It is time this
absolute joke
of an excuse for “a man whom one should listen to” for his “wisdom” and “insights” in how to navigate the modern dystopia, is finally exposed for what he is, by someone that can read for comprehension. It is a sign of the times really that this pustule on the ass of competence was ever awarded a “featured blog” for his substack in 2024. Good God. It’s like people literally can’t read at all anymore.
Prepare yourselves dear Substakers, for what at my OH blog (where I currently released
part 6 of Theoretical Models of Society
, which
as a series
puts the lie to all that this moisturised, sedentary, ass-in-butter, theoretical wanna-be “aristocrat” has ever cogitated in his sub-par, midget skull) is called a Kurganing.
Kurganing:
Verb – The unfortunate result of what happens to a deceiving liar, sophist, Freemason, general heretic, arrogant (but incapable) idiot, when he attracts the attention of The Kurgan and receives a public vivisection of his all too mortal inadequacy, incompetence, weakness of character, cowardice, and general faggotry, and as a result becomes the star in a blog post by said Kurgan.
Let us first of all identify the main posts (but really all of them will do) this ridiculous clown (
Johann Kurtz
, whose tag line is [in total humourless seriousness, I assure you]:
Forming the new nobility: become beautiful, dangerous, and worthy of power
at his idiotic blog “
becoming Noble
”) has created that immediately prove he is an idiot with delusions of elitism.
Here they are:
Meritocracy is not a Good Thing
Idiotic quote from the idiocy at that post (this one is especially relevant a little later)
Meritocracy necessitates and idealizes the destruction of traditional boundaries. This began with the attack on class structures, but after the moral primacy of ‘merit’ is accepted, it must also be conceded that other structures which impede the centering of ‘merit’ should be questioned: national borders, gender divides, insular communities, and prejudices of all kinds.
The seeds of meritocratic thought arose in the West with the broader Enlightenment, which held that the scientific process – with its advocacy of quantification and objectivity – could be turned upon politics and human affairs more generally, in order to progress society towards utopia.
A provable meritocracy thus demands that all achievement must be explicit, documented, legible, and acceptable. Meritocracy can only be conducted on the basis of what we can measure; this thing we call ‘
merit’.
Of course, distilling the ineffable qualities of human existence into
quanta
has always proved challenging for the
social sciences
, which is why they have strayed while the hard sciences have progressed.
The central question at hand is:
“What is the definition of this thing we recognize as ‘merit’ within a meritocracy?”
How is it measured, by whom, and when? Is the ‘good’ we are attempting to capture an intrinsic quality of the human subject or an objective outcome we are trying to engineer? What scale and timescale do we care about?
Notice how this idiot is TRYING to define/qualify/”explain” meritocracy as being some sort of magic formula of quantifying attributes into a…well a spreadsheet format? Notice how NO ONE ELSE ON THE PLANET does that, only him? It’s his idea, his way of trying to define it? Remember that, it’s important and it’s the biggest clue (among an ocean of them) that this guy is:
-
A moron
-
An “intellectual” (read: Midwit who thinks he is the smartest person in the room. Also, See 1.)
-
A Perfumed Prince – that is someone that EITHER was born relatively well off, never had anything very hard in his life, went to the right schools, kissed the right asses, sucked off the right bosses, and got himself some middle or maybe even eventual middle-high management position earning decent money (and/or he had some from daddy anyway) that makes him think he is a “self-made” man. With the manly in man, and the smarts. And regardless if he goes to gym regularly or is a weedy nerd or chubbster, he fancies his (self-invented and self-deceived) moral superiority somehow makes him in any case “better” than the “rabble” that laugh at his pontificating bullshit. OR a guy that maybe did come from not the lower classes but not particularly well off, and did work hard at being a good little drone of the system and managed to pull off some decent situation… that is… by… well, you know… going to the right schools, or doing well at the ones he went to, kissing the right asses, sucking off the right bosses to achieve… you get it. And the only difference is that now he feels even MORE entitled to be a smartboi ™ because he (in his feverish mind) really IS a self-made man.
But let us see how he demonstrates this in his own words.
Meritocratic Education Ruins Children
Quote from the runoff produced therein:
Meritocracy is the notion that it is illegitimate to reward a person based on criteria
other
than a specific and artificial definition of merit, typically characterized by formal examinations and structured evaluations of performance. Meritocracy adopts tests, reviews, qualifications, credentials, and the quantification of performance and ability. The meritocrat is the
Spreadsheet Man.
Under meritocracy, it is illegitimate to elevate an individual based on broader criteria, such as whether they are a friend, relative, local, particular sex, member of a known family, member of your faith, member of your class, or a representative of a range of
‘protected characteristics’.
In other words, meritocracy is the antithesis of the concept of
birthright.
It is an attack on the integrity of
sovereignty,
undermining the ability of the steward of an asset to entirely determine to whom that asset is apportioned.
To doubt the moral monopoly of meritocracy is thus not to insist that merit should be restricted in the opposite direction (ie.
characterized entirely by birth
) but to broaden one’s conception of merit to contain both the notion of qualifications
and
the legitimacy of
other factors, as may be relevant in different circumstances.
See that GIANT strawman he sets up in part one? Meritocracy “defined” as some arbitrary quantification of the ineffable into a spreadsheet type format that has no bearing to reality? Only to…
Knock it down in part two, to “prove his point”. A point no one ever before him ever made because it doesn’t exist.
There are illiterate Khoi San and Amazonian Pirahã that are perfectly capable of understanding and explaining what meritocracy means, because especially in their societies, it is still a thing. And it is only because men with brass balls and iron wills managed to create such bounty on the Earth —where the village idiot was safe to reproduce and foster upon us a melange of genetic misfits like this pale, belly-frogged constituted “man”— that it is no longer required in the general West for larvae-spawns such as Johann to continue to survive and even do “well” for himself.
So let me explain it to you in short words of few syllables:
Meritocracy: from the word MERIT, which is defined as the the state of
becoming
entitled, deserving of, have earned either a reward or a punishment on the basis of one’s behaviour, actions, effectiveness at [something].
Literally, little children understand what merit is. And a meritocracy is simply a society in which the person that is best at doing a specific task is placed in the position of doing it. You know where meritocracy is absolutely clear and obvious to everyone and anyone? A violent fight. Or a group of fighters in a ring, dojo, or street. In Systema, the guy who can kick everyone else’s ass best teaches. It is the surest form of meritocracy I have ever encountered and I would bet money that our perfumed prince Johann has never entered a ring or dojo floor in his life. Nor is he likely to. How do I know? Well, he either hasn’t got the first clue about meritocracy at all, which means he is a fully “theoretical” creature, and it’s bad theory at that. He apparently works in some kind of tech/IT/software field, so you can see what I mean. Maybe he can code, but he can’t do much else. He has no concept of physical results in the real world beyond that artificial bubble he has been raised, grown and produced in, like a clone from a vat-factory in the
RPG game of Paranoia
. There are another six just like him, called Johann-Smarty “Pants” Kurtz – 001 through to 007.
And just like a dweller of Alpha complex, if he ever pokes his head out of the underground artificial world he lives in, and sees some trees and a squirrel he may well freak out and push the nuclear launch codes.
So we have already established he is an impractical man that has never taken a punch (or ten) in the face and has certainly never given any (it might have spoilt his little prefect-perfect schoolboy-cum-teacher’s-pet road to “riches”).
We also know that he has delusions of grandeur, and is little more than a hopped up peasant, who is grasping, like a drowning man for what he perceives as his supposed “due” of “new nobility”. Which he will never achieve. Because nobility is first of all a matter of intrinsic character, one he absolutely lacks, and secondly, no one is handing out family crests to retards anymore.
We know he thinks that the path to “nobility” is achieved by being a good drone that goes to the good schools, and does the “good” things he is told and kisses ALL the asses (with a little lick for extra credit) in order to climb the corporate/status/suck-cess ladder. How do we know? Well, because he expressly tells young men to do just that.
He first posited this
“way” here
, and the title is oh so telling: Jobs for sensitive young men, and then
defended it here
. So we also know Johann is/was/sees himself as/ will never grow out of, the idea that he (is) was a
sensitive
young man. Oh so sensitive. Because of his smarts you see. The poor lad was just smarter than all his peers who cruelly did not respect and understand his sensitive thoughts. It is the sort of duplicitous and self-serving as well as intrinsically false narrative people like Johann invariably have about themselves. It’s the midwit gamma complex. Johann’s excuse is that anyone with a “higher” IQ would simply avoid physical brutality, don’t you know. Unless they were evil. Evil I tell you. The concept that anyone with a 155 IQ would indulge in physical activities like martial arts or being a bodyguard or a doorman simply does not parse for him. He may lie about it if he ever reads this, but I know this type of creature. Violence is only for the “evil” brutes of life. Or… or… well, yes, okay, the very NOBLE people, but only as a last resort (that he prays in his suburban home “ivory tower” never, ever, ever comes to pass) and only for the NOBLEST of reasons (all so rarefied and theoretical that not even
tardigrades
can survive in that atmosphere) none of which will ever activate even as he is raped to death by marauding pirates.
He also has ZERO understanding of how to be a man in relation to a woman (this is to be expected, he is after all English). We know this thanks to his
“enlightenment” level idea
that women do not or will not have children because it implies a loss of status.
And one has to ask… What Status? What Status is he talking about? And it is obvious he is talking about what HE perceives as being a desirable sign of status:
-
Financial success (having enough money to be living well above average)
-
Knowing and being seen by the right people in the right way
-
Driving the “cool” car
-
Going to the right schools
-
Having the right clothes
-
Probably having a trophy wife (though I doubt he does)
And of all of the above, the only one that personally makes a difference is having enough money to say “Fuck you” to whoever. And by “makes a difference” I simply mean that it makes it less of a concern at all to do so. Not that you don’t do it if you lack the money. I certainly have never held back saying “Fuck you” to anyone I ever felt deserved it. Regardless of pretty much anything other than my personal sense of justice. But sure, a bunch of cash makes life easier. I’ve had money and had no money, so I can tell the difference, but it will never be something that defines my character.
But do ANY of these things really matter to a woman? No. Not really. They only matter to her in the context of the zeitgeist of the disturbed society we inhabit. And of course, no woman wants to live under a bridge with ten kids she has no means to feed and a deadbeat for a husband. But my point is simply that as long as you are:
-
Actually a man, not some facsimile of a metrosexual, moisturised, vegan, midwit “intellectual”, and therefore provide the required practical support for your wife, and even if that should collapse (due to war, unforeseen circumstances, bad luck, whatever) she has the unwavering certainty that if anyone can climb out of a hole and rebuild a good life it is you, and you with her and your children, and,
-
Provide her with the natural experience of being with an actual man, as described above, she will NATURALLY return to her “prime directive” as a woman, which is to make a bunch of kids.
Are there women too damaged by the dystopia we live in to “change” or evolve past the lies and deception they were raised with? Sure. But are MOST women this damaged? No. They are just mostly lacking any actual men to provide the 2 things above. Plenty of soyboys like Johann there, but actual men? Eh… it’s slim pickings.
The truth is that a woman safe to exhibit her femininity and natural sensuality and sensitivity RELISHES in being a mother. Her life feels meaningful and full and worthwhile, and all the struggles and heartache she might suffer, in the light of a happy family become badges of honour, medals on her uniform as glorious mother and loving wife of a… MAN.
But does our Perfumed Prince stop here? Oh no, no, no, he persists in his imbecilic, literally mouth-drooling, arrogance. Behold his latest piece:
Meritocracy Kills Fertility
and the requisite quotes from it:
This time he prefaces it with a kind of “hands up gesture” to try and prevent the obvious stupidity of his argument from being well… blindingly obvious.
Editor’s note: this is a continuation of my
series on meritocracy
. The motivation for this series is to establish the logic which will be presented in my upcoming book ‘Leaving a Legacy’, in which I will attempt to convince wealthy individuals to not squander their estates in donations to the inefficient and destructive ‘charity’ industry.
The book will instead empower heads of families to establish rooted, virtuous dynasties which can sustain communities for generations. Necessary for this project is to convince fathers that it is not good to disinherit their children in a misguided attempt to force them to generate their own wealth in a ‘meritocratic’ system. This
destroys their childhood
, closes their minds, and interrupts their ability to raise the next generation – as we shall see.
You see, it’s all about the boomers not leaving money to their children. Which sure, who can argue that’s not a thing. It is. Boomers are the most narcissistic, destructive, toxic, generation that has ever crawled on the face of the Earth. Maybe Johann here is trying to tell daddy to not leave the family castle to the SPCA or something. But regardless, if this is the “argument” against meritocracy he wants to write a whole book on, it’s really quite pathetic.
He’s again, setting up a strawman, that supposedly, if you are wealthy, you will cut your kids off in order to “teach them meritocracy”. What complete nonsensical fabrication is that, pray tell?
If I had a few millions to leave to my children, I would. And if I were a billionaire I am sure I would also give them experiences that they would otherwise not come by, but their learning to be effective, efficient and
good
at whatever they decide to focus on, in other words, their putting in the work required to become good, has absolutely
nothing
to do with how much money I have or don’t have or leave to them or not leave to them. As far as I am concerned: THIS. IS. SPARTA!
You will move your ass and RUN, not walk. If you fall you get up. If you’re still breathing you can still get up. You will NOT give up, you will find a way. I am not worried about money or my children not having enough of it. I will teach them to
merit
whatever they aim for. By simply going after it and becoming good enough to get it. Regardless of the barriers to entry idiots like Johann naturally want to impose on their actual betters, for the usual obvious reasons.
But let’s continue to delve in this festering pile of bull manure.
I will quote quite a long piece here to prove that I am not selectively picking bits out of it. He really is this fucking stupid. It’s enough to make you wonder if perhaps he
is
of “noble” birth; you know, from one of those families that have been fucking each others’ cousins and occasional half-sisters for generations!
Behold, the very first sentence is the summary of the rest of the absolutely wrong “definition” he gives to meritocracy.
The key proposition of meritocracy is that the person who deserves the greatest reward is the person with the greatest
aptitude
who invests the greatest
effort
.
That is really all it takes to prove he is a complete moron. One who can’t afford a basic dictionary apparently.
Meritocracy is a society based not on the greatest
effort
someone puts in, you moron. It’s a society based on the
results
someone produces.
RESULTS, monkey boy.
Results.
Not effort, you blithering idiot.
But let him hang himself in his own words.
Meritocracy is a curious creature: it is a political philosophy which could be described as
‘progressive but inegalitarian’.
As with all progressive philosophies, it is a liberal child of the Enlightenment and its advocates champion it as a repudiation of the hereditary class system.
Ultimately, however, it remains an
inegalitarian
system for defining
who should rule over others.
The term ‘meritocracy’
is the combination
of the Latin-origin “merit” (from
mereō
meaning
earn
) and the Greek suffix “-cracy” (
power, rule
). In other words, it is rule by those who have
earned it.
Meritocracy is progressive to the degree that it denies that one’s ultimate status should be defined by the circumstances of one’s birth. There remains an inconvenient fact, however: intelligence and other key attributes for success
are
parameterized at birth, and are nurtured by the family circumstances which one is born into.
To avoid the decidedly illiberal proposition of replacing one
birthright caste
with another –
bloodlines by IQ
– meritocracy opens the possibility for
social mobility
by integrating a factor which only emerges after birth:
how hard the individual works.
This factor serves as the moral heart of meritocracy.
It is feasible that the college selection process could, for example, operate entirely on a simple combination of 1) an intelligence test; 2) basic evidence of diligence via applicants’ key grades; and 3) demonstrating intellectual curiosity in an interview.
The typical elite selection process extends far beyond this, however. Evidence is required of an extraordinary record of
effort.
Extracurriculars, languages, instruments, volunteering, internships, startups, projects, and so forth are required. Aptitude is not enough.
If two applicants with the same level of intelligence are presented, the one who has ‘worked harder’ will be chosen, even if both have worked
hard
enough
to have confidence that they would fulfill their responsibilities as students. The same is true of two candidates for a professional opportunity: the stacked résumé wins.
Elites from athletes to bankers brag about how hard they work. This bragging would have been alien to the generation of elites which preceded the ‘meritocratic elite’ – indeed, elites used to be known as the ‘
leisure classes’
. But the centralization of
effort
is necessary to the moral logic of meritocracy, and underpins the system’s justification for existence – and effort therefore manifests as a
virtue
to be advertised.
It is clear that Johann advocates in his other pieces like the “jobs for sensitive young men” to become and be precisely the kind of one-dimensional, ass-kissing, ivy-league educated, smarmy, two-faced, parasites that end up having to rape children on Satanic altars while being ridden by a man in a donkey mask while snorting cocaine, because they are so utterly dead inside that this is an approximation of something that might make them
feel
something.
And yet, here he says, that the system that puts these vermin in the places where they have access to the levers of power is based on “meritocracy”. It’s absolute nonsense. Johan is CLEARLY one of those wanna-be’s that has never quite made it into the “high society” he so longs to be a part of, and is really very bitter about it, despite his airs of “being” or rather, “becoming” noble.
Aside the fact that he has no clue what meritocracy is or even means, as evidenced beyond a shadow of a doubt above —and that the vermin in question do NOT get there through it, but rather PRECISELY by his supposed preferred method of nepotism, knowing who to threaten, blackmail, pay off or suck off— it becomes clear that he also proves his own advice is retarded, ineffective, a lie and produces only a hellish life devoid of meaning aside the chasing of the ever elusive dragon of “status”. Which clearly he has not achieved; nor will anyone who takes his idiotic advice.
So let me explain it in perspective:
If you are a middling guy, maybe from a not well to do family, trying your best to have a monochromatic CV with ONE direction only, for your choice of career and sticking to it like a soulless drone, because ultimately you have the kind of brain that worries about that more than actually living a meaningful life and/or because to you that reach for the 2.5 kids, white picket fence and the fake “respect” of your peers for your “status”
IS
what life is all about, then… by all means, sunshine, you go right ahead. It’s what’s best for you for sure.
On the other hand, if you are not an average person, or even a midwit totally lacking in imagination, actually have an at least partially functioning brain, and realise there is more to life than Johann’s ever elusive “status”, and perhaps want to live some of it, you may notice that there are plenty of jobs that will still keep you comfortable and also allow you to have a family, if you simply apply yourself, but it is not required you sacrifice the details and joys of life for them.
In short, this guy tries to baffle you with bullshit. His veneer of “becoming noble” is a façade. He pretty much admitted as much when he wrote that he is “
leaving Britain
” (I wonder if he really ever will) which appears to be his whining lament that Britain is no longer a place where you can “make it”. But it never was. Britain is still one of the countries in which his much praised “class structure” continues to exist. He is too stupid to realise it is the very thing he wants to be a part of that will forever keep him out of it.
As for his piece of meritocracy reducing fertility it’s the usual nonsense. By “defining” meritocracy as “effort” instead of results, he concludes that:
Now we find something of a fertility ‘perfect storm’ developing. Three factors are now true which together would seem to inexorably suppress birthrates among those parts of the population which play the meritocracy game:
-
Elites – and aspiring elites – work longer and harder than ever before;
-
Elite children are more time-intensive to raise than ever before;
-
Elite children are more expensive to educate than ever before.
(For more commentary and data on points 2 & 3,
see my last article.
)
Something has to give!
But this is of course the “reasoning” of someone who can’t do a BASIC logical calculation of cost analysis.
It’s not hard to do:
Do I want to work 16 hour days and have no real life outside of my work for 30 years in order to be a billionaire (maybe, assuming the best case, because there are PLENTY of people who TRY to do this who are not even millionaires, and there are very FEW billionaires)?
Now, me, even if the billion was guaranteed? I would say (and did say, multiple times in life) a resounding, loud, echoing: “Fuck NO!” In fact I said no to much lower thresholds than that. Why? It doesn’t really matter, the point is that to ME my personal freedom to explore whatever facet of life I decide takes my fancy, is FAR more important than money or artificial success, or what really anyone besides a VERY small number of select people think about me or my life choices. And even those few only matter up to a point, because first and foremost, I have to be honest to myself. If you look at
my life trajectory
, or the
things I have done
, it would give Johann a brain embolism.
And you’ll also notice at least a couple more things about him that differs from me. I mean if you are deaf, dumb and blind, because otherwise you may notice many, many, many dozens of things, but in any case, at a minimum, I —unlike Johann— actually
am
noble. I literally come from a line of men that in the gold branch were awarded perpetual status of Marquis for the first-born, and in the Silver branch which I belong to of Patrician. In both cases the title to nobility was achieved as a result of martial prowess, by basically being better than everyone else at a given time and place at killing people. And as a member of the nobility, I can assure you, that Johann is not, and never will be one of us. And it really has nothing to do with titles that he may purchase along the way. because you see… they will not be
merited.
They will not be
earned.
But more importantly, you might notice that Johann is a pseudonym. He writes anonymously. I do not. My OG blog is right there, my books have my name on it, and so on. While I use the nickname The Kurgan that was given to me by a group of online people I used to frequent, I do not hide who I am. And I write what I write.
So, why does Johann hide like a fearful, soft, and Perfumed Prince in fear? Because he simply CANNOT afford to say “fuck you” to whomever. Johann has neither the money (neither do I) not the balls (I do) or the supposed mythical “status” to do so.
In short, Johann, is, like his theories, a fraud.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link
here
TMOS – Part 6 – The Individual Woman and Her Belief
In Parts 1 to 3 I covered the fundamentals of what the actual pillars of society are, unlike what most people believe. In part 4 I covered the individual man and how his beliefs create order or lack of it with regards to moving towards civilisation. Part 5 covered marriage and why it is the foundational cell of a functioning society, as well as the fact that absent this, that is, actual marriage, not the parodies of it we see all-round us, a civilisation that arises —if it arises at all, which is doubtful— will simply not be able to compare in any way with the Catholic civilisation that first created real, actual marriage. Or we should say, imposed God’s will regarding it. This part 5 is important to have read before reading this post on the Individual Woman, because otherwise some of the premises and attributes of women in general, established there with proof, will simply be misunderstood as “my opinion” here, instead of being taken as a biological fact.
Part 5a was a treatise on justice and its importance as a pillar of civilisation, and the fact that reinstating the death penalty for certain crimes is absolutely necessary. If you also pay attention to who wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout all the nations on Earth, and eventually managed to mostly do so, you will find the usual suspects, Judaic Zionists, Freemasons, or their Goyim minions. Which by now should not come as any sort of surprise.
But there was also an addendum, a slight tone-setter for this part 6, and it’s probably best you read it first.
Right. On we go! But first, the usual introduction:
This is the sixth in the Theoretical Models of Society series of Posts. Use the category of the same name or the Search Me function on the right-hand sidebar to find all related posts in the series.
It is generally helpful to a reader if they are already familiar with some of my other work, in order for this stuff to have the most useful effect on your life. In particular, The Face on Mars and Believe! would be the top reads to have done to have the generic global perspective of reality well in hand. Systema and Reclaiming the Catholic Church would have the most impact on a more personal level. On health/security/self-protection, and on the reality of Catholicism as it was (and remains with Sedevacantists) before Vatican II and why the Novus Ordo Church is not only not Catholic, but Satanic at its core. I will repeat this little paragraph on each new part, as I think it is important to have a general foundation if one is really interested in more than skim-reading before returning to the general slumber we are all being attempted to be forced into.
Having digested part 5 of this series (On Marriage) you will know that in general terms, women will tend to be far more solipsistic than men, and this is the case quite aside from anything else, as it is the logical consequence of the male/female dynamic due to their different biology.
But as described in part 4, which basically defined the utility as well as the description of what is an individual man that is ultimately a force for good, we now come to the same question concerning the individual woman.
As stated previously, men are the civilisers of a society. Their monopoly on force requires them to have always been the part of the family unit that faced the outside world, and dealt with it, meaning that the survival pressure for a man was essentially the objective universe; be this represented by inclement weather, natural predators, disasters and challenges, or even other men. As a result he developed a far more objective, logical and practical way of not just seeing things but doing them and even organising his fellow males into functional hierarchies that together could take on much larger scale projects.
Hence: Man is the civiliser and creator of any functional society. As such, the individual man could be considered the DNA strand within the cell (the nuclear family unit). A woman on the other hand, can be seen as the remaining entirety of the cell. The cell wall, and all the bits that keep a cell alive and functioning.
Unlike a man, a woman’s survival pressure was mostly other women. Absent other women, even a relatively unattractive and unpleasant woman will still get male attention and opportunity to be looked after. Such is the biological imperative for reproduction. However, introduce other women, especially prettier, sluttier, less scrupulous ones, and suddenly, the security provided by your man for yourself and your offspring is under serious threat, since you can be replaced. As a result, the dynamics in female relations differ enormously from those between men. Women are necessarily far more adept at social interactions, capable of having multiple agendas happening simultaneously. A process a simple male may even interpret as self-serving and manipulative, which it can be, but not unavoidably so.
It is true that only men create civilisations, but without women, there would not only not be any civilisations at all, but there would not even be a need for them! A world in which a man only has to worry about taking care of himself, is a far starker, simpler, harder and more brutal world.
Absent wife and children, a man is perfectly capable of living in a one room space where he has the capacity to make basic food for basic survival and a bed to sleep on. In ancient times this could literally be a cave and the extent of his possessions a few weapons and clothing. In modern times it’s a one room space with the ability to cook basic food for basic survival, and a subscription to the latest multi-player on-line gaming platform.
In short, men and women, in the natural order of things, complement each other and function in a natural harmony that is based on mutual sacrifice for the greater whole (the family unit).
Men, being more objective and logical, naturally have a far healthier and more positive understanding of this in broad terms.
Women, being biologically built to place their own welfare first, and being driven primarily by the emotion of the moment rather than the larger context, can (and do) make decisions in a possible long term marriage that can be destructive and based far more on their perception of “reality” on any given day, rather than actual reality as it is.
While a man, in the positive, tends to place his belief primarily in God and his own abilities and efforts, a woman will tend to place her belief in the man she chooses for a mate and how his actions (or lack thereof, or perception of same) affects her emotions.
While there are of course exceptions, this is the general order of things.
A woman in love with her man will go beyond the limits of reasonable or even valid levels of loyalty, sacrifice and effort. And even if it be the same man, if/when what she perceives as her “love” for him degrades, she can become equally cruel, deceptive and hateful towards him.
So, if women, in broad terms are less logical, more prone to react based on their emotions of the moment instead of reasoned motives, tend to be solipsistic and potentially manipulative, from a male perspective, what makes a good woman?
We need to start with the understanding that the presentation of a woman in the previous character, while potentially valid in broad terms, is an extremely limited and somewhat deceptive perspective; one that incidentally has been pushed relentlessly by (((the usual suspects))) in order to further erode the baseline of Christianity and indeed human performance: the nuclear family.
A woman in her natural and ordered place in life is someone that enjoys taking care of her children and husband and home, and thrives when being respected, appreciated, and loved for her doing so by both children and husband.
The average woman today is bombarded constantly with lies about what makes her life “worthwhile”. So are men, but given the difference in constitution, it is women who are most affected by it, and there is plenty of evidence on this now, one only needs to look at the disproportionate number of teenage girls that have been affected by the tranny agenda and attempt to “become male” which is really merely the recognition that social pressure (in the form of peers but also propaganda on TV, the internet and so on) is more effective on women.
If you have understood the differences between men and women, as already described, this is fairly obvious. Their being more susceptible to emotional and social events, they are easier to fool into taking seemingly polite, friendly, conflict avoidant positions on various issues, especially if presented as the “acceptable” majority view, were instead a strong, swift, and decisive response or action is required. Alternatively, they are more easily led into manufactured “outrage” at some perceived “social injustice”, where once again the main driver is a sense of social acceptance and cohesion (which is generally entirely false but manufactured artificially by mass media outlets, which today are simply the operative branch of the constant psyops we are all subjected to daily)
The West has largely been led deep into Clown World madness, primarily because women can be swayed to “tolerate” and then “champion” just about everyone and everything.
In these terms then, a good woman is one that has primarily overcome her deep need for “running with the herd”, keeping in mind that this is and intrinsic and biologically driven imperative.
There is a reason why traditionally in disasters the priority is on saving women and children. Aside the male imperative (also biologically driven) to be more ready and willing to sacrifice themselves for the safety of their woman and offspring, there is a linked factor, which is the one of relative diminished capacity. We protect children in part because they are simply less able to do so themselves due to their smaller size and lower ability to understand and respond appropriately to a serious situation. To a lesser extent, due to their propensity to process the world through their solipsistic emotions, the same is true of women.
This is why women used to not be allowed to vote, and why when the idea was introduced (by the same usual suspects) the vast majority of women did not want to be given such a “right”.
A sensible woman that is well ordered and balanced knows full well that she has far more power of persuasion and influence as a dutiful and loving wife without the right to cast a vote, than she does as a “strong independent woman” with a vote she can cast herself.
The solution, would be a woman smart and self-assured enough to take this “right” and return her behaviour in any case to that of a dutiful and loving wife, which casts her vote whichever way her husband does.
Although it should he obvious, it needs to be spelt out for far too many, that such behaviour as a “good woman” is deserved only by men who similarly behave as “good men” described in part 4 of this series.
But what of the unspoken concept that a woman’s life being filled with raising children, cooking, cleaning, keeping home and being loving and respectful to her husband makes for a boring, lonely, isolating, limited, suffocating and even dangerous life (because the husband can always drop her for the younger hotter model).
I would say that the primary crack in that narrative is the selection of husband. There is as much danger for a good woman that she may marry the kind of man that will drop her twenty years later for a younger model, that there is for a good man that to marry a woman that will divorce him for no real reason down the line and take half of what he has built along with his children.
That is the pivotal and cardinal point that needs to be addresses first, foremost and above all other issues.
The entire global zeitgeist, driven primarily by the Freemasonic country of the USA, and the vast amounts of “entertainment” that it produces, is geared to destroying, polluting and making the nuclear family as hard and impractical as possible to have and create.
Doubling the workforce by “empowering” women to serve a boss instead of making a home and raising children, for a wage that is now required just to maintain a survival level quality of life, was the first of many methods introduced (yes, always by the (((usual))) tribe of suspects) to make the traditional nuclear family go the way of the dodo.
Shortening attention spans (mobile phones, audio books instead of reading, video shorts and pretty much the entire sound-byte rich but content free dystopia we are all subjected to) produces people that are concerned with short time preferences and who become functionally incapable of planning for the future or even considering it.
The consumerism that permeates every aspect of our lives makes the chase for the next shiny but ultimately meaningless object the objective of a perennial dopamine rush with no reward at the end except an empty and childless grave surrounded not by family and friends but by the decaying and forgotten objects and toys we have accumulated over the years. Perhaps in the not so distant future, with only the standard sex robot/maid/butler android to hold our hand in the final moments, just before the harvesting of our organs routine kicks in.
Ultimately while it is true that it is men that create civilisations, it is women that maintain the social fabric to a very create extent. Men may indeed need to build the structure that holds it in place and directs it into the wind, but women form the sail that gets the boat moving.
How then, is a good woman supposed to counter the constant (and intentional, and evil) push away from the nuclear family and hence a durable civilisation? What should she look for at a minimum?
And here we come to the reason why I have always stated that if civilisation is failing, it is men that are to blame. Yes, it’s possibly quite true that women have been manipulated into becoming gold-digging, selfish, shrews, and as such they need to take responsibility for their own agency and stupidity in falling for it, but that said, let’s not pretend that this has not come about for the simple reason that men stopped acting like men and started to “act” (that is not act at all) like effeminate losers.
It is an absolute fact that your “civilisation” has clearly lost any semblance of having functional testicles anywhere in it when tens of thousands of children get raped and sexually abused by invading foreign gangs of organised pedophiles, and the native police protects these criminals and both the police stations, the politicians and the criminal foreign ethnic rapist aren’t all burned to the ground.
As for whatever clown-world faggotry might label my comment above as “inciting hatred”, I would put it to you that anyone who even remotely thinks that way, is fully deserving of not just hatred, but physical removal from society altogether, and is better to be put to forced hard labour until they either die or genuinely see the error of their ways.
Any adult that thinks that “people” who behave like the organised Pakistani gangs that operated (and probably still do) in the UK to rape and abuse tens of thousands of children deserve anything less than death, as do their enablers and protectors, is not just “not a man”, they are unworthy to belong to —nor are they capable of being members of— any functional, viable society at all. Such people, that have such absurd and dangerous ideology, should NEVER be permitted to be part of a healthy society, and certainly should never be placed in any positions where they may have ANY level of authority over anyone for any reason whatsoever.
In fact, people who advocate against the death penalty on general principle should be shunned and ostracised, as they are obviously mentally, emotionally and spiritually unfit and cannot be considered as healthy members of a functioning society.
Most women, sadly, fall into this category. They do this because being solipsistic, a woman cannot imagine passing the death sentence on someone without also imagining themselves as the executioner on some level. While this mode of thinking is acceptable for a man, and should be, it is not true for a woman (because remember, diminished responsibility for those that are less emotionally stable).
Which brings us again to the “right” to vote.
It is NOT a requirement, and should never be, that a woman actually, physically, is the executor of a death sentence. It is an unnatural state for a woman to be one. As it would be for a child. Even if a woman (or precocious child) understands and agrees with a death sentence, the execution of it should never be for them to perform. It is the duty of a man to do so. In fact, one could argue that if a man lacks the mental and emotional stability to execute a death sentence himself, he probably should never be allowed to have a say in it being the punishment that is justified for a specific crime.
The reason I write all of the above and discuss seemingly disparate topics like the death sentence, the introduction of women in the workplace and so on, is because in truth they all are interconnected strands of the social web of civilisation. And as such are indeed the very “material” of which the social sail of civilisation is made and which women very much construct and are a part of.
A good woman recognises that certain crimes absolutely warrant the death penalty, while also being perfectly aware that she is not the one that should push the button that executes the criminal, and as such should have no “vote” on the guilt of the criminal in question. Nevertheless, she absolutely should have the ear of her husband, who may be on the jury and does get to cast said vote.
Similarly, a good woman should have the strength of character, intelligence and imagination to notice how a theoretical nuclear family, difficult as it is in reality to have even under the best of conditions, and so much more so today, is nevertheless preferable and a better way to spend your life than “building a career” and being a cubicle dweller in an office for the next 40 years, even if it means you have to give up on having the latest iphone every year.
Understanding of these concepts comes to women in a different format than it does men. Mostly it is not achieved with pure logic in the case of a woman, but more by a process of a gathering of feelings and emotions and realisations that over time form a cloud of probabilities the overall sum of which comes to the same conclusions that a man’s direct and cold logic may arrive at faster and with simpler explanation.
A woman that is able to see past the lies and illusions of feminism and the entire class of cultural marxism that has thoroughly infiltrated Western Civilisation and all but destroyed it, is a woman that is not only seeing past the lies, but is also in the process of regaining her true power: her femininity.
Never forget that it was the female beauty and femininity of a single woman that launched ten thousand ships and the decade long Trojan war.
A woman’s power is not in trying to be a man, but rather in fully embracing her femaleness.
A woman that does that and also who has the capacity to devote herself loyally to the family she creates with her husband is not only a good woman, she is literally the co-creator of a functional civilisation. And while it absolutely is our duty as men to rebuild, reinstate, and maintain those structures that support, glorify, and sustain such a woman, as well as tear down, destroy and delete all such structures that are actively trying to suppress her, it remains for the woman to first of all make the choice to BE such a woman.
As to how such a woman finds a suitable and worthy man to pair up with and create that nuclear family and thus eventually rebuild a functional, effective, just society, we will cover that next in part seven, although if you are able to piece together the various concepts from this series so far, you should have a pretty decent idea already..
No related posts.
By G | 8 February 2025 | Posted in Social Commentary, Theoretical Models of Society