Captain's Blog
03.12.2022., subota
 If anyone friendly to the White cause wants to repost any of the articles on this Blog somewhere, feel free to do so. Some of these articles are a work in progress, and additions might be made in time. Just an information about the publishing dates of the posts on this Blog: they do not necessarily correspond to the real dates when they were published (including for this post), but editing dates is the only way for me to reorder the posts on the Blog. Many of the posts were actually written long before the date displayed. |
- 18:50 - Comments (1) - Print - #
Real Men are Givers, Not Takers.
|
As the title says Real Men are givers, not takers. That doesn't mean that a Man is a servant simp, a doormat, it means that he doesn't use girls/women for fun, but creates life preconditions and frame, takes charge of life, takes responsibility for life and for humanizing and spiritualizing women, which is also a Man's role. A Real Man gives that frame of life, and doesn't see life or women just as sensory entertainment, but as part of that life he creates. Of course, for a Man giving his Masculinity, there are preconditions. He will not give it to any woman, only a high quality woman, or a girl of high quality who can be completely humanized and spiritualized or already is. Although a girl can probably only be fully humanized and spiritualized with a Real Man. To do that, a Man must be fully individualized, meaning that his awareness of self is not an awareness that comes from the validation of the physical and sensory ego or sensory inputs in general, but from inside, from the inner causality and source from inside, and creates life on the outside that corresponds to the quality of that inner source. Jung was wrong to search for individualization in the piles of reactive sensory garbage accumulated in the unconscious. You will never find it there. Self awareness is the awareness of the cause, the source, the order and the creation. There is something to be found in the unconscious, but it is the structure and the mechanisms, not the garbage accumulated by the race or the individual, although there are also higher archetypes, archetypes defining what our race really is, what Man is and what Woman is, and what Life is. Those are worth becoming aware of and ACTUALIZED, because real awareness is practical actualization, and this is what this Blog is mostly about. But I digress... Real Manhood is it, that source, that core, that force, that responsibility for the creation of life and giving that act of creation to life with a woman who can complete it, and it becomes a common action and endeavor. For that, a woman must also be individualized, not be a pleasure and fun toy, but an aware participant in the creation of life under the leadership of a Real Man. I must warn you that if you indulge in women as just sources of sensory pleasure and entertainment, you are doing three very bad things. One to yourself because this behavior corrodes your true Masculinity or the ability develop one. You become a sensory robot, an animal, instead of the aware core, self activated force of life that in a MAN. One other to women, because you fail in your role of humanizer, spiritualizer and individualizer. And finally to society, White society, because you are sustaining wrong and destructive patterns of male-female relationship in our race. |
- 18:10 - Comments (0) - Print - #
Why Monogamy is a Must.
|
I read claims on SF that men are polygamous by nature, and women hypergamous. And also that polygamy accelerates evolution. Someone then asked why should we want monogamy in the first place since it contributes to the spreading of inferior genetic material. I may give the long answer later, but for now let me say that there is "evolution" and there is "evolution". In biology, the notion of evolution is not equivalent to progress, just transformation. While polygamy might have played a positive role in the earlier days of our evolution (maybe, perhaps, maybe not), in the context of a more evolved society that in those times, it would play a negative role. "Evolution" by polygamy in a more complex social context than the original human communities, means evolution back towards a form of animality, not higher forms of humanity. This is demonstrated by societies where polygamy is practiced, like Muslim societies and sub-Saharan societies, where individuals don't exactly show a high level of human quality, simply because the connection leading to a couple and to children is not based on humanity, but on more primal animal principles. I am aware that I should define "human" here, but I don't have the time. I think I wrote something about that in previous posts, and also about "spirituality", and a Man and Woman being the spiritual unit of life. Summa summarum, if there is no real, completely human/spiritual relationship between a man and a woman, and if the process of M-F coupling in society is not based on that, the selection will no be based on full humanity and spirituality (the way I define it) but on subhuman principles, producing subhuman offspring through generations. While polygamy is not legal in our societies, the existing explosion of promiscuity and casual sex, could well lead to biological degeneracy towards animality, like I explained in a previous post. This is not exactly the same as polygamy, but the analogy seems good enough to me to confirm the degenerative property of polygamy. And I would not say that men are polygamous by nature, as "nature" is the problematic part of that claim. Our "nature" changes with evolution and is not the same as in our ancestors. And while the animal or subhuman principles are still present in most, other principles are also present in our biological nature (our nature is made of different biological components in selective competition, mostly through culture), although probably not homogeneously spread inside the population. However, it is that human component of our nature, that the design of society should favor in its evolution, not the preexisting animal components. Don't get me wrong, humanity is not weakness or lack of masculinity, it is Human Masculinity, and not just animal maleness. And part of that Masculinity, embedded in the human part of its nature is morality, the creation of a moral order, which is eminently a masculine trait that human evolution has selected, and that polygamy and sexual promiscuity is deselecting, and is reducing men to predators for females again. I don't have the time right now to talk extensively about the selective role culture should play for true human Masculinity and Femininity (instead of animal maleness and femaleness) in our "nature", or should we say among individuals displaying more pronounced human or animal natures. Culture should be designed to be biologically selective by favoring human Masculinity and Femininity, not animality, and continue to transform our nature in the human direction. PS: Ah and another detail. There is this concept that if something in us needs culture to actualize itself in individuals, it is not our "natural state", Only what would not need culture would be natural. This conception doesn't understand that human nature is different from animal nature and that what is indeed biologically natural to us, more often than not needs culture to actualize itself. Speaking, for example. If you didn't learn a language, it would not have instinctively popped out of your genes, and yet speaking/language is biologically natural to us. Humans are creatures of culture, but that doesn't make some of our behaviors, properties or abilities unnatural if they need culture to actualize themselves, it just means that functions that are very much part of our biological nature are intertwined with culture in their actualization. If Humanity and spirituality is not insufflated sufficiently early into kids by Masculinity (as I explained in previous articles), then they will turn towards exploring sensuality instead of searching for the right thing. They will become sensory reactive beings without a real aware spiritual core, they will be animalized for lack of a true human core. This is particularly true for women, for two reasons. One is that Men are the natural leaders, and without the leadership of true Masculinity found in men around them, women have no direction and try different things, while Men, even if partially masculinized (not just "male-nized" if there is such a word) will try to find the right thing, but if they are not complete Men, they cannot offer the leadership of masculinity to women, and even impose it by conditioning the dedication of their masculinity to life with a woman by her being completely humanized and not a hypegamous animal tasting this one and tasting that one. The other is that if women have not been humanized by the presence of a true Masculine patriarchal father, they will not have a model of the right thing to search around, and then will go into tasting various fruits, losing value in the process for the real Man, because falling into animality and losing purity. There is a third reason actually, which was explained in the "why men must demand virginity from women", and that's the relative ease a woman can get sex, even a very average woman. They may not get a relationship with the man that they want, but sex with some random dude, yes they can. So it is easier for them to fall into sensory dependent animal patterns PS: I recently read an article linked on Strormfront about polygamy: Will Polygamy Fix Slumped White Demographics? Will Polygamy Save the White Race? Fortunately the article reaches the right conclusions in the end BUT... a lot of nonsense in it, like the idea that polygamy is the default setting without the constraints of civilization, and that society naturally evolves towards polygamy in the case of declining morality, like in Rome, or whatever the reason was for Islam or Mormons. Rome never became polygamous, despite its lack or morality, and the polygamy of Mormons or Islam was for the purpose of a bunch of men wanting to multiply as a group, against other groups threatening them. But there was nothing natural about that, as it was strongly supported by the religions they had, Mormons managing to convince women through religion, while Muslims didn't have to even do that, they would take women by force in that first period of expansion of Islam, and the tradition persisted because it was enshrined by a very inflexible religion. As for the Subsaharans, what made them polygamous is unknown, but their closeness to animality could explain it.They didn't evolve true humanity and did compose with animality in the creation of their societies. So the argument of "naturality", particularly for the White race, which has evolved humanity further, goes down the toilet in those examples. As for today's immorality leading to polygamy, it is a gratuitous claim. What it leads to is disintegration of society, no matter the "whooping" 23% of Americans in favor of polygamy or other poly practices. LOL. And the idea that in difficult times, society would revert to polygamy is also false, because there were a LOT of difficult periods in White history, and White society didn't revert to polygamy. Perhaps was monogamy even strengthened in those times of trial. I really don't have the time to properly deconstruct all the fallacies in what is a rather large article, but at least it has the merit to make the right conclusions in the end. Only monogamy is good for the White race. The Market Approach Versus the Aware Masculinity Approach Here I will comment the market approach in the attempt of changing the dating practices in Western societies explained by The Q, and contrast it with my own approach of aware masculinity, and try to identify their respective strengths and weaknesses. That will have to wait for some other day, but you can probably already guess that it will include the question of the Masculine role in morality, and the question if women can change their behavior by mere rational understanding of the market, or if Aware Masculinity must impose its conditions to them. Also, can market "red pilling" of men, (while absolutely necessary for understanding that a change is necessary) be sufficient for any change in that market, or is aware Masculinity what can actually realize the change. OK, a little addition: Women need masculinity to give them direction (that's why making women aware to the White race on an intellectual level is statistically a losing proposition, because they are aware of their race through its Masculinity), if that masculinity is missing from the White race, if White men are incapable of self affirmation and defense of their group, if they negate themselves and see their own masculinity as bad, White women will search for "masculinity" somewhere else, even though that masculinity would be inferior than the White archetype of masculinity, the strong creator, warrior and creator of a life order. This decline of masculinity in the White race is not just due to the enemy's propaganda, but to a search of external pleasures, a search of sensuality. This is how all decadence in civilizations happened in the past, by a deficit of masculinity. This is also why the red pilling of women through dating market awareness cannot work, because masculinity is not just maleness on the market, it is a moral order, and a human and a spiritual order. If White Masculinity does not impose that order, and we could call it the White order, because it is generated by White Masculinity, women will act inside an animal order and no amount of market red pilling of women will work, and they will search for animality in the dating market. But of course, White Masculinity must be there and be widespread... |