Virtue Without Force

Martel makes a great comparison and contract to the economic marketplace and the sexual marketplace in “Foreshadowing,” dated 29 May 2014.

I am pleased to notice Martel uses two spaces between sentences. I’ve stopped doing that as a matter of convention, but structure is meaning is what separates us from the animals. I appreciate sentence structure. It is no small part of why white men gave us modernity and this now small blue marble where lefties can emote for the whole stinkin’ world.

I am not of the disposition to deliver soothing rhetoric frame. Perhaps Martel is. I don’t presume to know how close he is to his actual position as he is leading his readers. He is skilled at rhetoric. I am going to point out dark truths necessary for consistency in human relations, period. If you are new here, you might be just passing through. Was nice seeing you. 🙂

This is a key passage from Martel’s post:

Do I think that we should in any way force women to “spread the wealth around” in order to satiate the needs of incels among us? Hell no, even though quoting portions of this post out of context might lead lefties to think I do.

I am going to dispute Martel’s assertion that we should not force women to spread the wealth around. The men AMOG in Sub-Saharan Africa all the time, and they have been the same damn way at least two millennia. There is spreading around like a communal pasture and then there is spreading around like monogamy. Since Martel is Christian, we know his preference with regards to sexuality, but I don’t think he is asserting it in that excerpt.

My argument that we in fact must force women into their places to keep them elevated along with ourselves will be illustrated by a difference of perspective elsewhere in the post.

Thus far, the men who inspire no tingle have seemed perfectly safe to ignore. Now, they’re beginning to suspect that this system of infinite pleasure for me might inspire some sort of blowback. I doubt they’re particularly inclined to sympathize with awkward guys (and the second Rodger pulled the trigger he forsook any claims to sympathy), but it’s just a bit harder to see them as entirely irrelevant.

I think we have male sympathy on a cold intellectual level. We understand our own mechanical limitations, and that knowledge is unsettling. Is there causality or is there not? This is where I diverge from Christians, whom I consider emotionally less strong for needing a faith to plaster over unsettling evidence of human nature and the nature of our environment.

I think religion is helpful to some people more than others. Every once in a while, some previously lost soul tells me of his miraculous life change from becoming a follower of Jesus. Heard of the placebo effect? Advantages of community support? There are other interpretations besides revealed supernaturalism. What’s great about science is that its knowledge is kept in a virtual word processor, and instead of typing all over from scratch, we can separate evidence from interpretation and make incremental progress, like mankind has done in the process of evolution.

Martel continues:

For although it still doesn’t occur to them that nobody’s going to pay for their birth control if everyone’s given up on life and just delivers pizzas for a living, the notion that the dorky guy in math class is of no consequence just might have been threatened. If he’s completely ignored forever there’s no telling if he’ll blow a gasket or just drop out of society, but what happens to him might mean something for the rest of us.

I think Martel gives women too much credit. I’m no closer, but I have field experience, and I can tell you field experience is the cure to giving women too much credit. Women are not complex, not unfathomable. I think Martel may be hoping against hope that women will wake up and realize how wealth stewardship is important to all of us. They will not.

Women have a locus of control in their instincts, and they have two driving concerns: survival and reproduction. Survival is met by government. They are in a frenetic race to optimize their status and sperm acquisition until they are maladapted, burnt out spinsters.

Women need to be forced into their places. There was no rape in the wild, only might making right.

What nice guys want to believe, to their own continued ruination, is that women can be rational. As a rare exception a rare women can be rarely rational and express a third party perspective not aped to please, but women have a vested interest in never, ever being an outsider on all things social. They are never motivated as neutral observers. How cliché it is for a woman to say, “I knew what the right thing to do was, but I had to follow my heart.”

Hint: That ain’t her heart, fellas.

What Martel overlooks is that women might get tingles BECAUSE Elliot Rodger killed. What more evidence do we need than the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

I’ve said it before in a recent post somewhere, and I’ll say it again. The gubbermint is losing its moral authority over women’s ‘hearts’. The shortage of ‘real men’ is more relevant to wealth-agnostic women than collapse of the middle class. Women are status relativists. Wealth is just relative to them, which is why they can be communists with Gucci handbags. They are still hardwired to treat all resources as raw resources found in nature.

What may be disconcerting to women, or causing a change, assuming Martel is right, is that the very definition of alpha could be in question, as women see it. That awkward geek might be the next billionaire or serial killer.

Tingles for geeks?

If there is one thing that sickens the instincts of women, that is devotion. Women are emotional opportunists, and assume that is the norm. Women are very liberated women, and emotional subversion is the norm. Masculine soldiers doing their duty do not warrant the tingles they used to. Men told what to do are not taking the law into their own hands. Women instinctively know the difference.

If women at large do have concerns for their safety from the Rodger’s killing spree, it is not at the high abstraction of the societal level. They have primeval survival concerns in the moment or they don’t, and that’s that. A transition from entirely being motivated by reproduction instincts to having those instincts constrained by survival concerns is necessary for societal recovery. Enabling women to survive carefree is what enables them to be promiscuous like the wild creatures they really are.

Pussy finds power. Government power in the abstract is invincible in some respects but inept in others. Baby daddy’s of welfare moms are winning the reproductive game.

Tom Leykis put this on his facebook page, 29 May 2014: “Single mothers are raising the carjackers, illiterates, junkies and unemployables of the future.” I agree. You think anyone will give up the gravy train willingly, without a fight. Those instincts are new ones to me.

Martel closes with what I guess is the whole point he wanted to make after softening up his readers:

For all the feminist talk of Rodger’s sense of entitlement, it’s women who feel entitled to the fruits of male labor: clean streets, indoor plumbing, televisions, and iPhones.

All men wanted in exchange was sex.

But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine. They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.

And that’s when civilization collapses. I suspect on some level, young women are beginning to suspect that.

If Martel is expressing what women are good for, and how important it is that women be good for it, I am in total concurrence. Social fabric is an infrastructure lifting us above the muck. No way in hell a man should wallow in the muck as a producer while a woman indulges her reproductive pleasures of sperm and status acquisition. I might have phrased it differently, not trying to reach out to my female fans.

I am more concerned for men. We lack concrete social spaces away from women. I am writing for men, and other concerns are secondary if at all. I am not against other approaches. I am for free markets and whatever good others can do.

So here’s where I disagree. Women do not suspect, not the way a civilized man does with a ken for abstract societal concerns. Women only adapt as they are designed. Women are not cultural! They fake it for feral advantage, nothing more, and when the moment is right, they will drop pretenses like a bad habit. They just know you nice guys are not looking!

It will take force to stop giving women the goodies because women and government bureaucrats will not abandon the gravy train. MGTOW is a passive force. The hypocrisy of women drives men per natural forces and natural constraints to let women face their natures and needs alone. The ultimate force is nature. Better to harmonize with it than to invent some false authority and be led astray.

I think it’s blue pill to think women should be insulated from force. Women seek conflict to maximize status. That’s exactly how they know they have maxed out. They seek men to force them into an optimal place. That is her best place as defined by natural selection over the eons.

Western men must show Western women a limit, their own limits of male popular sovereignty, so Western women can relax with their fears of not reproducing optimally, and more importantly, to again be a net positive asset to society. When women do not provide quality sexual services, they are an unaffordable net loss to society. Female promiscuity and civilized decline have always gone together. I suspect fatness correlates too. And government debt.

Being simply passive, a proper strategy at times, is not playing to win. It is playing to not lose, and that is not an adequate effort for masculine virtue, gents. It’s not even good enough for female virtue. Women are sneaky not passive. Get out in the field, and realize all women know the virtue of playing to win in their behaviors.

Let our Republicanism, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels. I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice…and let me remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Women did not destroy the West any more than men stopped being the West.

Unplug. Side step. Ride. Rebuild.

Civilization does not sprout out of nothing. Civilization does not sprout out of universal cooperation. It sprouts out of in-group bias backed by force. It so happens that virtue, real virtue, is forceful.

When I look past my individual concerns to the concerns of society, I am not so fearful of force without virtue as I am of virtue without force.

Yours in patriarchy or not at all,

—‘Reality’ Doug, 31 May 2014


About ‘Reality’ Doug

I'm feed up with herd people, so civil and uncivilized, these feckless barbarians with manicures. Where is Galt's Gulch? and where are the people to go there? Who am I? Who is John Galt?
This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Virtue Without Force

  1. Pingback: Doubling Down | Alpha Is Assumed

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.