ON WOMEN

On Women is a title I read too often and dread to read no less. The Dissident Right spends thousands of hours tormenting itself over the place of women in both the movement and the world that the movement seeks to birth. Members of multiple Christian denominations, Nietzschean vitalists, and broad reactionaries throw insults and diatribes at each other, like squabbling monkeys fighting over the last banana.

This turn of phrase is only partially intended to convey contempt. In a starving society of lesser primates, the last banana is key, the almighty, the alpha, and the omega. Among men, women – specifically, the romantic possession thereof – is akin to this last banana.

Within the Dissident Right, this motivation is further elevated by the scarcity of right-orientated potential spouses. Within the confluence of disagreeableness, autism, and disregard for social pressure, how many women are counted? Too few, alas; but that is also their brilliance. These traits I have mentioned are intensely masculine; the female sex is made to compliment them, not provide their mirror (except in contrast). Ergo, there are few dissident women, and dissident women are therefore valuable by scarcity.

On the other hand, I am not wanting for contempt. We should not delude ourselves as to the rank of this debate. It is, I believe, the dullest discourse on the Dissident Right. We endlessly lampoon the gentler sex, demeaning them for, well, everything. All the iniquities of modern life seem to be the fault of women, and women seem to be (in a twist of ironic justice) more affected by them.

Dating? Women’s fault. Immigration? Women’s fault. Housing crisis? Women’s fault. Absurd universities? Women’s fault. I exaggerate, but there are thinkers in the Dissident Right who appear genuinely capable of contorting their thoughts so that the female sex is to blame for everything.

The blame for this foolish narrative is twofold. First is the influence of the zombified PUA movement – and specific aspects of the livelier vitalist faction of the Dissident Right. Then, there are the memes.

Memology is fun; memes incite likes, retweets, and replies (pick your poison). Memes attract new recruits, drawing normies further down the pipeline while irritating and frustrating our foes. Yet memes can distort and simplify as much as they may reveal.

Especially when these memes concern such an emotive topic as feminism and the primal desire for a spouse, resentment corrupts our thinking and therefore corrupts our memes. Memes which, if I have judged the movement correctly, define our general attitude toward women more than our natural emotions or the thoughtful observations of our intellectual ancestors.

Women as a group, however, ought not to be free from criticism. It is our unwritten principle that no group is. When unchained, the feminine aspect of humanity can – has – wrought havoc on mankind. Feminism is femininity without limit; and all those contrasts which usually compliment men become pathological when unleashed without tempering reason. One must only examine one of those infamous maps, detailing the result of an American election if only women voted.

Feminism-from-femininity, however, is merely a derivation of a greater virus: liberalism. Liberalism infects all ideas, warping and contorting them to suite its own ends. Masculinity has not been spared either, nor Christianity, the method through which the primal impulses of the masculine and the feminine are – increasingly were – negotiated.

Within this frame, it becomes clear that, in a sense, we are all victims, women included. Not that we are victims of a crime precisely, only that we are unfortunate enough to live in an era in which the human spirit is out of balance, and we all suffer thereby.

This is what we strive against. Balance must be restored. It is iniquitous that a people should be so downtrodden that they dare not defend their homeland; it is unjust that people may not speak their minds; it is wicked that the sexual impulse is left unfettered while the violent impulse is restrained so tightly. It is worse that these false standards apply so unevenly to the invasive ethnic groups implanted with our states relative to ourselves.

Our plan, as it hardens, is therefore to forge another state, a micro-biome of harmony in a chaotic and unrighteous world. The dispute over the place of women in a just society is, therefore, partly in preparation for this eventuality.

Broadly, I see two schools of thought emerging; the Greek School and the Germanic School. These do not denote contemporary origin; I am merely comparing the cultural differences in these ancient societies to our ideological differences today.

Most Ancient Greek states confined women to the home. They were unable to own land or inherit. Sparta was the obvious exception, yet the world is not built on exceptions.

By contrast, Germanic societies were usually less restrictive. Yet they were not ‘liberal’ in the modernist sense; certainly, women were not roaming the countryside as warriors, despite the pernicious portrayals of contemporary television. Their power, as befitting the gentler sex, was wielded behind the scenes.

The Greek School strikes me as unserious (transitioning a modern woman toward the Germanic School would be difficult enough), but also because I fear such a social organization might do more damage than good.

This thought first struck me when reading Running the Show, a light history book detailing – in brief – the biographies of British colonial governors. As might be imagined, the early families led rough lives, camped out by malarial swamps, or infested jungles. They were Georgians, yet seemed to take no part in the marital frivolity common to the period.

Later governors lived in greater style. They were partners in the Victorian moral revolution. Even so, it is curious that marital wanderings are more common in the latter era than in the former. Why? I suspect it is a consequence of the state of mind which midwifed feminisms’ demonic birth in the first place: boredom. Colonial wives were pampered, and encircled by servants, while colonial husbands were busy. Their partnerships thus weakened, the women’s minds straying, what else might result?

It is idleness that created feminism, it opened the door so that liberalism might ravage the mind therein. Idleness incites a series of slow-boiling, impulses that can only lead to the desire for action, any action, at any cost. And, when idleness is an artifice created by the expectations of home life, it is only obvious that women would find some method to break free. After all, would you be satisfied with a life of dinner parties and needlework?

High-Roman society seems to have struggled through its own form of feminism; we must avoid its repeat. Therefore, we must also avoid its genesis. In our future world, women must be free to do something. They must be allowed a place, whether that be the running of a household, control of cottage industries, or in particular professions. They too have minds, and thus fall victim to the same vices as men when circumstances align.

We must prevent this eventuality, straighten our thinking, and then, perhaps, we will achieve harmony.

And we will not be so bereft of bananas.

(This is a poorly chosen metaphor for me. I hate bananas.