It’s really a form of contempt. A woman who attacks a man, on the other hand, invariably does so because she is attracted to him. Souls forged in the world below, indeed.

Another important aspect of the book Sex & Character is the assertion that every person is a mix of male and female energies. Put in another way, if you don’t go parachuting in the morning, doing motor sports in the evening, having a gun fight in between, you’re not fully masculine. And if a woman isn’t dressed in a pink gown with a pink hairband, fawning over squirrels and cute deer while doing her nails and dusting the house, she isn’t fully feminine. The pairing of a male and female should be in accordance with these energies.

A guy with 2/4 of male energies should be with a female with 2/4 female energies. A masculine footballer should be with a cheerleader. A sensitive poet should be with a rather masculine woman. Many people will blow fuses over such a proposal, but I know this too to be correct. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the world around you. Yeah, that’s what I thought. All this is in accordance with reality. Feminine cheerleaders don’t get with William Blake. An ogre isn’t interested in his fellow female trolls.

Speaking of hysteria and blowing fuses, in my examinations I’ve found pedomorphology to be one of the markers of a higher race. This term simply means the retaining of childlike traits into adult age, such as blonde hair, red lips, elfin skin, round eyes and a smallish nose for the sake of sexual attraction. Add a certain slim and slender gracefulness.

When a society exists within a hierarchy, the stronger men will take women with these qualities, and since you then have the pairing of the strong and beautiful, with the strong breeding more and the beautiful now being in possession of this strength, all of race will with time take up these traits in accordance with a downward drift. See: Sweden before the downfall.

In stark contrast, where the hierarchy of a society is flat, like that of the Polynesian islands, the women need to be almost as strong and brutish as the men in order for any offspring to survive. Consequently, the population at large will be crude of body and brutish.

The exploding rates of autism can be explained because we’ve neglected our social hierarchy and The Will of Species, to use one of the concepts from Arthur Schopenhauer. To be very brief: Will is behind our perceived reality, always in the process of becoming and always seeking to make itself more advanced. One of its most advanced (and fragile) iterations is life. A crystal is the mere rigidification of an attempt at life, according to Schopenhauer. To be advanced, you must have the unification of opposites.

Traditionally, men married for beauty and women married for resources. A boring accountant would therefore get to marry a pretty girl, creating this unification of intelligence on his part, and beauty and a certain bodiliness on her part. With the loss of our social hierarchy, the nerds were forced to marry each other, and the cheerleaders and jocks were allowed to marry each other. Catastrophic! The result: The nerds beget smart autists who lack bodily strength, and the jocks and cheerleaders beget children who are strong of body, but who are rather dull witted. The point of marriage is to make robust and intelligent children, which was the norm in any healthy time when you retained social hierarchy. Now you have this stratification where autism explodes on one hand, and the population at large get rather dull witted. These qualities of course belong together.

If the gods allow it, we may be able to speak in depth on the concepts of pedomorphology and The Will of Species at a later stage. Otto Weininger is there for you to read.

A Balanced Solution for Gender Relations

Idiots and slow people often come dragging with one solution and one answer which is supposed to fix everything. This is nonsense. Fortunately, I can answer all matters almost without having thought it through (only an unbalanced person could have made such a statement, but imbalance was the price I paid for my insight). A wise person knows a good solution takes into account many factors and precautions. This is in fact the foundation for conservatism, because conservatives are more morally balanced19 than Leftoids.

Here we see how the Left mainly are motivated by fairness and harm reduction. This is also important for the right, but this side also relates to hierarchy, loyalty, and purity/disgust. Food for thought is that the main part of women leans to the left, while the main part of men leans to the right. This means we can go full circle with qualities we’ve already talked about.

Women would like to be cherished and protected (maximizing safety). From this vantage point they may proceed furthering their status in an indirect way. Now that society furthers the interests of women at the cost of those of men, this need for safety get the absurd result of the State being made into a sort of sublimated father figure and husband that provides with resources and protects against dangers. The problem here is that the State is no loving husband, but with the words of Nietzsche quite the contrary, the coldest of all cold monsters.

Women will wake up and discover their need have been set aside for the migrant hordes they import to have someone with a lower status than themselves, which is also a form of maximizing safety. Well, if you seek safety, you are to find you get the opposite result. As usual the Roman thesis is relevant: If you want peace, prepare for war. It might be added: The cost of freedom is vigilance. Now one is even to create laws against “microaggressions,” the concept of no one being allowed to say anything you don’t like. Can you imagine the totalitarian laws needed to see it through?

Men on the other hand want freedom and to be respected. This means a certain acceptance of risk. With the words of Nietzsche, play and danger rather than work and safety. Women will because of their need for safety always be conformist and keep within societal standards. If she does so, there are good chances for her to pass on her genes. For men it can sometimes be genetically profitable to be outside of the societal standards. Especially if one is childless. Far more men than women have remained childless through history. An exceedingly kind and agreeable man gets nowhere. The danger is obvious. Men are 3.63 times more likely to commit suicide20 than women.

Suicide is committed when all other doors are closed, or seem to be closed. Regardless, since men by nature are more rightist, and are capable of relating to more factors and even have developed themselves within such areas in order to take care of women, it is sufficient to say that men should be the dominating, leading and defining party in a society. In all this, a good solution for gender relations takes into consideration many factors, both in a civilizatory and eugenic sense.

We must go to the sources. Not the Bible, because that book belongs to a Judeo-Arabic slave religion, but our own natural religion. It is said that Freyja loves the one who marries young. When the god Freyr (whom I am named after) fell in love with the Jötunn-woman Gerd, he found out he had to ask her father to be allowed to marry her. This he got to do, but for a price (which incidentally led to the destruction of the universe).

Monogamy is important, because it brings civilizatory stability. A society that is monogamous will succeed put up against a society that is not; the latter will throw away its energy in constant infighting, because of all the people who have been denied a woman. One must invest in a partner and marriage at a relatively young age. Again, we arrive at the simple formula. Those who do, succeed. Those who don’t, will not. I know about couples who began thinking about having children when the female was nearly forty. Everyone can understand this is idiocy, and in this society and feminism have thoroughly betrayed us, especially young women, who are told they conveniently may put off having children and investing in a man.

Well…when the time has come it’s already too late. An eighteen-year-old woman is well suited to have children, physically and mentally. When swimming in my own private lake, I overheard a young girl reprimand and command a large group of youngsters in detail. You cannot tell me she wouldn’t be able to control a five-year-old. A woman at thirty-five is already on her way out of the game. Besides it’s easier to make a relationship function at a young age, amongst other because one can shape each other. This is a secret that is nearly unknown today.

So far, so good, but we must think onward. Again, we’ll go to the sources. In the Viking Age it is well documented that Kings, Jarls and strong men retained several women through friller (a Scandinavian word for concubine) and the so called frillevesenet (the legal arrangement of having concubines). That is to say, they were married with women who gave them legitimate children, and had women at the side who gave them illegitimate children.

Note that this did not indicate a low status for the frille. A lady who was a university professor in history told me it was apparently better to be the mistress of a king than married to a lesser man. Many Norwegian kings, including Sigurd Munn, Magnus Barefoot, Håkon the Good, and Håkon Håkonsson were the offspring of a frille. Indeed, such positions were coveted by women, something we see exemplified for later periods in TV-series such as The Tudors.

I think this is a good and reasonable solution. Even in today’s catholic (read: to a degree less Christian) France, it is usual for a rich man at forty to have a wife and ideally a mistress at the side. As we know, men have the need to spread their seed, as stated by a prostitute I read an interview with. That job I take care of, she stated further. Women have by the way nothing against the arrangements that bring them closer to superior men, or relating to a man who has had his share of women, although they sometimes with great pathos pretend to in order to procure advantages. Remember: this is what they want. We must stop with the protestant prudery and neuroticism over behavior that is quite natural and indeed, comprises the very conditions of life itself.

In today’s society high status men are happily exchanged21 between women, while the lowest segment of men remains womanless and childless. Not at all against the wishes of women, this. Otherwise, they would have crossed continents and crawled under barbed wire to be with Incels, just as they do in order to be with attractive men. Newsflash: they don’t.

The blonde race by the way had its genesis from strong men taking fair haired women, and these fair-haired women giving birth to stronger children, which through their strength could create a prevalence of blondness. It is after all the most attractive. This is the way it should be. Anything different should besides be labeled idiocy.

As a philosopher I have an especially important statement that might serve as an aphorism: There is only one golden rule. The blonder, the better. One might ask if sexual selection is enough to create a sufficiently good form of eugenics, but that is a discussion for another time.

As the reader perhaps understands, I’m not an unimaginative moralist. Nothing should be its own goal. You do not work for the sake of working, you do not eat for the sake of eating, and neither should you be monogamous for the sake of monogamy (read: one should not be fully monogamous). I’m also of the opinion that prostitution should be legal. It can release the pressure for the lesser men, in order for them not to resort to more drastic actions. It can also create more stable marriages in a world where half of all marriages are destroyed. Finally, prostitution may create a healthier sexuality than just looking at pornography, something which is an unwelcome and method to pacify and destroy young men.

The story about civilization is incidentally the story of how one manages one’s sexuality.22 As stated, one must have a balance between several factors: Monogamy in the main to achieve stability, and an escape from this monogamy in order for the demands not being too harsh, and in order for achieving a certain upward pressure of eugenics, since stronger men can and should breed more.

Today we have the worst of all worlds. The genders are at war with each other. People have become materialists and individualists who do not have children. We live without a higher meaning. The children that do come into the world live under narcissistic parents who do not really care about them other than as symbols of status, and the children are in many ways raised by institutions who don’t have their best interests at heart. Education has taken on a dysgenic character. Those with the most education – and higher IQ – breed the least!

Worst of all the children are sexualized and are taught to be good materialists, so they can perpetuate the disease. All this are the attributes of a dying people, unfortunately. We are now in the process of being replaced by Muslims, who are inferior to us and shouldn’t be here to begin with. We must turn the ship around, else way it’s over for us. I’m a radically honest person. Neither do I like race mixing, for good reason. That too, is a discussion for another time.

The genders have developed to live in companionship with each other, where men take care of external concerns, external enemies and a world of objects, and where women take care of internal concerns, inner harmony and a world of relations. If we forget this, we at once sink to a far more primitive level. Who do men become civilized? Because they can marry and have children. When do women cease to be unfaithful? When they are dominated and led by a man. This is what everyone wants. The endless materialism and individualism are a poor replacement.

Taking everything into consideration, women can only be virtuous through males and their values that are transmitted to her. This is the foundation of civilization and an advanced society. Marriage is a burden for the individual, but a duty also. One must remember that women often get their freedom at an older age, when the children have been brought up and her husband maybe (hopefully?) is dead. Men have in several traditional societies, including the Norwegian and that of ancient Greece, married around the age of thirty, and had their freedom in their younger years.

Check your Sexuality

Sexuality is potent and powerful, for that reason also dangerous. Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus stated that of the Delphic Maxims these two were the most important: “Know yourself” and “Nothing in excess.” We must straight up have an insight into our ancestors, what they valued and how they lived, in order to know ourselves. We must also develop a sexual continence, just as we control the intake of food and the use of drugs.

At the end of it we do this for a higher order. The order of the gods. According to Tacitus the Germanic tribes were chaste until marriage and punished infidelity with death. The genders also used to bathe naked together, something which perhaps has been continued into our culture with saunas. Very few or no Nordic people have the need to rape each other, just over seeing a naked body. That can’t be said about all peoples. We should take pride in who we are.

For those that see the disparity here: Tacitus was overdoing it to chastise his Roman countrymen, fallen into immorality. I don’t believe a strong and famous Germanic warlord at the year 50 AD did not have several women. Female infidelity is worse than male infidelity because it sows doubt about the progenity of the offspring and in turn damages civilization. Remember: men should be the dominating sex. With that follows certain privileges. Only weaklings like Immanuel Kant talk about universal principles supposed to apply to everyone. I would even say that certain female rulers, which in and by itself is an exception, might be allowed to have several men, like Boudicca, as long as this happened past child bearing age for the purpose of creating alliances and displaying superiority. Rigid and unthinking principles are for autists. (Read: Christians).

Who is superior? Who is inferior? Men should be the dominant and active sex, yes. Does that mean women are of lower value? Not really. Both the hammer and the anvil are needed to create a horseshoe. We must stop with the denial of reality and the emotional hysteria.

How dangerous sexuality is, we see from the following: J.D Unwin studied 80 societies and six civilizations existing over a period of 5000 years. Societies that practiced free sex for a hundred years went under, with no exception. Probably because sexual excesses are the route into materialism, a life with no meaning except for sensory impressions.

The founder of the department of sociology at Harvard University, Pitrim Sorokin, was of the opinion that restraining sexuality before marriage is the very condition for a functioning society. The weakening of the institution of marriage is the first sign of civilizatory collapse. We are well on our way to such a breakdown, because we do not manage to govern our gender relations in a proper way, and because the genders in egalitarian societies fight over the same role, when they really are to have each their unique role. Stratification is the marker for all higher forms of life and a higher society.

In practical terms, women should for the most part not be part of working life. The paradigm of constant economic consumption doesn’t work, and by ending this as well as ceasing international trade, we’ll find like before that households can survive and thrive on a single income. We’ll thrive in the long term too, since women have some very important tasks of child rearing and the perpetuation of race and culture to take care of.

Turn things on their head and every surface is a depth. Women are for this reason very wise and very unwise at the same time. As it’s said, the best argument against female voting rights is what female voting rights have achieved the last hundred years. The price is a constant turn to the left.

A female friend can never be as cool as your male friends. Women are conformist; therefore, they seldom concern themselves with anything interesting. Like an original thought, for instance. The older a woman gets, the more she follows rules, which almost always are created by men. This may be in the form of religions, ideologies, gurus, etc. Nobody is interested in that sort of thing. Get them while they’re young, and it’s your rules and fancies she’ll follow.

I have often seen women in a relationship take up the hobbies and interests of the man. This is doubly true when it comes to values. Married women vote conservative23 where single women vote for the Left (and get the State as their sugar daddy). This is a good argument for the model of companionship between the genders. Men and women belong together. Apart, they get dysfunctional.

The ancient Greeks were of the opinion that virtue, beauty, and the good really are one and the same as they seem to be in nature. If it’s beautiful, it’s good, and the good always leads to something beautiful.

Why am I a nationalist, really? Because I adore blonde girls and believe this to be the highest boon. The highest point of the universe, if you will, though they still shouldn’t be allowed to vote. No one should be able to vote. Since it’s so beautiful, I wish to bring this onward and make sure these elven feet remain upon the earth. Those standing between me and this purpose is an enemy that ultimately has to be killed. Our friends are power, strength and fertility. More! The beautiful, the good and a certain virtue. Our opponent is materialism, individualism and sterile narcissism. Choose carefully if you are a lover of beauty as I am.






















22 This I learned from the excellent site Chateau Heartiste, which you now only can see the remnant of after WordPress without warning removed all content.


Tags: , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn