What's killing the West

https://twitter.com/hitehranhostel/status/889899796609290241

I wrote a long time ago that what unites the dissident right, the "glue" for lack of a better word, was opposition to feminism. The catholic reactionaries, the Moldbuggian neoreactionaries, the manosphere and all those other guys out there around 2013; we all had little in common. We thought most of the others were crazy or deluded. But we all shared a common idea that women don't belong to political society; and that women having equal or higher status than men was what was breaking the social fabric in the civilized world. It just breaks all incentives to mate and raise children, saps all motivation to pursue excellence and be contribute to society.

Now of course this reactionary sphere was quite small. And since Trump it has been completely overshadowed by the alt-right; if fortunately it hasn't died out. And it hasn't because the alt-right is basically feminist nazism. Essentialist Nationalism? Check. Down-with-the-plutocrats Socialist economics? Check. Gas all the Jews? Check. But hey, Ivanka is our Aryan princess! Laura Southern is so cool and smart! The French Front National is run by a woman. The German AfD is run by a woman. Having women commanding men just shows it to those evil mud Muslims.

You're doing it wrong. Aesthetics is important. It's an underrated motivation for men's actions. Yes, a 20 year old white woman with long hair can be a lovely thing, and it looks so much more worth defending than those ugly fat Muslim women in black bags. But that's not the point. The point is that Western men aren't actually doing anything to defend their civilization against an invasion by millions of foreign men. You might say it's because their governments won't allow them, and there's a point to that. But the vast majority of white men don't even show any will to resist. They still overwhelmingly support leftist politics.

Western men aren't actually doing anything to defend those cute white girls from being harassed by Africans or Muslims because they don't own them, and they have no prospect of ever owning them. So of course they don't fight. They just go on following the latest leftist fad, hoping for some mainstream status, so they can get some money and maybe some short-term sex relationship. Those who dislike leftism overwhelmingly choose to enjoy the decline poolside. Nobody is going to risk their skin in order to protect the right of their women go to Iran to take Instagram pictures larping on what used to be a most respectable male profession.

I've been writing a lot about rhetoric and why it's important. And yes, nationalism, even racism makes for better rhetoric, a better sale than The Patriarchy. But as important as rhetoric is in aiding coordination by synchronizing people's status signaling behavior; at a more basic level there are systemic incentives without which people just won't work. And men just won't work to defend feminsm. They may say they will. But they won't do it.

vzrvyvX

Trump is cool. Race is important. But sex is much, much more important.

[…] What’s killing the West […]

Christ, someone finally said it. Well, couched in the particular context you present, anyhow. Of course, this position is intractably unpopular, more so than issues of diversity, injustice, haves vs. have-nots, the environment, nationalism vs. globalism, etc. Ultimately, they're arguments about who the Bad Guys are. I fear that feminism and its manifestations are so entrenched that there's no going back, unless civilization as we know it unravels or implodes. When the political-commercial money gravy train starts to sputter and eventually grind to a halt, it'll be too late. I could be wrong.

About half a year ago, someone posted on /pol/ a video recording a conversation between high-school teachers, where they play "fuck, marry, kill" about their students. The responses on /pol/ were unanimous: this is atrocious conduct, unprofessional, and degenerate. Now, if you know something about teachers, you must know that, when they go home to their wives or husbands, they fantasize. Oh, how much they fantasize. To be sure, most will never act on those fantasies, but they are there. When I saw all of those responses on /pol/, denouncing the teachers as evil, immoral degenerates, I realized that the West truly is fucked. Because the moment you can't admit what is plainly obvious about human sexuality, you are bound to be conquered by someone less "out of touch" than you are. Feminist Nazis, you call it? Exactly so. And they will fail to save the West, not so much because of their Nazism, but because of their Feminism. Whites will not necessarily lose, but Islam -- the religion -- is going to win. You were right all along, Spandrell.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

> But hey, Ivanka is our Aryan princess! Laura Southern is so cool and smart! The French Front National is run by a woman. The German AfD is run by a woman. Having women commanding men just shows it to those evil mud Muslims. You sound rather uninformed and you're confusing the alt-light with the alt-right. The alt-right is actively shitting on Ivanka, and no one on the alt-right has said anything like the rest unironically. You could have made your point without this claim. But I guess you're trying to argue for the imaginary superiority of neo-inactionaries.

In fact you should look up the "white sharia" meme to get a clue about the actual alt-right position.

White Sharia is edgy LARPing on the internet. Islamic Sharia is real, and it is real not only in the minds of certain people whose last name is "Anglin", but IRL-real. That makes the whole difference. As this post says: rhetoric and systemic incentives are two different things, and one is more basic than the other. Challenge: show me this "White Sharia" working out IRL.

An apt summary. This article should be required reading for the dissident right and the curious at the edges.

As for alt-right being misguided; reading this I noticed this quote from Moldbug on Twitter: "Until you recognize that the whole system has to go, you are a supporter of that system. Period. #NRx". Sometimes the guys running the simulation get a bit too cute...

I met a guy whose wife cheated on and divorced him while he was deployed in Iraq. A lot of vets get totally destroyed in divorce court, to the point of suicide. Why should any man fight for a country that treats men so badly? Now that women rule America, let them fight for it! Is there one example in all of human history where a wealthy, decadent society decided to reform itself, de-emancipate its women, and restore patriarchy? Most prefer to wallow in anomie until a barbarian army invades, kills all the men, and enslaves the women and children. Unprepared for the rigors of barbarian life, most of these slaves soon die.

I may not be very informed but I do not recall ever reading Richard Spencer arguing for patriarchy.

The barbarians did give some new life to 10th century Arabs and Chinese, curing their feminism without killing the host.

Interesting. Have you some links?

Biologically, eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. This is why, left to their own devices, men end up doing all what women want. So men and women following their basic instincts start reverting to a paleolitic matriarcal hunter-gatherer society. In the process, more patriarcal societies conquer the decadent society and the cycle starts again. The only way to stop that is having a patriarcal religion/tradition/strong taboo that forbids men from following their natural matriarcal instincts. But when a society is rich, people abandon religion or don't follow it strictly (churchianity). The West abandoned Christianity and committed suicide. We are dying and waiting for Islam to come and start the cycle again.

There's this on the Arabs: http://www.isegoria.net/2014/07/summary-of-the-fate-of-empires/ On the Chinese there's the rise of Neoconfucianism, which is in quite stark contrast to the free independent women of the early Tang dynasty. A theory is that the Jurchen conquest of North China had something to do with that.

Wait. Wait. Look at the map. Sweden is doing something... actually right? WTF.

Feminists have a more masculine hormonal profile, also prenatally, digit rate. Essentially if they could opt out of being treated as women, we could re-establish patriarchy easier for the rest of the women who are less likely to resist. They and also gamma males could be treated socially as a third gender. Agender. Neutral. Eunuch. Career-obsessed eunuchs running a bureaucracy has good historic records albeit not in the West, but I suspect even in the Western Medieval period when the sons of nobles were too faggy to fight, they went for a church career or even monastic, and forced celibacy worked practically like a neutral gender. Saying there are only two genders is counter-productive to us. Let them be a third, neutral, agender, all the faggy white knights and the butch career women. Then re-establish patriarchy for normal men and normal women.

Thank you. Very interesting topics. Food for thought.

They probably think "fight for your country" implies giving sermons about consent in a public square.

I'd like to see those /pol/ guys every day in the same room with dozens of 15 year old girls. Some degree of pressure for people to control their urges is of course a good thing; but the West of late has spiraled into denying the very existence of those urges. Encouraging people to have willpower is a good thing, but if willpower alone could accomplish anything, the Japanese would have won WW2. It seems obvious that the people on top have to both be authoritarian and moralistic, but also understand that it's all an inside joke and that humanity is what it is. That's how it's used to work until we had mass societies.