Rotten Orange News.
Women: less self-awareness than a retarded slug.
“Using her body.” Is there any other way?
Fresh from tearful courtroom testimony. Don’t objectify milady (Jewlady) though, it’s uncouth! Those pictures are art, high art, just like the Mona Lisa. And don’t you forget it, you vulgar patriarchal bastards. You Go Grrlll!
It’s all one.
Sex workers. And now please tell me how that is different from ordinary female behavior – exchanging sexual favors in return for “goodies” from men (including beta male commitment).
If you think this is stated just for the misogynistic shock value, think again. Consider: what is meant by a “trophy wife?” A “Mrs Degree?” A woman “looking for a good provider?” The meaning of the fact that on dates typically men are expected to pay for everything, plan for everything. In each case, what is milady providing in exchange for male resources? Answer: sex or at least the promise of sex. It is essentially legalized prostitution. The honorable behavior for women is motherhood (and, later, grandmotherhood) – family formation and nurturing. The contribution to genetic continuity is worthwhile, but the typical cunning female exploitation of male sexual weakness is nothing more or less than glorified whoredom.
By the way, fresh from tearful courtroom speeches and #MeToo Activism, the female always returns to her roots: trade sexuality for attention and resources. You Go Girl! A rotifer has mores self-awareness than a typical woman.
Even a morally deficient cognitive weakling like Derbyshire notices the obvious:
My question: Nassar was doing the stuff he was doing for twenty-five years. How’d he get away with it for so long?
Part of the answer, I’m sure, is the same as the answer to the same question in the matter of show business sexual harassment. In both cases there was a thing that the harassees wanted very, very badly —so badly that they, or in the case of younger victims, more likely their parents—might have considered that submitting to harassment or molestation was a price worth paying for that thing.
In the showbiz cases the thing wanted was a movie part; in Nassar’s case, a shot at competing in the Olympics.
I don’t say that’s the whole story, and I certainly wouldn’t say that all the victims took that cynical view. Twenty-five years of silence needs explaining, though. I’ve no doubt that’s part of the explanation.
The media likes to concentrate on the isolated cases when complaints were made and were ignored, while blithely not mentioning the fact that many of the victims said nothing at the time, and are now being hailed as Tankgrrl Heroines for marching into court (after being emotionally soothed by a Labrador retriever wearing a tie) and browbeating the NEC pervert (or, simply, and non-redundantly, the NEC). Consider that powerful male celebrities are suffering auto da fe if accused of looking at a woman the wrong way back in the Ice Age. So, if the entire woman’s Olympic gymnastics team, and their parents, had complained, nothing would have been done? If all of “America’s darlings” had come forward publicly, together, nothing would have been done? Yeah, sure. If you believe that, I also have a bridge to sell you, spanning Manhattan to Brooklyn.
No, just like all the women who went to visit HuWhite Harvey, despite “it was known all over Hollywood what was going on”, and like all the women going to the office of Levantine Lauer (and his door-locking desk button) despite his own reputation, sometimes Tankgrrl ambition gets in the way of right thinking, eh ladies? Or like those actresses who publicly decry being “objectified” and then post scantily-clad pictures of themselves on social media for all the world to see – a complete lack of self-awareness and adult-level agency.
A not-so-secret secret revealed to the women reading this blog: likely, most of the men you know and interact with on a regular basis have a well-disguised contempt for your sex, and it is justified. When you act like children but demand to be treated as more-than-equals, supported by a hysterical SJW System, the contempt is well-earned.
My problems with the gamesters is essentially one of prescription, not description. With respect to sexual matters, the game crowd are correct in their fundamental analysis.
For example, Johnny Redux:
A sexless marriage, in many (if not most) cases, is the result of a man marrying a woman his own age, and after time losing all sexual interest in her as she quickly morphs into an old woman before his eyes, much quicker than he is aging.
As they say: when a man gets older, he looks more and more like Sean Connery, and when a woman gets older she looks more and more like….Sean Connery.
Indeed, one wonders how much of the retroactive outrage pouring out from #MeToo past-their-prime yeastbuckets is due to the bitterness of aging, sagging hags, who have all the charm of rotting meat and all the grace of a wilted flower, looking back with desperate longing to the days when men actually found them attractive – before the inexorable ravages of time worked to make milady into a pathetic and pitiful shell of her former self. Unlike Dorian Gray, it’s the woman herself, not her portrait, which decays with every passing day, to the dismay of every man who looks, disapprovingly, upon her.
Some good advice for (White) women: gain some humility, marry and have children in your 20s, suppress your urge to hypergamy, and cultivate a pleasant personality so you will be tolerable when your looks fade (which will occur sooner rather than later). You’ll want to have something to fall back upon when you hit the wall, other than the love of a good cat.
The connection between sexual behavior and EGI should be, I hope, obvious to the reader. We are, after all, a sexually reproducing species.
Psychosexual insights from a Russian classic.
“The Battle of the Sexes” is fundamentally important for racial activism, particularly since we have White Knighting activists who expend their political capital on ditzy female airheads.
Now, before someone accuses me of hypocrisy by using “game” analyses here, let me remind you that I’ve always maintained that, as regards sex, “game” is essentially correct in the descriptive sense. By opposition to “game” is prescriptive. In other words, I see the gamesters as correct in their description of women and of the sexual marketplace, but I disagree with their prescriptive suggestions on how men should behave based on these realities.
Thus, we can analyze a few characters of The Brothers Karamazov through the lens of sexual realism.
A “game” evaluation of the major female characters has already been done by someone else, and I see this analysis as sound.
The Wikipedia description of those characters are as follows (emphasis added):
Agrafena Alexandrovna Svetlova (a.k.a. Grushenka, Grusha, Grushka), a beautiful 22-year-old, is the local Jezebel and has an uncanny charm for men. In her youth she was jilted by a Polish officer and subsequently came under the protection of a tyrannical miser. The episode leaves Grushenka with an urge for independence and control of her life. Grushenka inspires complete admiration and lust in both Fyodor and Dmitri Karamazov. Their rivalry for her affection is one of the most damaging factors in their relationship. Grushenka seeks to torment and then deride both Dmitri and Fyodor as a wicked amusement, a way to inflict upon others the pain she has felt at the hands of her “former and indisputable one”. However, after she begins a friendship with Alyosha, and as the book progresses, she begins to tread a path of spiritual redemption through which emerges hidden qualities of gentleness and generosity, though her fiery temper and pride are ever present.
Katerina Ivanovna Verkhovtseva (a.k.a. Katya, Katka, Katenka) is Dmitri’s beautiful fiancée, despite his open forays with Grushenka. Her engagement to Dmitri is chiefly a matter of pride on both their parts, Dmitri having bailed her father out of a debt. Katerina is extremely proud and seeks to act as a noble martyr, suffering as a stark reminder of everyone’s guilt. Because of this, she cannot bring herself to act on her love for Ivan, and constantly creates moral barriers between him and herself. By the end of the novel, she too, begins a real and sincere spiritual redemption, as seen in the epilogue, when she asks Mitya and Grushenka to forgive her.
Thus, typical young women: cruel, capricious unpleasant, arrogant, shit-testing, and we see that Dostoevsky falters in his story-telling when he has both characters show “redemption” toward the end of the book. In reality, both would have continued their behavior until their looks failed, at which time they’d find some beta male to parasitize off of (“marriage”) complete with nagging and general nastiness (“married life”).
Let’s now consider the main male characters, along with their Wikipedia descriptions (emphasis added).
Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov is the father, a 55-year-old “sponger” and buffoon who sires three sons during his two marriages. He is rumored to have fathered an illegitimate son, Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov, whom he employs as his servant. Fyodor takes no interest in any of his sons, who are, as a result, raised apart from each other and their father. The relationship between Fyodor and his adult sons drives much of the plot in the novel.
Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov (a.k.a. Mitya, Mitka, Mitenka, Mitri) is Fyodor Karamazov’s eldest son and the only offspring of his first marriage, with Adelaida Ivanovna Miusov. Dmitri is considered to be a sensualist, much like his father, spending large amounts of money on nights filled with champagne, women, and whatever entertainment and stimulation money can buy. Dmitri is brought into contact with his family when he finds himself in need of his inheritance, which he believes is being withheld by his father. He was engaged to be married to Katerina Ivanovna, but breaks that off after falling in love with Grushenka. Dmitri’s relationship with his father is the most volatile of the brothers, escalating to violence as he and his father begin fighting over the same woman, Grushenka. While he maintains a good relationship with Ivan, he is closest to his younger brother Alyosha, referring to him as his “cherub”.
Fyodor the father and Dmitri the eldest son, the rivals for the “affections” (sic) of Grushenka, are both complicated characters. Although they both – particularly the father – have some of the “dark triad” traits so believed by the gamesters, ultimately both men are hardcore Betas – pussy pedestalizing obsessives, with infinite fucks given (IFG) – contrary to the assumed zero fucks given (ZFG) attitude of the Alpha – with a case (particularly for Dmitri) of “oneitis.” Thus, both men are easy prey for the malevolent Grushenka, playing with them in the same manner that a spiteful (female) cat would torment a mouse. Thus: Fyodor and Dmitri: Beta Males. They are both classic Roissyite Gamesters as well: IFG pussy pedestalizers, making their entire lives revolving around women.
Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov (a.k.a. Vanya, Vanka, Vanechka) is the 24-year-old middle son and first from Fyodor’s second marriage to Sofia Ivanovna. He is disturbed especially by the apparently senseless suffering in the world. He says to Alyosha in the chapter “Rebellion” (Bk. 5, Ch. 4), “It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket.” From an early age, Ivan is sullen and isolated. His father tells Alyosha that he fears Ivan more than Dmitri. Some of the most memorable and acclaimed passages of the novel involve Ivan, including the chapter “Rebellion”, his “poem” “The Grand Inquisitor” immediately following, and his nightmare of the devil (Bk. 11, Ch. 9). Ivan’s relationship with his father and brothers are rather superficial in the beginning. He is almost repulsed by his father, and had no positive affection towards Dmitri. While he doesn’t dislike Alexei, he didn’t have any deep affection for him either. But towards the end of the novel, his relationship with his siblings gets more complicated. Ivan falls in love with Katerina Ivanovna, who was Dmitri’s betrothed. But she doesn’t start to return his feelings until the end.
Ivan – rebellious, intellectually dissident, cold – is closest to being an alpha in the book, but his “oneitis” for Katerina Ivanovna and his “brain fever” – a sign of weakness – classify him as a Beta, a high Beta, but a Beta nevertheless.
Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov (a.k.a. Alyosha, Alyoshka, Alyoshenka, Alyoshechka, Alexeichik, Lyosha, Lyoshenka) at age 20 is the youngest of the Karamazov brothers, the youngest child by Karamazov’s second wife and thus Ivan’s full brother. The narrator identifies him as the hero of the novel in the opening chapter, as does the author in the preface. He is described as immensely likable. At the outset of the events, Alyosha is a novice in the local Russian Orthodox monastery. His faith is in contrast to his brother Ivan’s atheism. His Elder, Father Zosima, sends him into the world, where he becomes involved in the sordid details of his family. In a secondary plotline, Alyosha befriends a group of school boys, whose fate adds a hopeful message to the conclusion of the novel.
With respect to being an Orthodox novice, and his spending more time with young boys (maybe he should have become a Roman Catholic priest?) than young women, Alexei is MGTOW. However, when he does interact with women, he typically does so in a bashful, clumsy, hand-twisting manner. Hence, Alyosha = Beta.
Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov, widely rumored to be the illegitimate son of Fyodor Karamazov, is the son of “Reeking Lizaveta”, a mute woman of the street who died in childbirth. His name, Smerdyakov, means “son of the ‘reeking one'”. He was brought up by Fyodor Karamazov’s trusted servant Grigory Vasilievich Kutuzov and his wife Marfa. Smerdyakov grows up in the Karamazov house as a servant, working as Fyodor’s lackey and cook. He is morose and sullen, and, like Dostoyevsky, suffers from epilepsy. The narrator notes that as a child, Smerdyakov collected stray cats to hang and bury them. Generally aloof, Smerdyakov admires Ivan and shares his atheism.
Pavel is a MGTOW Omega male. At his best, he’s a low Beta.
Father Zosima, the Elder Father Zosima is an Elder and spiritual advisor (starets) in the town monastery and Alyosha’s teacher. He is something of a celebrity among the townspeople for his reputed prophetic and healing abilities. His popularity inspires both admiration and jealousy amidst his fellow monks. Zosima provides a refutation to Ivan’s atheistic arguments and helps to explain Alyosha’s character. Zosima’s teachings shape the way Alyosha deals with the young boys he meets in the Ilyusha storyline.
The character of Father Zosima was to some extent inspired by that of Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk.
Father Zosima as an Elder monk is obviously MGTOW. Before entering the monastery, as a young man, he was somewhat similar to Ivan Karamazov, a high Beta with some Alpha traits. More importantly, the “all responsible for one another” philosophy of Father Zosima, as well as the outlook of Alyosha (the author-proclaimed “hero” of the novel), is that if Dostoevsky himself. This is a form of Russian (The Third Rome) messianic Christianity, reflecting the aspects of the Russian soul discussed by Spengler in The Decline of the West. Thus, Father Zosima asserts a form of collectivist Brotherhood, mutual care and love horizontally across society, in a leveling egalitarian manner, independent of social rank – the expansive horizon, the horizontal plane, as discussed by Spengler. While this is not our Nietzschean “cup of tea” so to speak, it does reflect a type of “will to power” = the idea of the inevitable victory of this worldview, the memetic conquest of humanity (Russian Bolshevism – a secularized version of Father Zosima’s philosophy?).
Ilyusha, Ilyushechka, or simply Ilusha in some translations, is one of the local schoolboys, and the central figure of a crucial subplot in the novel. His father, Captain Snegiryov, is an impoverished officer who is insulted by Dmitri after Fyodor Karamazov hires him to threaten the latter over his debts, and the Snegiryov family is brought to shame as a result. The reader is led to believe that it is partly because of this that Ilyusha falls ill, possibly to illustrate the theme that even minor actions can touch heavily on the lives of others, and that we are “all responsible for one another”.
If this child did not die and became a man, he’d most likely be a Beta or an Omega.
In summary, the Karamazovs were a bunch of Beta males who were manipulated, and ruined, by horrific nasty females. The only Karamazov who ended the story not badly ruined was Alyosha, not coincidentally the MGTOW Karamazov. There’s a lesson there, I think.
Consider that young men typically have very strong sex drives. Then further consider that increasing numbers of young heterosexual men are going MGTOW. How terrible must today’s young women be to trigger such a reaction, to make men go against their most powerful biological drives. This is something that women would do well to reflect upon.
Men in the “movement” themselves should reflect upon The Nature of Woman, and not waste their time and energy, and expend their political capital, defending what is not worth defending. Although none of the male characters in The Brothers Karamazov are admirable from my perspective, some are worse than others. Let’s not have “movement leaders” channeling Fyodor and Dmitri (hopefully, no Pavels are among us), turning themselves inside out for sly, malicious females.
With all the recent hysteria about “women in the movement,” all of the voluminous scribblings and yawn-inducing podcasts, I note that most miss the point that this latest explosion is no doubt at least in part a male reaction to the ongoing “sexual harassment” moral panic burning through the mainstream society. Indeed, there is the daily auto da fe, in which some screeching yeastbucket, full of moral righteousness and supported by myriads of conformist robots, accuses some hapless man of looking at her the wrong way twenty years ago. To the stake! Nobody escapes the Spanish Inquisition!
Now, having to put up with these hectoring harridans in the “normie” realm, activist men do not want to have to endure smug, smirking women, and their White Knight enablers, behaving as if they are the SJW HR Department of Der Movement, laying down the law to all of us knuckle-dragging male brutes on how we are to behave to Milady Mudshark, Ganges Girl, Flabby Philosocat, or any of the others.
The reason for the Type I Alt Right “bullying” (and, yes, I’m no fan of their Beavis-and-Butthead activities either) and the Type II Sallisian (intentionally comic, for the autistically obtuse among you) tirades is, frankly, we’ve had enough of female-to male moral posturing. Why is that so difficult to understand?
No immunity from criticism. Get it, Counter-Currents? Accountability for all, including your delicate little ladies.
I’m sure you disagree. Always got to side with “da wimmin” though, right?
A cruder but nevertheless accurate observation on the same topic (emphasis added):
Weimar RepublicanAh yes the old Philosofat, I mean cat, lecturing men about masculinity, along with the rest of these empty-headed e-sluts. If you idiots are too clueless to see that all these ‘based’ childless cat ladies represent nothing but a feminist coup, then this movement and the white race deserve to die. This tubby bitch gets less than 2k viewers a video and has the audacity to tell critics of feminism to leave the Alt-Right.Dear White Knights, have some self-respect because nobody else respects you, including these mediocre 4s you are pretending are Aryan maidens in a meadow.I’m gonna shout from the hills until I’m banned: women are the death of any movement. Look at what they are doing to leftism as we speak. They will spread their #MeToo coup here next. Stop being a bunch of spineless, thirsty beta-orbiters and open your fucking eyes before it’s too late.Roy Moore was accused by Republican women voters. Women are not political. They side with whoever is the strongest at any given moment. Be strong and they will come on their own. Stop pandering to pussy.
“Mediocre 4s?” No, no, a thousand times, no! These are great beauties (the faces that launched a thousand charging White Knights), and obviously – quite obviously, let there be no doubt! – that any criticism of these charming maidens is only – solely! – because all we insecure men are secretly enraged that they refused to go to the high school prom with us.
Johnson debates “Longshanks” – which a (very interesting) website asserts is a South Asian. I do not know for sure whether or not the individual identified at that post is really the Aryan warrior “Sven” but if it is, it’s another in a long series of non-Whites pushing a narrative of ultra-purity for Whites, and one can only guess (don’t try too hard, it’s not that difficult) about the underlying motive. There’s not only this (alleged) fellow, but others as well: deranged mestizos (“Sallis’ sophistry”), snarky Iranians (for Aryans! For Aryans!)…the list goes on. And since these specimens know how to appeal to Type I Nutzis, there’s always a place for them at the table (no place for Sallis, of course). Type I Nutzis are really a problem. We Type II activists are the solution.
And then some female idiot at Counter-Currents, some inane commentator, says that MGTOW is worse than feminism. Are you mad? Feminism is one of the major weapons used by the System to destroy the White race and wreck Western civilization; MGTOW is simply a reaction to that. Now, taken to extremes, MGTOW can be racially destructive (we need to reproduce, after all), but taken to moderation, it can be useful. Instead of White Knighting, and the sweaty pussy pedestalization of “game,” it can serve men well to be more aloof from women, shift the supply-demand curve more to the benefit of men, instead of being one-sided to the advantage of women. If it comes down to Sir MGTOW vs. the Yeastbuckets, I side with the former against the latter.
And a side note: All these Alt Right guys getting all excited over “Hatreon” – don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. Was it necessary to parody Patreon so obviously? Another example of Type I “movement” childishness.
The key conclusion (emphasis added):
LGBTQI campaigns assert that love is equal, yet they help marginalize attachments and acts they find repugnant or inconvenient. The activist community should acknowledge all types of sexuality and marriage that meet their professed moral standard. They should not deceive the public by selectively applying their morality.
Alternatively, activists should abandon their artificial solidarity and the morality they deploy to justify it. They should admit that not all sexual desire and acts and types of marriage are equal. Many will join with the straight binary community in rejecting the appropriateness of polygamy, incest and bestiality. In so doing they might view their own orientation with humility and ponder whether insisting on complete normalisation is good for society.
EGI Notes does not say we must hate homosexuals, and it does not say that homosexuals should be completely excluded from racial activism merely based on their sexual preferences (leadership positions are another matter entirely). But is it too much to ask that they are honest about it (hiding it only makes it worse if and when it is uncovered) and, more importantly, that they admit that their preferences are abnormal? Put it this way: there is a big difference, an almost existential difference between a racial activist who just happens to be homosexual and who has their sexuality as a secondary and incidental part of their identity and a homosexual who just happens to be a racial activist with their sociopolitical/racial views merely being a secondary and incidental part of their identity. The former person – if they are upfront about what they are and if they accept the abnormality of it – can be a useful and effective racial activist. The latter person – using racialism as a front to push a homosexual agenda – is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Particularly if such a person – of the latter type – attempts to normalize homosexuality and, even more so, if they promote markedly maladaptive memes such as anti-natalism, then then they are agents of racial degeneration, not racial progress.
Are there representatives of the former type in the “movement?” Potentially so, potentially since they are still “in the closet” as there are no openly identified (and thus honest) homosexuals who clearly prioritize race and civilization above their sexual identity. The latter type? Yes, they exist in the “movement” and they would profit I believe in reading Salter’s piece and reflecting on the phrase: “they might view their own orientation with humility and ponder whether insisting on complete normalisation is good for society.”
A thought experiment: if a safe and effective cure for homosexuality was devised, so that all such people could be reprogrammed to be heterosexual just by, for example, taking a pill, what would be the attitude of homosexuals in racial activism? Would they welcome the opportunity to divest themselves of their abnormality, or would they protest that this is an affront to “gay identity” and “authenticity?”
The other conundrum is if for some activists their sexual identity is of importance then why are they still officially “in the closet?” Now, as stated above, I believe everyone should be open and honest about these issues and if they are homosexual should just come out and say it. However, if they believe that it is a private issue that is wholly incidental to their identity, then one would expect that they would never promote, or in any way attempt to normalize, homosexuality in any way. It has to be one or the other.