It has become increasingly obvious to everyone in the West that the supposed culture of each individual nation, which ideally should unite each individual nation, is no longer stable but has instead fractured into many different wills, competing against each other for dominion over the culture, the so-called "culture war." In-order to maintain the longevity of a society, it is essential to maintain a healthy culture that provides both stability and unity amongst the people but also promotes health and excellence, because such conditions facilitate for the flourishing of the individual and thus society at large. However, when politics becomes the main concern amongst the populace, the culture of such a society has long since decayed and will inevitably collapse, as there is no unity amongst the people anymore, due to the disintegration of the people into various "ideologies" or "cults," as I discuss in-depth in my other essay The Genesis of Morality as the Beginning of the End. Due to this unstable milieu, despite the fact that what would have otherwise been thought of as a rather trivial news story in any sane society, it will nevertheless result in an outbreak in our contemporary society, since the significance of it is rendered inconsequential, as it is not the object in-of-itself that people care about but rather what it represents that is the reason for the outcry, due to it being a catalyst for a collective Shadow. The collective Shadow is the accumulation of the shared, repressed feelings and desires of what the individuals who belong to a particular culture deem to be immoral, due to the conditioning they have been subject to by contemporary society, or because it seems to be too arduous to challenge such social taboos because of the social pressure that may ensue. To put it into more concrete matters, the reason as to why a topic is deemed "controversial" is not because the topic in-of-itself is "controversial," but rather because the topic represents a facet of something that is deemed immoral. Hence, the cause for the seemingly increasing interest in politics in recent years has not been the result of politics having become more of an important topic, but rather because politics is one of the various emergent properties of the collective Shadow of modernity: the polarisation of the Syzygy due to a lack of culture. What is therefore important is not to debate in-order to have a more conscious understanding of politics, but to instead understand the unconscious, autonomous wills that are currently orchestrating the evolution of the zeitgeist, facilitated by the advent of the internet.
Unlike today where not being online is seen as abnormal and when going offline is done as a means of escaping from the internet, there was once a time when it was instead seen as abnormal to go online and when going online was done as a means of escaping from reality; unlike today where the internet is thought of as a dramatised microcosm of reality and where they both influence each other, the internet used to be thought of as a separate dimension detached from reality with no influence on reality; unlike today where users frequently advice others who are perceived as "terminally online" to "touch grass" in-order to get a grip on reality, as they are perceived as too emotionally unstable due to getting too emotionally invested in trivial matters, "slop," there was once a time when users on forums and in comment sections understood the importance of not feeding the trolls, because they knew that everything you read on the internet was not to be taken seriously. During such times, each forum used to have its own unique culture that had evolved organically through various historical events, which were memorable to that specific congregation of individuals, and whose jargon constituted references to such events and hobbies, which would function both as a means of creating a sense of belonging amongst one's peers and as a means of gatekeeping the community from newcomers who would only dilute the quality of the culture due to their ignorance of its history and thus customs. However, such norms came to dissipate following the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, as a result of it having access to the internet, and its subsequent revolutionary adoption by the populace in 2012, which marked the departure over the Rubicon from an illusion of social cohesion and sanity to mass-psychosis and partisanship. Although the internet had been accessible to everyone with a computer and modem since the 1990s, it was only due to the introduction of the iPhone that the internet became more accessible to such people who were not technologically literate enough to use a computer. The internet henceforth transformed from a constellation of personal blogs and forums dedicated to a particular niche into a public forum through the advent of social media, which attempted to capitalise on the surge of new users that had recently acquired access to the internet through their smartphones, and their incessant need to express their opinions without having to dedicate themselves to a hobby. Thus, the internet transformed from a decentralised constellation of a large variety of websites dedicated to various hobbies and cultures into a few centralised social media platforms with a universal jargon and symbolism in the form of memes, which were instead dedicated only to the most banal drama. The preceding phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the "dead internet theory," the theory that the internet is comprised of bots, or rather, that it is devoid of people, culture, originality, and individuality.
As a consequence of the democratisation of the internet, it became a proxy for the expression of the collective conscious. The collective conscious is the sphere of knowledge that the collective psyche of a particular culture has direct access to and is aware of, due to its conscious preoccupation in the collective psyche. In contrast, the collective unconscious is the sphere of knowledge that the collective psyche of a particular culture does not have direct access to nor is aware of but nevertheless has unconscious and indirect access to its contents, Archetypes, through emotion, instinct, and intuition. Archetypes are the primordial, characteristic appearances that constitute the most universal essence of any pattern of behaviour before it has been manifested into conscious or corporeal reality. Hence, the term "meme," which denotes an idea that is disseminated through various replications or imitations amongst a network of individuals who are connected through a particular culture, is an expression of an Archetype whose popularity is dependent on its universality (because Archetypes are universal). Thus, memes possess qualitatively the same function as genes because they are both replicators of culture and thus ensure the evolution of culture. As such, a culture is a constellation of various traditions and historical artefacts that have emerged from the evolution of a particular race and is thus particular only to the members of that race, since only they have access to the racial memory that is imprinted in their genetic structure, the "racial soul," or, as it is called in science, "epigenetics." It is therefore utterly ludicrous to suggest that a foreign member from a particular culture with a certain genetic lineage can integrate into another culture with a different genetic lineage, due to the fact that a certain culture is only particular to those who belong to the same genetic lineage and share the same appearance as their ancestors who created the memes that came to accumulate into the mass of culture, which even Leftists acknowledge when they decry that members of a certain race are not allowed to adopt the customs of another race due to it being "cultural appropriation," as a consequence of not belonging to that race. This is not even mentioning the fact that everyone intuitively knows that multiculturalism is multiracialism, even Leftists, which is why one of their most cited arguments against closed borders or deporting immigrants is because the food that is related to their culture, like kebab and tacos, will be made inaccessible, because they believe that only immigrants can prepare such food.
The internet, the collective conscious, and the collective unconscious can all be likened to an ocean of ideas, wherein every meme is merely a droplet of the larger, collective tide of the unconscious, autonomous will of the Archetype that currently directs the evolution of history through the manipulation of emotion; a meme is thus not novel but is rather a representation of an Archetype or a drama of multiple Archetypes in the collective unconscious. The herculean task of modernity is thus to surf the Archetypal tides without becoming possessed by an archetype by falling into the ocean of clashing emotions or, as it is colloquially referred to as, to "surf the Kali Yuga." It should be wise to clarify that this by no means that the reader should actively try to "tone down his views" or attempt to "de-radicalise" himself. Unlike in the past when the internet was an escape from reality and was therefore not representative of it, the internet, as we know it today, is representative of reality, because it is now considered and used as an extension of reality by normalfaggots. Despite it not being a perfect representation of reality, as it is instead a dramatised version of it due to such content gaining more traction, the internet is nevertheless a good indication of reality. This is because the only real difference between the internet and real life is that people do not randomly walk up to you and state their opinion on things to you. However, that does not mean that people in real life do not hold the same opinions as what they state on the internet because, as shocking as it may sounds, the people on the internet also exist in real life. As such, what I am suggesting is not that the reader should attempt to delude himself that what he sees on the internet is not representative of reality when it clearly is. What I am suggesting, however, is that the reader should not get emotionally invested in what he sees on the internet and in what he believes. The reason why this is important is because if the reader were to become too emotionally unstable for prolonged periods of time, he will become easier to control through fear, as he is no longer in a state where he is capable of making rational decisions, due to not being able to calmly observe reality for what it is, but will instead be prone to making hasty and reactionary decisions that may come to bite him in the end. If, however, the reader were were to align both his actions and beliefs with reality, there is no reason to get emotionally invested in a heated debate, since there is no rational reason as to why he should feel the need to convince another of what reality is, because, regardless of what his opponent might say, 2+2 will always equal 4, and if his opponent simply refuses to recognise this fact and were to stubbornly insist on aligning himself in such a way as to contradict the workings of reality, the opponent will have to suffer the consequences of his own actions, because he is not playing the game called life according to its own rules.
Unlike older generations who not only do not have as much free time as younger generations, younger generations are more animated and rebellious than them. This, in combination with the fact that they have yet to develop a sense of identity, makes it incredibly easy for them to get sucked into various things, and as society becomes more atomised due to the rise of social media as a more convenient form of communication, younger generations are now spending an overwhelming amount of time on social media. The problem with social media is that it encourages its users to become emotionally invested in things that should not matter to them, the so-called "flavour of the month" and "slop." The reason why users are able to get so emotionally invested in these trivial matters is because they are artificially encouraged to do so by the algorithm and their peers. This is because social media encourages a form of self-disciplinary governance over thought and behaviour, as complying with the consensus is incentivised by the fact that users who merely regurgitate whatever is most in-line with the consensus and is therefore the least offensive to that consensus are rewarded with the most amount of dopamine hits, such as likes, as a result of having merely validated what most people already agree with and therefore express their agreement with it by liking it. Even if the consensus may not necessarily be a fully accurate representation of what they believe, it is still considered to be "close enough" to regurgitate, especially since they are rewarded for doing so. And once said enough times, it will soon be solidified as their true belief. This is facilitated by the fact that the experience for every user is uniquely tailored by algorithms to suit their preferences, and to validate their beliefs without confrontation, so as to make them feel as if they are at home there, in-order to increase the amount of time each user spends on the platform to thus create a larger profile of the user through the collection of data, which is, then, sold to advertisers that will, then, sell their products through targeted advertising to said user. What this means is that the creation and maintenance of echo-chambers is directly profitable to the shareholders of both social media platforms and advertisers, as sensationalism, fake news, and various other suchlike methods of hyperbole journalism, that depends on the manipulation of Archetypes in-order to create engagement by invoking an emotional reaction, directly profit from making users more emotionally invested in the matters that they are discussing, since that will lead to more engagement and therefore more profit. Whenever some retard that wants to make themselves seem more enlightened than they really are talks about this topic, they always emphasise that the problem with this phenomenon is radicalism. However, this is wrong, because they are committing the logical fallacy that the so-called "sensible" and "adult" middle ground of whatever the current Overton window happens to be is correct. In reality, the problem is not the fact that the beliefs in these echo-chambers are never challenged but rather how emotionally charged they make their users; the radicalisation is not the problem in-of-itself but is rather merely an effect of having become emotionally invested.
Power, the freedom to impose one's will upon another, was once and is still faultily believed by many to be nothing more than a quantitative measure of military might, since dominion is achieved through conquest by military intervention. Instead, the form through which power was expressed by the aristocracy came to evolve after the French revolution, since the aristocrats came to realise that centralised public displays of power only made them a target for the resentful mob. Thus, contemporary positions of power, such as CEOs and politicians, are nothing more than mere "representatives" for their shareholders in-order to obfuscate the identities of the oligarchs who manipulate the political and economic evolution in contemporary society in-accordance with their interests and desires by manufacturing the consent of the vast majority of the population, the NPCs, through coercion, manipulation, and propaganda that preys on their emotions, archetypes. The difference between an individual and an NPC is that an individual is capable of critical thought whereas an NPC is not, since they do not possess an agency of their own, as a consequence of having been possessed by an archetype to such a degree that they are incapable of perceiving objective reality without projecting unconscious contents unto objects in-order to maintain their preconceived conception of reality (cognitive dissonance). Additionally, most NPCs are unable to externalise their internalised will towards a vision of their own, since they do not possess the courage to take initiative of their own accord and will thus project it unto a representative of their will instead. But the archetypal will that has come to possess an NPC is not a coherently articulated system of belief, because the appearance through which an archetype expresses itself is never rigid. The representative must therefore represent a spectrum of beliefs that can all be united under one umbrella of cohesion in-order to allow the mass of NPCs to project their internalised will unto the representative as a form of totem. Thus, whoever has monopoly on the authority and means to disseminate memes and to thus have the power to curate the NPCs' perception of reality to fit the desired narrative in-accordance with the interest of their shareholders, has control over the will of the NPCs and thus society due to the façade that is "democracy."
The contemporary values of modernity are derived from the compassionate and introspective nature of the current Aion, Pisces, as a reaction to the militaristic values of the previous Aion, Aries. As a result of Christianity having conditioned man to believe that he should feel bad for sinning and that he needs to atone for his sins, man came to develop a guilt-based morality. The reason why the West is as decadent as it is today is because our contemporary values were created as a reaction to National-Socialism, as a consequence of our guilt-based conscience wanting to atone for the supposed sins committed during the holocaust by adopting the opposite values of what supposedly led to it. To support racial segregation, nationalism, patriarchy, civic duty, health, excellence, traditional gender roles, and opposing degeneracy is therefore morally bad because they are the virtues of National-Socialism, whereas supporting mass immigration, globalism, matriarchy, narcissism, unhealthiness, mediocrity, equality, and indulging in degeneracy is therefore morally good because they are the opposite virtues of National-Socialism. As such, the current political duopoly between the supposed differentiating poles of the Left and Right are in actually proponents of the same Neo-Liberal ideology, because the basis for all their values is a reaction to ensure that National-Socialism can never be allowed to gain power ever again. Despite the fact that it may seem as if they are each other's opposite, the fact of the matter is that if the reader were to listen to what they are saying, they always contrast their opponent as being a National-Socialist, and that the reason you should vote for them is because they will ensure that National-Socialism (their opponent) cannot be allowed to gain power, since that would lead to the revival of National-Socialism (if only). If the West still wishes to survive, it is of utmost importance that we free ourselves from the shackles of this collective Shadow. The solution to this problem has always been seen as to refute the claim that 6 gorillion Jews were systemically exterminated in the holocaust. However, I shall like to take a different approach, as explored in my other essay The Genesis of Morality as the Beginning of the End, by suggesting that we need to instead adopt a new form of morality where the death 6 gorillion Jews should not matter. This way, regardless of whether it happened, there is no reason to feel guilty about it, because their lives should not matter to us, only our lives should matter to us. If we should ever need to systematically exterminate 6 gorillions Jews to ensure our survival, we should not feel guilty about doing so.
When the proletariat revolution failed to spread throughout Europe, many Marxist thinkers asked themselves the question "Why?" One of these think-tanks, the Frankfurt Institute, postulated that the reason Marxism was rejected was because European culture was patriarchal. In other words, the reason Marxism, an anti-hierarchical ideology, failed to take root in Europe was because European culture valued and respected hierarchies. That is, until the fall of the Third Reich, when these values instead became vilified and when its opposite values became exalted as virtuous. From this point onwards, instead of the flourishing of one's own race and culture being the highest good of every nations, it became about forever increasing the GDP. What this means is that the current duopoly between the supposed differentiating poles of the Left and Right are in actuality proponents of the same nihilistic, Neo-Liberal death cult that has become the basis for Western culture since the fall of the Third Reich. The Left is distilled Eros (Saturn), whereas the Right is distilled Logos (Jupiter). Eros is the metaphysical force that unites the individual objects of an aggregate into the encompassing unity of a collective through a shared trait, whereas Logos is the metaphysical force that distinguishes one individual object from another by highlighting their differences. However, distilled Logos is qualitatively the same as distilled Eros, because value judgments that distinguishes individual objects from each other are only possible to determine if there is a metric by which judgment is based upon. Distilled Logos and distilled Eros are therefore nihilism because nihilism is the absence of the possibility to determine value judgments since everything is devoid of value. Nihilism is therefore death, since life is the will to ascertain a higher value, whereas death is the negation of life. Thus, nihilism is the ultimate manifestation of evil since it denies life, as it is the belief in the absence of value, meaning, and morality, which are all derived from Logos but are only accessible through Eros, culture. Consequently, if the only value judgment by which individuals can distinguish themselves, as there is no quantitative difference between the sexes nor races, is through economic purchasing power, as the ultimate aim of every nation is to increase their GDP, regardless of the means, then all parties are nothing more than tenants of the same nihilistic, Neo-Liberal death cult. Thus, both the Left and Right only perpetuate the interest of the oligarchs to create a Neo-Feudalist, world government through stakeholder capitalism in-order to create the "perfect consumer," which they will be able exploit until society eventually collapses due to a complete lack of culture, since the perfect consumer will readily accept such living conditions by their own volition. The perfect consumer is an individual who is devoid of a cultural heritage because it will be a melting pot of various races and will thus be unable to relate to any one particular of its ancestors. Hence, it will derive its culture not from an organically evolved cultural heritage that is present in its genes but rather from mindless consumerism.
Despite this fracture having led to various manifestations, such as the Capitalist West (Logos) and the Communist East (Eros), it was not until after the widespread adoption of the internet that the most significant example would occur in the form of "GamerGate." Whenever the culture war is being discussed, those who want to appear to be more well-read (about internet gossip) will claim that that whatever event is being discussed was all because of GamerGate. This is not false. However, as stated in my thesis, it is not GamerGate that was the cause of the culture war. This is because both the culture war and GamerGate are the result of the polarisation of the Syzygy between Logos and Eros. It is for this reason no one can agree what GamerGate even was about. In reality, GamerGate was a reaction by men to women treating them poorly. This was caused by Anita Sarkeesian releasing a series of videos criticising video games for appealing to things men like. Although this may seem mundane, what she essentially did was to claim that men liking attractive women was bad, that men should not like attractive women, and that men should instead like unattractive and insufferable women, like herself, which is the complete opposite of what men like, because men like attractive and nice women, not unattractive and mean women. To claim otherwise would be to claim that there is something ontologically wrong with men being men, which is precisely what she did. As a result of this, men got very angry, as one could expect. This is how a bad game developer sleeping with five video game journalist in exchange for writing positive reviews of her bad game managed to become the justification for this revenge. If Sarkeesian had not attacked men for behaving as men, this news story would never have gotten any attention whatsoever, because no serious gamer actually took video game journalism seriously. The only reason they pretended to care or, even worse, managed to delude themselves that they did was because it served as the perfect excuse for their revenge. By claiming that they were trying to protect "ethics in video game journalism," men attacked everything that had been plaguing video games for quite some time. To understand why video games were so important to them, the reader must understand that video games encapsulates everything men like, like adventure and fighting. To therefore attack video games would also be to attack men for being men. This was made even worse by the fact that many gamers felt as if gaming had become too casualised as of late and that they had been forgotten. In other words, men felt as if their desires were not being catered to, in spite of the fact that gaming should be a hobby that fundamentally caters to them. When it was revealed that the game in question that had received positive reviews it did not deserve was a game whose values were in stark contrast to what men like, as it was instead a game made for those with feminine values, men got even more angry. It should also be mentioned that the major reason why this unimportant event was the straw that broke the camel's back was because Zoë Quinn perfectly exemplified everything men hated about women: she was an ugly, insufferable, feminist whore. Additionally, because she cheated on her boyfriend with five guys, men came to sympathise with her boyfriend and decided to ally themselves with him in-order to protect "ethics in video games journalism," with the actual intent of which being to attack everything that wanted them dead, as that is what Zoë Quinn and her game represented to them.
When viewed from this perspective, what has happened over the past decade following GamerGate suddenly becomes much clearer. For example, it is often said that the reason Trump got elected in the 2016 American election was because of Zoë Quinn. This, too, is also not false. However, like with GamerGate, there has never been an attempt to explain why this event got Trump elected. Logically speaking, it makes no sense as to how some no-name feminist cheating on her boyfriend with five video game journalists in exchange for promoting her shitty game could have led to Trump getting elected. Despite this, everyone across the political spectrum, from both the Left to the Right, seem to be in agreement that there is a casual relation between the two. This is because everyone intuitively understands that these corporeal events do not matter, and that they are merely the echo of some grander kind of "culture war." As already explained, this culture war is essentially a battle between man and woman, the Animus and the Anima. Although the first spark happened long before, it certainly is possible to say that the tension was reignited as a result of the rise of feminism during the 2010s on the internet, which sought to invade hobbies predominantly full of men, like video games, as well as the internet in general. Although the first response to this offence from the Anima, GamerGate was merely the precursor for what could be considered one of the most momentous shifts in the zeitgeist in hall of history: Trump becoming president in the 2016 American election. Leading up to the election, the tension could not have been any more obvious. On the Right, there was Trump, a man, and, on the Left, there was Clinton, a woman. The reason why these two people came to represent their respective party was because they best represented their respective half of the Syzygy as well as how their other half perceived them. In other words, the reason the Animus choose Trump as his representative and the reason the Anima choose Clinton as hers was because they best represented the most Archetypal form of what men wanted men to be like and what women wanted women to be like in addition to representation how women perceived men and how men perceived women. For example, the reason women dislike Trump is due to how crass he behaves, which is exemplified by his infamous line, "grab them by the pussy." However, at the same time, that is precisely why men liked him, because men respect men who are not afraid to speak their mind, since men like freedom, power, and independence. That is why, if the candidate that was supposed to represent the values they valued was chosen from the "system," that candidate would not have been as psychically potent, because he would not have been thought of as "independent" of the system, which is why Trump was chosen, because Trump was not only not a part of the so-called "swamp" but also promised to "drain it." In short, Trump was an outsider, which is why he resonated with so many men, because just like how gamers felt as if they were becoming strangers in their own hobby as gaming companies were trying to pander to casuals instead of hardcore gamers, so, too, did many American men feel as if the American government did not care about them, which is why Trumps slogan, "Make America Great Again," had such memetic potency, because it tapped into this desire for America to serve its people instead of foreigners. On the contrary, the reason why women liked Clinton was because, if she had become president, she would have been the first female president in American history, which would have been a sign that women truly were strong and independent, due to a woman holding the position of the most powerful person in America. What should, once again, be emphasised is that these two people were, for a time, not people. They were instead, as previously explained, totems that people projected their beliefs unto. This is why, even though Trump is what could only be described as yet another Neo-Liberal, the Left thinks of him as the Devil himself, because, to them, that is what he is. From the perspective of the Anima, the Logos is the Devil, and, from the perspective of the Logos, the Anima is the Devil.
The idea that it is possible to remain "neutral" in the culture war is an absurdity. It is definitively possible (and recommended, for reasons already explained) to not become emotionally invested in it. However, regardless of how much or little time and energy is spent on it, it is not possible to not spend, at the very least, some modicum of time and energy on it, because it is not possible to not be a part of it. This is because this entire battle essentially boils down to whether someone hates men or not. If they do, the are on the Left, whereas, if they do not, they are on the Right. It is simply not possible to have another stance on this matter. This is because this is a yes or no question. Fundamentally speaking, every ideology follows a certain set of principles. For example, Capitalism believes that the free market is the best way to distribute wealth across a population, whereas Communism disagrees and instead posits that a planned economy is the best method to ensure a good standard of living. If one where to disagree with either of these two systems, that means that one fundamentally agrees with the other, because, fundamentally speaking, there are only two types of economies: one that is not planned and one that is. Regardless of what specific, special snowflake economic system the reader may subscribe to, it is simply not possible for it to not either align more closely to Capitalism or Communism. To choose "neither" is therefore an impossibility, provided one wishes to have an economic system, in the first place, because every economic system will either accept the principles of Capitalism or Communism more than the other, which means that it fundamentally is one or the other. As such, to return to the topic at hand, if someone where to proclaim that they they are neutral or simply do not want to be part of the culture war, all this means is that they are not troubled with the status quo, which means that they are on the Left, because the Left is the status quo, which means that they hate the idea of men being free to behave like men. As it currently and unfortunately stands, 99.99% of "people" hate men. The reason this is a bad thing is because, as will soon become obvious, emasculating men by destroying every opportunity for them to satiate their desires will lead to the collapse of Western civilisation.
The Self is a configuration of the Anima (Eros) and the Animus (Logos) and represents psychic totality. Men are predominantly composed of the Animus but also have an unconscious feminine aspect, the Anima, whereas women are predominantly composed of the Anima but also have an unconscious masculine aspect, the Animus. The Animus is the desire to conform to the pre-established social norms enforced by the patriarchy in-order to not become ostracised from the tribe, as that would put the woman in danger due to being vulnerable during pregnancy, as well as a sense of nurturing compassion for children and those who are unable to protect themselves from predators and the other dangerous elements of nature, the Shadow of the feminine, the devouring mother. The Animus, on the other hand, is the desire to triumph above all else to differentiate oneself from the pre-established social norms and to therefore conquer the unconditioned feminine by imposing one's will on it in-order to exclusively make it one's own property, so as to protect the feminine. The evolution of culture is strictly dependent on the reciprocal relationship between men and women to conform to their respective gender role in society and marriage, since children develop most healthily in a household with a father and mother who both respectively represent the two principles of the Syzygy in a psychically healthy manner. As such, the principal cause for the schizophrenic psychosis that the West is currently suffering from is that our culture does not facilitate for the psychically healthy development of either gender but encourages regression instead, resulting in an increase of mental disorder for both genders. For example, women have been traumatised by the constant propaganda by feminists that all men are rapists and have accordingly come to develop trust issues, as they have become possessed by their Animus in-order to be able to protect themselves from the supposedly dangerous men by behaving more abrasively, so as to appear less sexually appealing to men. The reason why women are afraid of the risk of getting raped is not necessarily because they dislike getting rape, but rather because they do not want to get raped by men with poor genes, which are who women think about when they hear the word "men," as women cannot help themselves but to assume that something is dangerous if there even is the slightest risk of it being dangerous to them. This is because they do not want to have to bear the children of those with genes that are not perfect (that even have the slightest risk to them of not being able to survive). In contemporary society, it has become quite difficult to sooth women's neuroticism, which has led to an unprecedented amount of destruction, all because it is now illegal for men to prove to women that they have the capacity to protect them by overpowering them and hitting them. Additionally, women advocate for the destruction of the patriarchy, which, although does not currently exist and has not existed for quite some time, used to exist in-order to protect women from danger, because the function and virtues of the patriarchy are merely the expression of the Animus. It should therefore be apparent that women must not be allowed to possess any political or economic power because they are NPCs who possess little to no free will, since they are slaves to their desires and obediently obey the pre-established social norms without question, regardless of how absurd they might be. Instead, due to the volatility of Eros, women are only able to develop their psyche healthily if they are strictly controlled, first by their father as a maiden and, then, by their husband as a housewife, who they must obey as obediently as a slave for he should be venerated as her God. Men, on the contrary, are only able to develop their psyche healthily if they are able to express their masculinity creatively by creating an empire and to, then, become the patriarch of such empire or, on a micro level, family.
The terms "incel," "chud," and any other derogatory insult whose negative connotations are derived from its opposition to the status quo, is used by women and Anima-possessed men, "soiboys," as they cannot argue with logic and have to therefore resort to social pressure to discredit others, since they cannot fathom how a well-adjusted individual could possibility criticise contemporary society unless other women had ostracised them from society by rejecting them the opportunity of sex, because their entire weltanschauung is dependent on what is considered to be socially acceptable by mainstream discourse, not what is true. Whilst there might be a diminutive subset of individuals who are genuinely unable to attract women, regardless of how hard they try due to being genetic dead-ends, the vast majority of so-called "incels" are not unable to attract women because they are considered to be unattractive, but rather because it has become increasingly more difficult to engage in physical interaction with other people as a consequence of society having become more atomised due to the internet. What you swiftly come to realise in high school as an introvert who prefers to spend their leisure time at their computer is that you are not receiving invitations to the parties your classmates are attending because they dislike you, but rather because you never even bothered to take the initiative to befriend them in the first place. The difference between dating sites and real life is that whereas women normally select for competence, due to having a desire to be conquered by a dominant will, they instead purely select for physical attributes, as that is the only metric by which they are able to determine the character of men, because dating sites have removed all human interaction from their platform that is not sterile. Although women do prefer more attractive men, women are also more forgiving than men of physical deformities if the man is nevertheless competent, because women are not attracted to the physical features in-of-themselves, but rather to the capacity they represent for a man to be able to adapt to his environment in-order to be able to affirm his will as he pleases. Men, on the contrary, are attracted to the physical attributes of women, since the beauty of a woman a man is able to attract is the metric by which men measure their self-worth with, due to men possessing a will to ascertain a higher value by conquering beauty as his property exclusively, which should be obvious to anyone who looks at what form of pornography men and women indulge in: men watch pornography, whereas women read erotica, since women are more so attracted to the emotional rather than the physical aspect of sex, because Eros is emotion. Moreover, as anyone familiar with otaku culture should be aware of, women like to read yaoi (homosexual erotica) because they are able to indulge in their desire to be conquered without having to deal with the trauma of having been raped, which is the case in most yaoi, particularly in the popular ones.
Contrary to the common misconception of Anima integration, it is not achieved by becoming more effeminate, as that would instead be the result of allowing the Anima to possesses the ego, but rather to become more confident without having to compensate for it by consciously curating oneself to appear overtly masculine, like a teenager who tries to behave like a mature adult but fails due to not understanding what maturity is. Furthermore, Anima possession is a form of psychic regression since it might cause a man to deviate from his natural sexuality and regress into a homosexual. Despite this, the individual is nevertheless conscious of the fact that they are not a woman, whereas transvestites, on the other hand, suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance due to having become wholly possessed by their Anima to the point that they genuinely believe that they are a woman. But apart from that misconception, the most misunderstood Jungian concept is individuation, which is simply the process of transfiguring yourself as you behave in relation to reality into how you would like yourself to behave in relation to reality, or, as it is more commonly referred to as, to "become the best version of yourself," which is to transfigure one's psyche into the Self, the unification of Logos and Eros. The only problem is that this has become much more difficult as of late due to there no longer existing any masculine or feminine role models for the contemporary youth to attempt to emulate in-order to guide them towards the right path. The only saving grace is that whilst it might be much more difficult to achieve in a society as sick as this, it is not an impossible task, since the psychical mechanism to allow for such projection unto others has not disappeared. This is why within the psyche of all men there resides a woman, the Anima, who, like any other woman, has an Animus that governs her by projecting himself unto men who embody the general appearance of certain characteristics that the Animus deems the man should aspire to embody in-order for him to become the best version of himself. Much like a stern father who demands he must approve of his daughter's boyfriend, so, too, must the Animus approve of whether the men who desire to integrate their Anima possess the necessary qualities that the Animus demands of them to embody. Whereas in the past this would have manifested itself as men aspiring to emulate Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Jesus, their father, etc., now has devolved into various cults of personality, centred around internet father figures, like Andrew Tate and other suchlike redpill podcasters, since they, at the very least, encourage men make something out of themselves instead of being complacent, even if these figures themselves are, more often than not, just degenerate grifters.
Throughout the course of history, regardless of its geographical or cultural contingency, the desire of all men, which has been the sole cause of all war and creation, has been freedom. It is for this reason there exists a pipeline between the two seemingly opposing ideologies of Libertarianism and National-Socialism, as a result of many Libertarians having been forced to accept that Libertarianism can only prosper in a culture that is racially homogenous, since it is only in such a culture that establishing a high-trust society necessary for maintaining a Libertarian society is possible. Upon realising this, they convert to National-Socialism, because it, as compared to Libertarianism, is concerned with racial issues. The reason for how this shift is possible is because Libertarians come to realise that their desire for freedom can only be obtained through the separation from other races, the freedom from those races, as both ideologies regard separation at the expense of others to be a necessity in-order for them to be left to their own devices, with Libertarianism emphasising the importance of individual liberty, and National-Socialism emphasising the importance of racial segregation. Although this phenomenon has been occurring now for quite some time on the Right-wing part of the internet, when looking at history, the trend is the inverse. This is because there was no need for them to be concerned with whether their culture was fit for Libertarianism to prosper in, because it was, as a result of previously having embodied the general values of National-Socialism. However, whilst Conservative values are inseparable from National-Socialism, they are not an integral part of Libertarianism, despite many Libertarians, such as Paleo-Libertarians, expressing Conservative values, since it is not a derivative of Conservatism but Neo-Liberalism instead and is therefore only concerned with economic issues, not cultural ones. As a result of this, whenever an empire inevitably adopts the general values of Libertarianism, after having overcome all the obstacles when establishing the empire, it is destined to degenerate, since Libertarianism cannot maintain cultural stability, as it is simply not concerned with it, but will rather encourage decadence to fester due to its overt emphasis on individual liberty. This trend is similar to how a man will live his life (because men are responsible for the creation of empires). During his youth, he will unconsciously improve himself, to the point that one day he matures into a man who the animus of a woman recognises his worth, only to, then, become ugly and fat as he ages, since he has already acquired everything he desires, because what it is that all men desire is to isolate themselves from the rest of the world by creating a Garden of Eden from themselves, after which they can lavish in its comfort for the rest of their lives, or, at the very least, until they are pressured to create another one for themselves. It is for these reasons the desire of all men has always been to, as Freud so eloquently put it, have sex with their mother, "virgin Mary" (contrary to male virginity, female virginity matters, because men do not like to have their property defiled by others), because men desire for their wife to embody the nurturing role their mother previously embodied by cleaning and cooking, so as to care for them. Women, on the other hand, desire for their husband to embody the dominant role their father previously embodied by ruling over the household and defending it. Currently, it is not possible for men to do this, which is why many Libertarians have converted to National-Socialism, because they have correctly sensed that there is a great need to create a soil suitable for this garden to grow in, as their garden is not growing, despite their attempts.
From one man to another, I cannot recommend the reader to ever get married or even so much as to date women in contemporary society. This is because there no longer are any benefits to getting married besides tax reasons. However, the gain from these tax cuts are dwarfed by the staggering amounts of money required to raise children and the almost guaranteed cost of divorce. To understand how much of a negative impact marriage is on a man's life in modern times, it would first be wise to put it into perspective what it is that he used to gain by getting married. Unlike today where women have equal rights, in the past, they were treated like property. If one therefore married a woman, one would have gained absolute authority over her and was free to do as one wished with her. For example, in Rome, the head of the family, the "pater familias," could, if he so wished, kill members of his family. The division of labour was also very different from today. In the past, women were not permitted to work or own a payment card and would instead stay at home, cooking, cleaning, and sewing. Having spent their entire life dedicating themselves to these crafts, most women would naturally be very adept at them, compared to today where the vast majority of women cannot cook, clean, or sew to save their lives. As a side note, it is from this the idea that one of the best forms of cooking is your own mother's cooking stems from. Unfortunately, it has now been rendered an archaic saying, due to the mother's of the younger generations not having been able to cook and have therefore failed to live up to this ideal. If I had to guess, this is the reason why an increasingly larger demographic of younger men have a fetish for MILFs, because they yearn for the motherly love that their mother did not give them. As a side note, I find it to be a case of utmost stupidity how people always put the blame on the child for developing mother or father issues and never blame the parents. It is not the child's fault that their parents were bad role models, because the child cannot chose their parents nor do they have any power over how their parents behave or treat them. In any case, as should be more understandable now, in the past, marriage used to be a benefit to a man, since he would be granted what was essentially a housemaid who would cook and clean for him and whom he could also do whatever he wanted with. Considering that virtually no man likes cooking and cleaning but likes eating good food and living in a clean environment, marriage was seen as a trade with virtually no downsides, since the only downside that could exist was if the women was a bit too uptight and would get on his nerves, in which case, all that he would have to do was beat her until she finally learnt her lesson and kept quiet. What will never make sense to me is how mankind was ever foolish enough to be convinced that having both parents first work 8 hours a day and, then, coming home and doing the chores was somehow beneficial to the husband working 8 hours a day, and his wife taking care of the home for a couple of hours. Mathematically speaking, the latter is clearly more efficient than the former. If even kindergartener could understand this, how stupid is mankind really? This is not even mentioning how doubling the labour force led to wages stagnating and how doubling the average household income led to purchasing power decreasing. When seeing it from this perspective, it should become very obvious that men nowadays gain nothing from marriage, because none of these things are guaranteed by law to them. Nowadays, the only things men gain from marriage are only things they would prefer to have less of, like stress, whereas the things they would prefer to have more of are deprived of them, like money, leisure time, and peace and quiet. As a matter of fact, in the past, men where paid a dowry when they married, which meant that they actually gained money by getting married.
Never in history have women been as overvalued as they are today. In terms of real value, modern women have none. They are useless. And, yet, women have never before been showered with more attention for simply existing. For women, this is great, because that means they do not have to worry about being socially ostracised. However, the problem, for both men and women, is that this has come at the cost of women being able to appeal to men's desires. As stated previously, men desire for their wife to embody the role that their mother previously embodied in their life. However, seeing as women are unable to fulfil this desire, for reasons explained previously, men will, once their sexuality matures from desiring a woman to have sex with to someone that takes cares of them, not want to have anything to do with modern women, because the only thing modern women have to offer to men are their bodies. Ironically enough, even though the goal of feminism was to elevate women from merely being sex to being respected as people, what actually happened was that women went from being someone who was useful to men in their everyday life to being reduced to merely a sex object. In essence, women went from being something attractive to men in the long term to merely being attractive to men in the short term. As for what the consequences of what this may ensue, I can only speculate. However, I think it is fairly obvious that as more and more men realise that women not only provide no benefit to their life but are also a headache to be around and a burden to deal with, less and less women will be desired and the value of women will plummet. To put it in economic terms, the bubble will burst, and the market will correct itself. Despite this, until men force women to be useful to them, I sincerely doubt women will, on their own initiative, "woman up" and become someone men would benefit to have in their life. Basically, the market value will not go up but will instead keep plummeting, until men decide to take the issue into their own hands. This is because women are incredibly lazy. If they can get away with putting in less effort, they will, even if all that is expected of them is to be nice and pleasant to be around instead of being rude and insufferable, to be slim, to be able to cook and clean, and to dress modestly, or, dare I say, temptingly, like wearing a miniskirt. Realistically speaking, none of these things should be difficult to manage, and, yet, women refuse to do them, because they can get away with not doing them, and justify their refusal by claiming that doing these things reduces them to mere sex objects, and, yet, what women choose to do instead is to reduce themselves to nothing more than sex objects. What does make me wonder is whether future generations of men will even be able to conceptualise the possibility of women being something more than mere sex objects as a result of never having seen a woman outside of, then, decade if not a century old fiction act like something more than a mere sex object. At the absolute worst, men will most likely develop way less empathy for women, as they will only perceive them as disposable sex toys, and will therefore probably barely even treat them like people, which, if I remember correctly, would be the exact opposite outcome of what feminism was supposed to accomplish. Pottery.
When confronted with the fact that today's women pale in comparison to yesteryear's, tradcucks like to claim that women are like clay because they are malleable. This is true, because contrary to men who value dignity, honour, loyalty, and respect (the ever elusive "bro code") due to valuing the truth, as discussed in my other essay The Genesis of Morality as the Beginning of the End, women have no sense of loyalty, since women must be able to swiftly adapt to the virtues of the men that governs them in-order to be considered "attractive" and "feminine" to receive their protection. Women are instead only loyal to the most powerful patriarch in any given social milieu, due to women having been forced to abandon their tribe and children in-order to bear the children of the men who conquered the tribe they previously belonged to and have therefore evolved to not suffer feelings of guilt induced from betrayal in-order to survive. Whereas men concern themselves with objects and ideas because they they could contribute to the development of society, women only pretend to care about objects and ideas as a proxy for their concern with social affairs in-order to make themselves appear more socially acceptable and therefore attractive in-order to prevent themselves from being ostracised from society and be deprived off their protection. Whereas men have always searched for the truth, regardless of the consequences, there is nothing women abhor more than the truth, for they are incapable of ever telling the truth, as everything they say is nothing more than a half-spun truth, conveniently curated to make themselves appear more socially acceptable at the expense of others, since women can only rise to the top of the social hierarchy by tainting the reputation of others, because they cannot create, only destroy. Women "like" to curate their appearance by making themselves look more beautiful by applying make-up, nail polish, jewellery, dressing feminine, and behaving in a manner that makes them seem to uphold the virtues of the status quo only because they desire to be perceived as attractive to men in-order to receive their protection, but their entire charade is nothing more than a mere façade, a complete and utter lie in appearance, character, and spirit. The problem with their claim is not that women are not malleable or susceptible to group-think, but that they believe themselves to be able to mould the clay that is a woman because they are the most powerful patriarch in her life without realising that by being a husband they are the least powerful patriarch in her life. This is because modern marriage is nothing more than a series of various humiliation rituals for men. Despite wanting to get chocked in bed because they want to submit to a strong man, woman have made it impossible for their man to maintain his status as strong in the relationship, because it is not men who hold the power in marriage any more, like in the past, but it is instead women. The reason for this is because of no-fault divorce laws, which have made it so that either party in a marriage can divorce the other, regardless of whether there is a legitimate reason for the divorce, and regardless of the other party's consent or opinion on the matter. This in combination with the fact that beatings are illegal, means that if a woman senses even the slightest hint of danger, they will simply divorce their husband to avoid that danger, without giving their husband the chance to correct the issue or to simply beat the neuroticism out of her. For women, this is not an issue because, as previously discussed, they are not capable of loyalty, only subservience to whatever it is that has proven itself most capable of protecting them. For men, however, divorce is a problem, because the divorce system in every Western nation heavily favours women, which means that the usual result of every divorce is that the husband loses everything and is forced to give huge sums of money to his former wife, both in the form of child support and because all their assets are "split" (women get the very vast majority under the guise of it being used to raise the kids) between them. What this means is that women are incentivised to file for divorce because they are not only able to avoid the danger they worry about but are also able to distance the kids from the danger by taking them away from their father (who represents the danger because he has to contest with it), in addition to still being able to raise their kids due to receiving child support. In other words, from their naïve perspective, it removes the danger without introducing any new danger. However, as they all soon come to realise, they are all miserable, because, without men, women are useless. To avoid this, married men are forced to carry out every single command issues to them by their wife, so as to remove any and all danger as soon as possible, lest they risk getting divorce-raped, all because they did not want to do the dishes. However, even if they were to successfully carry out every command without fail, they would still run the risk of getting divorce-raped, because women do not like submissive men and would therefore still divorce-rape them for not making them feel safe enough by appearing to them as dominant. It is for these reasons that the traditional housewife meme that is popular amongst tradcuck is nothing more than the product of pure delusion in-order for them to cope with the nihilistic gravity of reality, so as to delude themselves that they can find a unicorn admits the hivemind of women whose morality has been conditioned by feminism and #metoo to have been rendered completely unable to establish any form of long-term relationship, wherein they submit to a man, due to being possessed by their Animus. Come to think of it, do you know why they are called "unicorns?" It is not because unicorns are a rare specimen to find in nature, but rather because they do not exist outside of your own delusions, since women are all the same, without exception, because women are the products of the norms of society.
The single most despairing revelation I have ever had is that the contemporary so-called "Right," which ideally should be a patriarchal cult of virility, has degenerated into a matriarchal cult of fertility, as the only present aim of the so-called "Right" is to protect women and increase birthrates, regardless of whether men benefit from marriage. If analysed from this perspective, a lot of beliefs tradcucks hold suddenly make sense. For example, the only reason tradcucks oppose transvestites is because those who transition from male to female are perceived as being a threat to women, which is why basically the only topic that is ever discussed regarding that debate is that male to female transvestites should not be allowed in the women's bathrooms. The only reason they care about this is because they perceive it as a threat for men to "invade" the safe spaces of women (their bathroom) since those men could potentially rape women, due to there being no other men besides them to defend the women from them. However, as for the female to male transvestites, they could not care less, because those women are not a perceived as vulnerable due to having intentionally rendered themselves ugly and therefore not worthy of being raped. To provide another example, the only reason tradcucks oppose pornography and masturbation is because they provide men with the means of freeing themselves from the shackles of women, which is why their "argument" as to why pornography should be banned is because they want men to be forced to depend on women to satisfy their sexual needs. Furthermore, the only reason there is a social stigma to watching pornography is because it is in direct competition with women for the interest of men by being a substitute for the need of women, since, because women are completely useless on their own and completely depend on men for to survive, they have evolved to look attractive so that men will keep them around to use them to satisfy their sexual needs with. However, as for the smut women read to satisfy their sexual needs with, there is no social stigma to it, because, due to a lack of imagery, it cannot be used as a substitute to women for men to satisfy their sexual needs with, for reasons previously explained.
Despite portraying themselves as Conservatives, these tradcucks are only really Conservative in name only, because they do not advocate for traditional values, like women having no rights and them being treated as nothing more than property that is to be exchanged between men, but instead base their entire weltanschauung around the principle of defending women at the expense of men, because these people are not concerned about men in the slightest. Strictly speaking, the only difference between them and Leftists is that Leftists are at the very least honest about the fact that they absolutely despise men, whereas tradcucks only pretend to care about men in an attempt to snare them into their spiderweb, and, before their victim has even realised the danger they have found themselves in, they devour them whole. This is because they could not give less of a fuck about what we, men, think or want, because they do not see us as fellow, living beings with our own emotions and desires. If they did, they would not treat us as mere cogs in the machine that is society, because, like in a factory, the only time an individual cog is given any amount of care or attention is when it is perceived as faulty, due to not working as intended or not as smoothly as intended. If they cared about us, they would try to understand what our terms for signing the social contract are, what our demands are, what our desires are, what it is that we want out of society in exchange for participating in it. However, they offer us no sympathy, no love, no olive branch, no helping hand. Nothing. Because they do not give a shit about us. So long as we, men, continue to function as cogs, so long as we do what we are told without question, so long as we slave away, they could not care any less about what we want. When, however, we are perceived as defective, when production comes to a halt, when we do not do as we are told, all they do is to demand of us to "man up," to get back on the plantation and continue to slave away, because we have suddenly become a potential threat to the system. As such, they try to neuter us by attempting to shame us by portraying us to others as pathetic and weak in an attempt to convince us that the way we are currently behaving (which is the only legitimate threat to the system) is socially unacceptable and therefore bad, and that if we want to be perceived as socially acceptable and therefore good, in-order to not get mocked by the rest of society, we have to instead embody the character they contrast us with. And, as if things could not get degenerate enough, this only tells us that the contrast, the so-called "respectable" and "strong" "man," is a cuck. In other words, the ideal man in contemporary society is a weak-spirited, neutered, husk of a man, who has no will of his own, no needs or desires of his own, but who is merely a slave whose only purpose is to do whatever it is that society demands of him. This is the so-called "ideal" "man" they contrast us with when they try to shame us into behaving as they want us to.
According to tradcucks and women, men exist to serve women. They demand of men that they "need to do X," whereas they tell women that they "deserve X." They demand of men to "man up," but do not expect women to "woman up." They demand that men do everything and to never dare to expect anything in return from women because the woman is apparently a reward in-of-itself. This is because they seem to be under the impression that women have an "inherent value," whereas men do not. The problem is that this is not a truth-statement. It is instead only the perspective of men. In this case, "women" does not indicate "all women," because when a man thinks of women, he does not think of the average woman or an ugly woman. He instead thinks of attractive women. It should also be noted that the "men" here also does not mean "all men" but instead means "all men but me." When understood from this perspective, it suddenly makes sense as to how "women" have an inherent value, whereas "men" do not. From the perspective of a man, the reason why even men with good genes do not have an inherent value to him is because that does not matter to him since he cannot reproduce with them, regardless of whether they have good or bad genes. The only thing that makes them valuable to him is whether they have the competence to fulfil a need of his, which is were the idea of men being "disposable" comes from. To men, only women have an "inherent value" because it is only with women that men can reproduce with. Any quality or the lack of quality, for that matter, besides that is of no consequence to them because everything besides that is useless to whether they can pass their genes unto someone with good genes. As it would turn out, this perspective is incredibly beneficial to women, which is why they agree with it, since if they can convince men that they are disposable and that the only way they can become valuable is by serving women, as they have an inherently higher value than them and therefore deserve to be catered to, then they do not need to worry about being socially ostracised, since they have obtained the rank of being inherently valuable to society, as well as having eliminated the potential risk of danger, as all they need to do is to demand that a man attends to their needs. However, this is where the "truthfulness" of this statement ends. First of all (and I know that this is very high level biologically but bear with me now), men also have genes, which is why men with good genes have an inherent value to women. In other words, both men and woman have an "inherent value" so long as they have good genes. Additionally, it is not only men who think of other men as "disposable." Women also regard other women as "disposable." To them, they only value other women have to them is to increase their value. If they provide no value to them, they are useless. In other words, women do not regard other women as "inherently valuable." And who is the most "woman" of all? Mother nature. According to Oxford Languages, the definition of "disposable" is, "intended to be thrown away after use." When observing how women are treated, it seems as if their only use to men is whether they are fit to rear their children or satisfy their sexual desires. After which, they are useless to men. In other words, it is not men who are disposable but it is instead women that are disposable. Biologically speaking, this is true. Men are able to fertilise women until the day die, whereas women lose their ability to get pregnant after having undergone menopause. Additionally, if all these so-called "disposable" men where to die off, what would happen, then? Nothing, because women would not do anything. After some time, they would die from dehydration. This is because women are useless. Without men, they would go extinct, because women are unable to create. As such, it is not men who should be expected to slave away to have the chance of getting a crumb of pussy, because it is not men who owe women anything, but it is instead women who owe men everything and should therefore be expected to render themselves completely to men, because, without us, without civilisation, without electricity, water, food, shelter, and everything else that civilisation offer that was invented and created by men, women would have gone extinct before the invention of the wheel, because they are completely and utterly useless.
It has become an undeniable fact that the younger generation of men are more Right-wing compared to their elders. However, this is nothing more than a dud. From what I have observed, although men are becoming increasingly more frustrated with how society treats them, it seems as if they have no actual intention of ever reforming the system in any meaningful way. They are merely frustrated with society because they have been forced to recognise that they will have to exert more effort compared to their forefathers in-order to be able to "make it." This is because, at heart, they are still simps, who wish for nothing more than to marry and have children, regardless of whether they will be forced to work harder for those things than previous generations. What this means is that the result of this sudden rise in Right-wing thought amongst young men will amount to nothing, because they have no intention of repealing women's rights. This is also why the rise of Right-wing thought in general is nothing more than a dud, because the reason why Right-wing thought has become more prevalent is the direct consequence of these young men. It should also be noted that this is the reason why younger people are turning to Christianity. The reason for this is because Christianity promotes the idea that every individual must atone for their sins to attain salvation. As a result of this heavy importance given to individual responsibility, the protestant work ethic came to emerge. After many centuries, this doctrine has now been instilled into the very fabric of European culture. As a side note, the reason so many Christians seem to be naturally drawn to Libertarianism and Capitalism, despite both of these ideologies being in stark contrast to the actual teachings of Christ, is because of this importance placed on individual responsibility. From this, it is possible to understand why tradcucks seem so hell-bent on forcing men to get in line, because they believe it is the individual's duty to "bear their cross," to "man up." They honestly believe that if one were to even suggest the possibility that there is anything wrong with society, anything at all, that it is simply one's own responsibility to deal with it, not society's. Naturally, they do not expect women to "woman up," because they are simps. This is also because of Christianity. In the Bible, it is stated that marriage is sacred, which, over time, has evolved into an obligation amongst tradcucks to marry if they want to attain salvation. This is why they believe women are perfect angels that can do no wrong, because, if they do not delude themselves that is the case and instead start to question their actions, they fear they will not attain salvation. If this was their only faults, I would not care too much about them. After all, they are not any different from any other kind of simp. Only difference is that they present themselves as Christian. The problem is that tradcuckholdry has come to represent what the values of the so-called "Right" are, which means that there no longer exist a "Right-wing," because tradcucks are not Right-wing, since they hate men, like all other Leftists. Does the reader now understand what I meant by "99.99% of 'people' hate men," despite circa 50% of the population voting "Right-wing?" Because they are not actually "Right-wing," because they hate men, both Left and "Right." Regardless of what party is in control, their only objective is to make life as miserable as possible for men. That is it. They do not care about anything else. If tradcucks where to be put into control and were given the freedom to do whatever they wanted to, they would instantly ban all forms of entertainment, like anime, manga, video games, pornography, because all they want is for men to be slaves, working 24/7. If, on the other hand, Marxists where to be put into control and where given the same amount of freedom to do whatever they wanted to, there would be no difference because we already live in a Marxist dystopia.
An unfortunately all too common belief amongst tradcucks is that women are like children and can therefore not be held accountable for the consequences of their own actions, because you obviously cannot hold a child responsible for their own actions, can you? Corporal punishment and, generally speaking, parenting your own children to ensure that they behave themselves properly, so that they can function in society, is, after all, literally Fascism. Of course, let us ignore the part where tradcucks believe corporal punishment should be reinstated... The fundamental error in their logic is that they expect women to be treated as if they did not have equal rights to men, and that men are therefore supposed to treat them as if they did not have equal rights to men, in a society where women do, in fact, have equal rights to men. The reason women were safeguarded from danger in the past was because they were rightfully deemed to be inferior to men. That is why only men had rights, whereas women were treated as property, because they were recognised as not being equal to men and were therefore not deservant of the same rights as men. By granting women equal rights, by deeming women to be equal to men, there no longer exists any reason for men to safeguard women from danger, because they have been legally recognised as being equal to men, which means they should be able to handle danger on their own, lest they are not actually equal to men and therefore do not deserve to enjoy the same rights as men. In other words, if tradcucks wish for a return to chivalry, women must first once again be rightfully recognised as being inferior to men and have their rights repealed. Until then, until women are not equal to men, they, like men, will have to be forced to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. But let us not kid ourselves here. In reality, women act as if they do not have to take accountability for their own actions because simps still treat them as if they do not have to, which naturally makes one wonder why they still have equal rights to men when they refuse take responsibility for what those rights entail, why simps still act as if women deserve equal rights when they clearly do not, and why simps, by thinking women deserve equal rights to men and are therefore equal to men, still treat women as if they are inferior to men when they have already been recognised by the legal system to be equal to men? As a matter of fact, women have far more rights than men due to simps treating them as if they did not have any rights by pampering them to compensate for their non-existent lack of rights. For example, if the police is called for suspected domestic abuse, the police will automatically take the woman's side and assume, without prior knowledge, that the man was abusing her. Does that seem as if women have less rights than men? Does that seem as if society treats men better than women? Do we really need give women more leeway when they clearly already have that in abundance? Is it not time for us to finally treat women as if we were truly equals by taking off their training wheels and see how gravity treats them? Of course, none of these things would ever be allowed to happen due to the existence of simps. This is due to the unfortunate fact that the vast majority of so-called "men" cannot overcome their instinctual inclination for simping, because they want to pass on their genes, as simping (defending women from external threats), historically speaking, would ensure that they would be able to procreate, as not doing so would mean that they would instead be killed and have their women abducted from them. The reason this is a problem is because it has made it impossible to criticise the behaviour of women, as their simps will without fail be quick to fervently grasp at straws in-order to excuse any form of degenerate behaviour exhibited from women as "natural," since women, apparently, do not have any obligation to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. According to them, only men have to bear, not only the responsibility of their own actions, but the actions of women as well, since, apparently, that is what their ancestors did, disregarding the fact that their ancestors punished adultery with death. What this unfortunately means is that Western Civilisation cannot be saved because simps would not allow it to be saved by removing women from the driver's seat, as the reason for the decline is because we are currently stuck in a negative feedback loop of women suffering the consequences of their own actions only to, then, continue to vote for policies and enact legislatives that further worsen those conditions, which is caused by Jewish bankers exploiting women's instincts to protect their children, and whose existence is ensured by simps continuing to protect women from any perceived external threat, even if that supposed "threat" is in reality an attempt to fix the system.
I am certain the reader has at least heard some form of retelling of the quote, "hard times create strong men; strong men create good times; good times create weak men; weak men create hard times," which, although correct, has been misinterpreted by tradcucks, for, when presented with this, they mistakenly believe themselves to be the strong men, when, in reality, they are the weak men. Given everything that has hitherto been discussed, it is possible to surmise that what constitutes "strength," according to them, is submitting yourself to the whims of women and treating such whims as if they were infallible, whereas the opposite of not caring what women think or want is perceived as being weak. What tradcucks therefore fail to realise is that is not the fault of the supposed "weak" men that the West is declining, for these men are not weak but are instead strong, and that it is in actuality their own fault that the West is declining, for they are not the "strong" "men" they believe themselves to be be but are instead the weak men who are perpetuating the decline of the West by defending women's right to destroy Western civilisation. It is for these reasons I urge the reader not to put the blame on "men" wholesale for this but to instead narrow their accusations to "simps" only. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
In the mind of women, there are only two classes: the oppressor and the oppressed. The oppressors are bad because they have the potential to rape women and harm the oppressed, whereas the oppressed are good, as they conflate the oppressed with being their children, which they feel an instinctual duty to protect from the oppressors. This is why they do not think immigrants can be rapists, because only the oppressors have that capacity to rape, not the oppressed. If it was not already obvious, the European, heterosexual men (the patriarchy) are always the oppressors, because we are at the top of the dominance hierarchy, due to having conquered and ruled over all other races. Therefore, the closer a person, from an intersectionalist perspective, is to that ideal, the more "privileged" they are, because privilege is gained by having power in the same vein money grants freedom and power, as the only reason someone can be an oppressor is if they have more power than the oppressed. On the other hand, the further away a person is from that ideal, the less privileged they are, because they have less power than the oppressors and are therefore thought as being oppressed, as there is the possibility of them being oppressed by the oppressors, not if that is the reality, which is why women will screech about the patriarchy despite it not existing, because despite how much women may try to neuter men legally, they know, instinctually, that every single man has the power to kill any woman if he so desires. As a side note, the reason why there is no class for the patriarchy when it is instilled for the purpose of protecting women from danger is because women cannot fathom the possibility of men not doing this, regardless of whether men benefit from it, regardless of what. In other words, women expect men to "man up" regardless of how poor the quality of the selection of women to man up for gets. And, as much as it pains me to admit, they are correct: simps have no standards whatsoever. But to get back on track, the reason for this self-entitlement is because women have never needed to protect themselves nor their children from any actual, tangible danger, which could pose a risk to their life, other than social disputes. They have only ever needed to keep themselves and their children within the confines of the parameter that is deemed "safe" in-order to remain safe. They have never needed to actually defend that parameter in-order to keep it safe, as that has always been the duty of men. For this reason, women are incapable of understanding danger, because they have never been exposed to it, and can therefore not recognise it. As such, so long as they are within the safety zone, they believe themselves to be immune to all forms of danger, as, historically speaking, the places they would always reside in would be kept safe from any real danger that could threaten their lives. It is for these reason, they do not understand what it means to work, what it means to keep society running, from falling apart, because they have never needed to do that and can therefore not fathom the possibility of society not functioning. Only men understand these things, because only men have ever kept society running. As such, they expect everything to simply be given to them on a silver platter, because simps keep giving them everything they demand on a silver platter. This is why Marxists believe everyone could simply live on UBI, and no one would have to work, because they do not understand what it even means to work, since they honestly expect society could be kept running without anyone maintaining it. But to get back on topic, the reason women treat immigrants as if they were children is because they believe them to be oppressed by virtue of not being European, heterosexual men, the oppressors, as anything below that rank can be oppressed by them. As such, they invite them into their home to protect them from the patriarchy, which is a strange thing to do when you really think about it. Is their country not supposed to be ruled by the patriarchy? How can they protect them from the patriarchy by inviting them into the safe zone governed by the patriarchy? Because the oppressors have to always remain outside the designated safety zone, which might be the reason why no woman has ever managed to produce any tangible evidence of this supposed patriarchy, as it does not exist domestically, but is instead something lurking in the dark woods outside, like every other boogeyman women warned their children about, so that they do not step outside the safety zone. However, as it would turn out, immigrants rape women far more frequently than their native counterpart, but because immigrants belong to the oppressed group, they can do no wrong, as only the oppressors have the power and capacity to be a potential force of real danger. And who are the oppressors? European, heterosexual men. And what does this demographic overwhelmingly vote for? Conservatism. And what does Conservatism oppose? Mass-immigration. Therefore, the only logical thing to do is not only to continue to support mass-immigration but to further protect immigrants from the patriarchy, as the patriarchy has now begun to threaten their dear children, who can obviously do no wrong, despite them being the actual rapists.
Despite the fact that it may seem as if Europeans are about to go extinct, the reality of the situation is that we will survive for a very long time, as the future of Europeans is assured so long as there remains one man and one woman alive, and, as it currently stands, there are millions of both men and women left, with many more being born every day. As such, the problem with a declining population has nothing to do with the survival of Europeans but has instead to do with economics. The reason for this is because the global economy is based on the belief of infinite growth to sustain itself, which is why a shrinking population is thought of as problem, because, if there are less people, if there are less consumers, then sales will decline, which is a problem, because if sales do not infinitely continue to increase, which is only possible either if there are more consumers or if the already existent customer base accounts for more sales, then the global economy will collapse. The first reason for this is due to the welfare system, which is based on the belief that those who contribute to society by producing any real value should be punished for doing so, whereas those who do not contribute to society but instead only drain resources from it should be rewarded for doing so. Obviously, given the incentive structure, if people are disincentivised to work and are instead incentivised to collect unemployment checks or other kinds of welfare checks, people will not work, because there is no incentive for it, which is why unemployment rates among young men are rising, as they are all realising, in addition to being discriminated against for getting hired even if they wanted to, that work will not reward them for things they should be expected to get, so instead of wasting their lives performing meaningless work, they choose to make the best out of a bad situation by dedicating their lives to their hobbies. The reason this is a problem is because the only demographic that are a tax net-positive are men, and if men suddenly stop paying taxes and instead also become a burden on the deficit, then more taxes need to be collected, which leads to taxes being raised, which leads to even less men working, and suddenly you have created a negative feedback loop that will only end once the economy implodes on itself. In any sane society, which did not actively fight, tooth and nail, to torture its male population by making life for them as miserable as possible, something like this would never have been allowed to happen, because working, young men should not be punished for contributing to society but should instead be rewarded for doing so, in the form of a functioning society, clean streets, a stable economy, low crime, a house, a wife, food on the table, etc., whereas those who live off of the welfare of others should be punished for doing so. But the exact opposite is unfortunately our current reality, as our taxes directly fund every attempt to undermine our ability to enjoy these things, and we are sick of it. Secondly, even if men continued to work, as there were legitimate incentive structures in place that rewarded them for working, due to how the pension system works, the economy would still collapse, because the pension system requires for the younger demographics to outweigh the older demographics, as it has simply proven itself to be that costly, which is why infinite growth is necessary, as that is the only means of perpetually maintaining this delicate balance. However, due to the fact that birthrates are falling, this means that the pension system will not be able to sustain itself and will need to be shut down, lest the government started to simply print the money to fund it, but even the government is not that stupid (I hope), because that would lead to hyper-inflation. The obvious solution to this problem would be that instead of stealing money from young men, which could have gone to buying property so that they would be able to house a family, only to extend the life support of those with one foot in the grave already by a meagre few years, it would be far more reasonable for every household to fund their own retirement, since that would make their retirement independent of fluctuations in demographics, or to simply bring back multi-generational housing.
The fetishisation of birth rates amongst so-called "men" is perplexing, because men should, biologically speaking, only care about objects, not people. To primarily care for people is something women do, not men. It is for these reason I do not recognise simps, cuckservatives, and the like as real men, due to the fact that they are very obviously possessed by their Anima to such a degree that their behaviour and morality are the same as women's, as should be obvious given the fact that they argue in the same manner as women, as previously explained. It is also for these reasons there is a very dangerous hazard in adopting National-Socialism as our primary ideology, because it was originally created for the purpose of increasing the quantity of the German people by increasing birth rates and increasing the lebensraum of the German people, so that there could live more Germans in Germany, so as to accommodate for the increase in birth rates. It would therefore not be an exaggeration to say that National-Socialism was fundamentally based on simping. This should not come as a surprise to anyone remotely familiar with the movement given that one of the most commonly used "arguments" by yesteryear's white-nationalists was to compare European women to shitskinned women in an attempt to convince men that "the beauty of the white Aryan woman must not perish from this world" It should also be noted that the reason anime or, to be more precise, waifuism was so easily integrated into the culture of National-Socialism to promote it by having cute anime girls show support for it was because it served the same purpose as the previous example of "preserving the beauty of the Aryan woman," due to the fact that anime characters or, to be more precise, cute anime girls look more European than Asian. This is because both examples are fundamentally rooted in the idealisation of Eros. The former example romanticises the superior superior sex appeal of European woman compared to all other races, which causes men to feel the desire to preserve and protect this beauty from being diluted with inferior genes. The latter example romanticise the innocent and naïve behaviour exhibited from women if they are attracted to you (which is also known as "moe" in otaku culture), which evokes an affectionate response from men due to their fatherly instinct to protect the volatile Eros from danger, which is made possible for the viewer to indulge in only when it is expressed in fiction, due to them being detached from the irritable consequences of moe. It should lastly be noted that the reason lolicon (pedophilia) is so common amongst otaku is because lolicon is the idealisation of moe due to it being the idealisation of the innocence and naivete found in childhood. In other words, National-Socialism, from its inception to present time, begins and ends with the preservation of European women. If that is not the textbook definition of simping, I frankly do not know what is. At best, all we can really do is to hope that the movement will not be co-opted by simps who think women's rights should not be repealed by hoping that our efforts in bringing this issue to light succeeds.
At their core, the aim of every political ideology is an attempt to answer the following two questions, "how do I make sure my ideology gains power?," and "how do I make sure that other ideologies do not usurp power?" To answer these questions, it should be wise to first clarify what ideology it is that we want to gain power, and what it is that we do not want to gain power. As should be obvious, we want National-Socialism to gain absolute power, and we do not want women and simps to hold any power. When looking at it from such a bird's eye view, the solution to politics becomes laughably easy: ban all women and simps from voting, and only allow non-simping men to vote. The reason why we should not abandon democracy in favour of, for example, monarchy is simply because there is nothing inherently wrong with democracy. All problems we face in contemporary society is not because of democracy but rather because we allow those unfit to vote to vote. As such, if those who are unfit to vote were to be stripped off their voting rights, our democracy would work as intended. In contrast, the same cannot be said for monarchism, because, at its core, the very basis of monarchism is simply to consolidate power into a single individual. Although its proponents may think this individual will be on their side and ensure that their ideology is maintained, whilst suppressing their opponents, there is absolutely nothing inherent to monarchism that ensures this, because there is nothing inherent to monarchism that ensures what ideology the king may have (besides that they have absolute power to enact whatever ideology they may have). In other words, if they king happens to be a Marxist, they may use their position to create a Marxist society. After which, they abolish the monarchy and, suddenly, we do not live in the society that we want to live in anymore. Although, monarchists acknowledge that not every king can be good and that there will be bad kings, there seems to be the unwillingness to accept that simply because a nation has a king does not mean that king will be a National-Socialist. In contrast, if we were to instead simply have a democracy where only the non-simping men would be allowed to vote, there would be no reason to worry about whether there will be a guaranteed future supply of good rulers, because, despite the fact that simps will always exist and outnumber the non-simping men, there will always, at the very least, be a few non-simping men as well, who will be able to rule. There would also be no reason to worry about whether these men would be fit to rule, because all that is demanded of them is to simply not allow women and simps to vote, which they would not, because they are not simps. The problem is not necessarily whether these men will be National-Socialists or not. The problem is ensuring that women and simps are not allowed to vote, because, if they are not, then feminism (what is destroying our society) would never be able to gain any political power, and women would never be able to gain equal rights, which would prevent them from voting for the destruction of their own fatherland, all because simps would not be able to vote for any feminist policies, since the only ones who would be able to vote would be the non-simping men, who would immediately be able to understand that feminism is a cancer and therefore not vote for it, because they are not simps. So long as this never happens, it really does not matter if the non-simping men where to mess up by, for example, allowing mass immigration from shitskin countries, since they would be able to correct course by deporting them all when they realise that they are a net-negative for society, unlike today when women and simps prevent us from doing this. In contrast, there is nothing preventing a king from being a simp, which means that there is no guarantee that they would never abolish the monarchy in favour of democracy and giving equal rights to women.
The only remaining question is how do we determine whether a man is a simp or not? The answer is simple: if given the opportunity, simps marry, whereas non-simps do not. It is important to note that this form of governance is not an "incelcracy." If anything, this is a "mgtowcracy." In other words, it is intended to give absolute power over society to those who, even in a society where women would be property, would never marry. In contrast, if given the opportunity, there is nothing more that the average incel would want more than to marry. This is because incels are merely simps who are denied their desire to simp. With that being said, since the only criterion (thus far discussed) for being eligible to vote is that a man must never have been married, if this type of governance where to be implemented today, incels would be eligible to vote, because they, by definition, are not married. Naturally, if all these incels where to gain absolute power over a society that denies them the ability to satiate their desires, they are, understandably, going to create a society that will allow them to satiate their desires by, for example, repealing women off their rights and, generally speaking, giving men absolute power over women, which is precisely the result we want. If it was not already obvious, this means that, like with the previous example with mass immigration, there is a built-in safety mechanism into the system. If society is not working as intended by rewarding men with the normal life they desire for contributing to it, more men will be incels, which means they will never marry. If so, they will be granted the power to change society and will therefore use that power to fix the problems they are facing in society, which would make society work as intended again. Provided it is a society that is working as intended, to ensure that no simps could ever be allowed to vote, no one under 27 years of age would be allowed to vote and, once one has cast one's first vote, one is not allowed to marry or live with a female other than a family member. The result would be that no simp would ever dare to vote, because the threat of not being able to marry would scare them off, which is the reason why the voting age is so high relative to what we are accustomed to. If a man turns 27 years of age, he should be well aware whether he wants to marry or not and should there be able to decide whether he wants to be able to vote or not. However, this is not the case with men in their early 20s, who most likely have yet to truly figure out what they want to do in life, which is why, if the voting age was any lower, there would be a much higher risk of these men voting, thinking that they do not want to marry, only to, then, regret their vote when they later come to realise that they actually want to marry. To ensure that women and simps are never allowed to vote as to prevent the slighest risk of feminism gaining any power whatsoever and ensure that normal, simp men are able to satiate their desire to simp, preventing this from happening should be our utmost priority. It should be noted that, because one is not allowed to marry once one has voted, if an incel decides to vote to fix society, as described previously, he would not be able to vote. As it stands, this is a sacrifice he must be willing to make, or maybe a sort of pardon could be given to him. This is all speculation, after all. The important thing is merely that these incels are given the possibility to fix society if it goes awry and if those in power refuse to do anything about it. It should also be noted that because older generations have no understanding of the present challenges younger people face due to having grown up in a different time period with different challenges that required different solutions, as explained in more detail in The Genesis of Morality as the Beginning of the End, men over the age of 40 would not be able to vote, because, like how society should not exist to serve those who do not contribute to it but should instead exist to serve those who do contribute to it, so, too, should society not exist to serve older generations but should instead exist to serve younger generations, as it is not the older generations who have to work to overcome the present challenges in society to succeed, but it is instead the younger generations who face those issues and therefore deserve to be the ones who hold the power to correct those issues for themselves.
What is "beauty?" Beauty is the idealisation of the struggle to ascertain it, due to it being a measure of an object's worth, since human beauty is determined by the quality of their genes, as the features that are considered attractive are more suited for survival, because they are the result of millennia of struggle to persevere in-order for their offspring to become healthy and strong. As for the beauty of art, it is instead a measure of the techniques applied during its creation, as an expert will be able to appreciate the skill required to paint the Mona Lisa better than the layman, in addition to its history and meaning, as the infamous, blank, full-page with only the words "the heart" in Bleach has been the target of much criticism by speed-readers, whereas any reader with even a figment of reading comprehension would have been able to appreciate its beauty. Was it not for van Gogh's unfortunate demise, would he ever have been revered as a great painter, seeing as his work was never appreciated during his lifetime? On the flip side, the reason an excessive use of gold or colour in general, like building a house in Minecraft made entirely out of diamond, is perceived as "tacky" is because they are an immature attempt to inflate the value of something, in a similar vein to how teenagers try to act like adults, which is the reason is the reason every kid who has ever played Minecraft has built a house made out of either diamonds, because they mistakenly believe that only appearances matters, when in reality is the history behind the appearance that gives meaning to it. For example, the reason diamonds, both in real life and in Minecraft, are valued as highly as they are is due to scarcity. If they were not rare, like flowers, then they would not be as expensive as they are, due to their supply being much higher. As such, if added to a necklace, a diamond is perceived as elevating the worth of that necklace, because the attainment of that necklace has suddenly become much more difficult to accomplish. This is why a diamond house made in survival is perceived as better looking than one made in creative mode, because it is not the house in-of-itself that is admired, but rather the effort it took to built it. On the topic of flowers, as mentioned previously, despite the fact that flowers are considerably more common than diamonds, they are still perceived as being very pretty. The reason for this is because flowers are extremely colourful, offering a stark contrast to the green background they are generally found in, which emphasises its colours and therefore beauty even further, because the more colourful something is, the healthier it is. For example, do you not tell someone who is sick that they "look pale?" And do you not tell someone who has recently been on their way to recovery that "colour has returned to their cheeks?" The reason, however, an excessive use of colour is perceived as "ugly" is because most things found in nature, living and inanimate, typically consist of only a few colours, which makes their individual colours stick out, due to the sharp contrasts between them, whereas a splash of different colours results in poor colour contrast, which makes it more difficult to tell what parts are which, like how the stalk of a flower is green and the head is red, which, although may seem healthy due to having a lot of colour, ironically enough, looks unhealthy, because it seems to consist of only one colour instead of many, as the chaotic clash of colour is instead merely perceived as noise. It is for this reason older video games look better compared to newer ones, because older titles are not plagued with technology that intentionally smudges the colour contrast between objects and makes the games look murky, whereas older ones are typically praised for their texture sharpness.
The average women is ugly without hair. If you wish to verify this for yourself, simply begin to picture all the women you see on the streets without their hair. Do this for a long enough time, and you will soon be forced to accept the fact that almost no women are actually attractive. As a matter of fact, you will soon realise that even the most attractive women have no better skulls than the stereotypical incel. The only women that are actually worthy of being called "attractive" without their hair are only the >9/10. The rest are dysgenic. This is because women have never experienced any real form of evolutionary pressure since the very vast majority of women who have lived have had children. In other words, no matter if a woman was a 1/10 or a 10/10, their genes would have been passed on, unless they died before that from illness or were murdered. What this has ultimately led to is that the very vast majority of women are dysgenic and ugly. This is in stark contrast to men who, on average, look perfectly fine without their hair. As a matter of fact, compared to women who can, at best, only look passable whilst bald, there are men who can look extremely attractive despite being bald due to having a very defined jawline. There is also the fact that even the most attractive women need to cake themselves in make-up in-order to rank on the same level of attractiveness as the most attractive men look naturally as they roll out of bed. The reason why men have so much better genes than women is because a great deal of evolutionary pressure has always been put on men throughout history. This pressure has been so strong, as a matter of fact, that most men who have lived have not passed on their genes, as only the strongest genes have been passed on, which naturally led to only the attractive genes (the genes most suitable for survival) having been passed on. This problem will be amplified in the coming generations because a substantial amount of attractive and intelligent people will not reproduce as a result of having come to realise that women cannot be trusted and should be avoided like the plague. The attractive man (the "chad") will have come to realise through his countless experiences with many different women that they are all the same, that they have no sense of loyalty, and that they are a danger to themselves. On the other hand, the intelligent man will have come to the same conclusion by spending an awful lot of time on the internet and will therefore naturally come to absorb redpill and blackpill content, regardless of whether he had intended to do so. Upon learning this, he will very easily recognise the patterns from his interaction with women, whether that may be much or very little, that they are correct. This is not to say that these qualities are mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible to possess both qualities. Instead, it is meant to highlight the different ways a man may come to realise that women are the problem. What this will result in is that only the mediocre men (simps) will reproduce with the equally mediocre women, which will only further degenerate the quality of European genes, because the attractive and intelligent people will have very understandably chosen to not reproduce. Once women will have had their rights repealed in 100 years from now (if we were to be optimistic), the solution to this problem will be genetic engineering and eugenics. Frankly, if all men were "chads" and if all women were "staceys," then most of the mental health issues we face today would disappear over night, because most mental health issues are the result of dysgenic genes. For example, if all incels would magically become chads, then they would not be bitter at the world.
The proposition that we should replace women with artificial wombs and waifubots is a very interesting idea to consider, and if you happen to hold this opinion I have nothing but respect for your intellectual honesty and courageousness for even being able to consider it. With that being said, I think it would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because the problem is not women in-of-themselves but rather the fact that they have rights and to therefore repeal these rights would instead be a much more reasonable solution. However, that is not to imply that I think artificial wombs and waifubots should not be invented and perfected, because if an overwhelming majority of men were to realise that they would rather buy a waifubot for a few thousand dollar than to spend that on real women, who they may not even end up marrying, women will no longer hold a monopoly on companionship, sex, childbirth but will instead be forced to recognise that their only two qualities, their ability to birth children and their ability to satisfy men's sexual needs, can be replaced by mere machines, and, as a matter of fact, are being replaced by machines because, as it would turn out, when men (the gender that operates based on logic and reason) realises that these machines will give them both less hassle and cost less than real women, most men will naturally choose machines rather than women, which will force women to compete with these machines for men's attention by behaving more feminine and dressing more feminine in-order to appease men. The reason why women would simply not purchase their own husbandobots is because a machine cannot provide women with what they want out of a relationship. For men, waifubots can replace women because all men want out of a relationship is someone who can satisfy their sexual desires, someone to clean and cook for them, and someone who can rear their children, which these machines will be able to do. For women, however, a machine cannot replace men because what women want out of a relationship is being controlled by someone and for them to decide what it is that women want. This is not something a machine can do because what these robots will essentially be are glorified housemaids, not the master of the house. For men, that is perfect, because what they want is a housemaid, but for women it is terrible, because they do not want a housemaid. They want the master of the house and to instead be his housemaid. As such, if women want to continue to receive attention from men, then they will be forced to earn it by "womaning up" and behaving like a "womanchild," lest they will be starved off attention, which would be the equivalent of a death sentence for women, because women need a constant flux of attention from men in-order to know whether they will be protected by men in the event of danger. As for the reason why I do not support fully replacing women with waifubots, it is because the post-nut-clarity will lead to a lot of men having poorer mental health (which is something I am actually concerned with) as a result of not being able to get rid of the nagging thought that the love they receive from their waifubot is not real, because despite the fact that women also only fake their emotions, their emotions will always be valued as more real than a machine's, because they, unlike machines, are real humans.
This world is rotten to its core because the people that make up it have distorted it. For this reason, the only way to cure this world would be to get rid of everyone. But that will never happen. However, neither will these people change. These "people" are NPCs. They are mere puppets of the Anima. They are plugged into the Matrix, controlled by Shodan, to do her bidding. There is no reasoning with them. There is no saving them. There is nothing that can be done to undo the brainwashing. It is for these reasons there is no hope of reforming society or of a revolution breaking out, because these simps are never going to admit that women are the problem and to therefore repeal their rights to solve that problem. No, they will instead prevent even the faintest attempt to resolve this issue by instead blaming men for the problems caused by women and safeguarded by themselves. As such, any attempt to reform society is a complete and utter waste of time. All the time the reader has spent reading the news, watching political commentary, learning about political theory, sharpening his rhetoric, etc. have all been and will continue to be nothing more than a complete and utter waste of time, because nothing will ever result in women's rights being repealed, which, to make myself abundantly clear, is the only thing that actually matters. If the fruit of your political actions do not result in women's rights being repealed, they will have been in vain. However, it is also for these exact same reasons society will not collapse overnight, because the vast majority of people see nothing wrong with how society currently functions and will therefore participate in it and maintain it, to keep it from collapsing. Although, there is a limit to it. Despite the fact that there is an abundance of people willing to maintain society, it is impossible to keep a sinking ship from sinking forever, when more and more holes keep appearing as time goes on, and when more and more people continue to abandon ship. Make no mistake about it: society will collapse. But it will not go out with a bang. It will end with a whimper. Society will merely keep degenerating until there is finally nothing left for the cancer to devour, when there is nothing left that can rot. Until then, until the smoke clears, we are simply going to have to resign ourselves to our accursed fate. I have already accepted it. I hope that the reader can do so, too. There is nothing left for us in this world. However, unless we wish to depart from this world, we cannot fully escape from society. With that being said, I definitely encourage the reader to try to distance himself as much as is realistically possible from the decadence, both in society and on the internet, because the herculean task of the Aion of Aquarius is to Individuate by becoming conscious of all delusions permeating both externally in society and in one's psyche, which is the reason for the emergence of Occult literature, psychology, and New-Age movements during the 20th century, as their teaching are fiercely individualistic in nature. It is imperative that we, who embody the spirit of the Animus, never falter, never abandon our principles, and remain sane, in spite of standing amongst the ruins of Western civilisation, amidst a turbulent ocean of insanity that dares to claim that we are the "insane." I am well aware this essay is entirely pointless. I could have spent my time doing something more productive. However, I believe it was worth it. It may not convince those plugged into the system, but it may prevent a free-thinking individual from falling down a pitfall. And if that is all it can manage to accomplish, then I believe it was more than worth it. With that being said, this has merely been me screaming into the void. However, if synchronicity is to be believed, I hope it will also serve as a prayer. I do not believe in Hell. However, if there is any justice left in this world, I believe God will make an exception, just this once, for the darkest pit of Hell to open and swallow the corrupters of this world whole. May God have mercy on you. Because if He is just, He will not.
