Why Modern Men Must Become Aristocrats Of The Soul

If one were to compare the men of the traditional world to those of the modern world, certain differences in constitution would become readily apparent. While institutions and environment will alter the spiritual constitution of men if allowed to become influential enough, in the grand sense, a people’s men will actually find more influence going in the opposite direction.

If a society succeeds, it is likely due to the character of its men. If a society fails, so too is this likely due to the character of its men. For this reason, those differences between men of two time periods before and during an epoch such as that which we find ourselves in cannot be ignored, for rather than products, they find themselves more as integral causal factors.

Gentlemen with top hats in 1914

Where the men of our distant past were ceaselessly heroic and courageous, sure of themselves, masters of their own destiny, today men are undeniably weak in all areas to which their sex should render them adept. You ask why men today are on the verge (if not already there) of being less educated than women, and all this entails in the world of socioeconomics?

You ask why every law, most of which were written by men, are today slanted against our sex with the intention of supposedly preventing our long-held and deeply evil patriarchal privilege? You ask why white heterosexual men are the most vilified people in existence, against whom it is fine for a major television network owner to utter quotes such as that we “just have to die”?

One can blame the institutions, the schools, the government, the media, perhaps even secret conspiratorial bands such as the Frankfurt School. However, this misses the larger point. It directs critique against events and people in history whose actions and formulations were in fact only parasites latching on to a greater decline to which we were tragically blind.

The True Virility Of Man


Modern man lacks a laundry list of virtues, but only two are absolutely essential for societal health and success. These are the virtue types that correspond to what Julius Evola termed “True Virility.” They are, Heroism (warrior bravery) and Asceticism (transcendent discipline). Without some measure of these two components, man will fail to achieve true manhood.

The fewer men who achieve this state, the less stable and correctly ordered a society will become. All manner of calamities will befall a nation which has no real men, whether it be the explosion of depravity, defeat at the hands of a superior enemy on the field of combat, or the implosion of the sociopolitical order due to the lack of control exerted over both women and men of exceptionally poor character.

Problems faced by the Occidental West exist in orders of root importance, and one of the most primary, if not the primary malfunction, is the abolition of man. We are indoctrinated to believe that all violence is wrong and that young boys should observe womanly “classroom etiquette” which will help them become ‘courteous and conscientious’ men.

We are taught to abandon self-sacrifice and the ritual life, to cast off the religious beliefs of our ancestors as the crude tools of white privilege and autocratic rule. By this dismissal, what is achieved? Shells of men blindly walking from one humiliation to the next, addicts for what small pleasures they can find, and thus masters of nothing. Can an addict ever be the master of his substance?

Now that men have ceased to be men, women have an unassailable advantage in the sexual economy that is unparalleled in human experience. Modernity’s corrosive has burned right through the soul of man and as such has disarmed him of any weapon he might use to halt its destructive advance.

The Unique Breed

With this taken into consideration, we observe man in a pitifully hopeless position, not because he is so unfortunate as to be persecuted, but because he is so pathetic as to be persecuted.

Looking at the current state of affairs, light shards of hope penetrate through the darkness, the whisper in the underground of those who dare to, in a very organized fashion no less, raise objection to modernity’s preeminence. Some are disappointments, believing there to be legal recourse for what is a megalithic disorder, or seeking reconciliation with those our ancestors would have considered intractable and insane enemies. Others go deeper and know with certainty that to throw off this yoke, man will have to be reborn.

You must foster these true virilities in yourself, in the knowledge that you are a unique breed. Most men, the vast majority in the West perhaps, are content with their meager lot in life as all semblance of respectability slips away in a world long since put to the flame. You do not. If you see the modern world for what it is, you already exhibit a trait that is rare: the unvexed, rightist mind.

You are perhaps the embryonic stage of what Evola called the “Aristocrat of the Soul.” From this, with a staunch and unyielding opposition to modernity, ascetic in development and undoubtedly heroic in its eventual conclusion, Occidental man can once again stand tall. On that day he will live no longer among the ruins but among the new construction yards of those grand institutions leveled by the liberals. He will enter the regal stream of the new current.

Preparation Of The Inner Man

C.Z. Codreanu

This is no call to action, but instead a call to become actionable. When manhood returns it will have no help from those forever gelded by the feminine nature of the “Enlightenment.” You must cast off all illusions put upon you by our new cultural wardens, endure all pains for the cause of righteousness pursued, and find yourself proudly guilty of all ‘phobias’ and ‘isms’ heaped upon you.

In your own life, pursue the fight, the confrontation, and the opportunity to show strength. Consign yourself to contemplation and ritual in the long hours, for discipline will be essential in the times ahead. No battle can be won by men in a world where men remain extinct.

It is only through the cultivation of the stouthearted and disciplined man that the enemies of lost manhood may be unseated, for though physically, mentally, and spiritually deficient, they hold all the levers of power which prevent any kind of judicial, political, or even meaningful argumentative victory.

Any appearances of such victories are merely Pyrrhic distractions. The first and most important battle is that of the soul of man. Once this is rejuvenated and repaired, the rest will come as a necessary response. Every external action should serve to strengthen your inner resolve in contribution to the eventual return of sane traditional civilization, which may only materialize after a truly harrowing period to come.

Always remember, half measures are not enough. Through understanding the truths of men and women, it is exceptionally easy to “hack” the system for the gifts of fleeting and fleshly joys, but we do ourselves a disservice to pursue this while ignoring the greatest joys which are so unjustly denied to us, those of family, headship, the national life, ultimate purpose, and honor.

These are the greatest ends one can lay down all that ties him to the current order for. To quote the Orthodox martyr Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, “Avoid carnal pleasures for they kill the soul. Do not destroy the hero that is in you!”

Read More: You Are What You Feed Your Soul

127 thoughts on “Why Modern Men Must Become Aristocrats Of The Soul”

  1. Since Christianity has turned into a form of Creative Anachronism, I don’t see how you can revive it now. Better to set it aside and move on.
    Religions do age and die, after all. Harper’s magazine an issue or two back published an article about the rapid decline of the ancient Zoroastrian religion, a faith older than christianity that had millions of adherents at one time. The last Zoroastrian could very well die in this century:
    I’d give christianity about another thousand years before the last christian of any variety dies, at the end of the religion’s long twilight.

    1. ISIS is helping speed up the process. The days of ancient tradition is done for.

      1. Muslims are committing religious genocide the world over hence speeding up the death of Christianity.

      1. By all rights, Christianity should have never survived it’s infancy. But it did. Don’t underestimate it.

      2. Christianity is the biggest religion in the world, and the fastest growing religion in the world too.

        1. I hope that is true but Christianity is more or less dead, as far as the West is concerned and adherents of Islam are far more militant.

    2. Read “God is back” by The Economist journalist and bureau chief. Hardly Bible thumpers.
      USSR and every other Eastern European country ditched evil and utterly dysfunctional atheism. They are now strong Christian nations, with Russia and Poland leading the way.
      There are more devout Christians in China today than nominal Christians in Europe, despite heavy atheistic indoctrination for decades.
      South Korea sends out more Christian missionaries than any other nation in the world per capita . Only a few decades ago, Christianity was not even significant. Again we can see that growth in devout Christianity followed by economic growth.
      The number of devout (not nominal) Christians is rising in the West, both in Europe and the US.
      Your comment is neither factual, not logical. More like atheistic wishful thinking.

      1. With Christianity growing, feminine women and strong, practical leaders, the Russia-China axis is going to be STRONG. Cough, cough. BRICS cough, cough, index fund cough, cough.

      2. I have certainly heard some say the present societal state will destroy cultural/nominal Christianity whilst in turn invigorating ‘devout’ Christianity.

        1. This is definitely happening in Scandinavia. When our women Bishops are in front of gay parades, where men have openly sex in the streets, as a part of their “celebration” to combat the stereotype that gays are only sex-crazed perverts, – then Christians turn away from our big global warming hysterical state churches and turn to denominations outside the official state church.

        2. Yes, the phenomenon of sorts has been observed in several Nordic countries. A similar thing happened in Finland when the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the state church, endorsed same-sex marriage; thousands resigned after the Church’s primate, the Archbishop of Turku, announced his support for the Eduskunta’s decision to legalise same-sex marriage.

      3. I never understood how cultures with their own unique histories and customs (such as the ones in Asia) were able to adopt a completely foreign (to them) religion from the other side of the world. There is not even a single Asian in the biblical texts! How can they relate and take it so seriously?
        This also applies to northern Europeans I guess… although *some* population movements from south to north can account for that.

        1. Interestingly enough, Christianity is technically counted as an ‘indigenous religion’ in China, because its history there is so old. (dating all the way back to the Tang dynasty). Nestorian Christianity was something a lot of Chinese identified with because it spoke to the Chinese religion which had come long before Buddhism and Confucius, which was essentially a monotheistic faith (worship of Shang Ti) and many have pointed out surprising similarities in symbology especially between this and Christianity.

        2. Not quite. There is a long-standing historical relationship between China and the Christian faith. It’s a fascinating topic; I would recommend studying it at least superficially.

        3. There are two aspects to this question. First the preachers, then the text itself.
          If the first wave of preachers are foreign and look foreign, then the religion is foreign. But in third generation, you will have people 100% Chinese with Christianity a part of their family fabric. The pastors will be Chinese, trained by other Chinese pastors. There is much occultism in both China and South-Korea, so Chinese/South-Korean pastors will have their own way with dealing with their specific Chinese/South Korean black magic and spells.
          Some of the most famous preachers in the West are now Chinese. http://www.amazon.com/Heavenly-Man-Remarkable-Chinese-Christian/dp/082546207X
          Then you have the text itself. For me it is clear divine design that not once, in all the 66 books of the Bible, is colour of hair, skin and eyes mentioned. Not a single time. And this is very contrary to human behaviour as some of the first thing we will do is to describe them. Especially if they are very beautiful, as Queen Esther or Bathsheba and David.
          But we don’t. We have no idea of the coulor of the eyes, skin etc of Jesus or his disciples.
          Compare that to Islam, where we know everything about Muhammad, including who he went to toilet, that he used an odd number of stones, that his favourite wife Aishya used to masturbate him when she was six.
          So the Chinese read about a man, undescribed, and he will be a man close to them and not foreign. No matter how Asian they are.
          Plus unlike Islam, Bibles can be read in Chinese, and pastors can use examples from Chinese daily life to explain the theology and not mainly use examples from a vile and barbaric desert warlord over 1 000 years ago.

        4. I never actually noticed or realised that no specific race based physical descriptions were written in our current available versions of the bible. That is definitely by design!
          Although they do refer to nations/locations which would imply what the people would have looked like (for the audience of the time).
          Thanks for your insight!

        5. I learned about it from the Muslims. They ramble on about physical descriptions all the time. Made me wonder.

      4. Russia is still poor outside the major urban areas. It’s also quite violent and crime-ridden, even by US standards. As long as oil stays under $70/bbl Russia’s economy is hosed (oil and gas are the only things of value Russia produces; basically a third world raw material economy.)

        1. Your claims are false, and even if they were true. This is the aftermath after decades with dysfunctional and retarded atheism. Something they only ditched one to two decades ago.

    3. Religion has never died, every civilization has been born on the foundation of religion

      1. You’re both right. I don’t think there’s ever been a successful society that didn’t base the cornerstone of the family and private property upon the foundations of a religion. Religions do die and unfortunately for us, something significantly more inferior always takes its place, e.g. Atheism, Feminism, Marxism, Moral relativism etc.
        Nature abhors a vacuum. When the monarchies and aristocracies of Europe and Russia were destroyed, this allowed ideologues to rule in place of the true racial/ethnic leaders. Destroying religion and society’s natural racial leaders, paved the way for Atheists, Marxists, Socialists and other demagogues to rule over the people.
        Once a religion and more importantly tradition, dies it rarely bodes well for the society it was built upon.

        1. The vacuum needs to be filled. Without religion, man will build images of himself to worship in it’s place. The left does this, we all know personally a few, and they are the unhappiest people who exist. They hatred of organized religion is phenominal.

    4. Islam killed Zoroastrianism, just like it killed Byzantium and the western Chinese Nestorian church, though, in a way, arguably, Zoroastrianism does live on in Christianity. Moreover, Christianity is not constrained by heredity, as is the Parsi faith, so there will never be a “last Christian.”
      Judeism is here to stay, of course, and the teachings of Buddha are permanently documented, as is the story of the crucifiction, so these creeds will endure, unlike the scriptures of Zoroaster that are forever lost.
      We’ve already tried atheism and found it to be worse than nothing. Religion will always have a place. The simple-minded will always need signs and miracles and magic and heroes, but thinking men also should remain open to contemplating the wholesome aspects of religion, while stopping short of embracing any self-destructive beliefs.

      1. Nah. Some of it is cool. A nice watch, pocketknife, pair of leather oxfords, a well-fit blazer and silk tie will get you sorted. It’s not some phony, imagined state. Your mood will be elevated and that’s real. So small-scale materialism is legit. It’s when you get beyond the practical decency of good clothes and some decent household objects and go off into some higher realm of addiction or showing off that it becomes a problem. Being well dressed with quality EDC objects will get your mind right.

        1. Right. There is a psych term called “hedonistic adaptation” which is what you want to avoid. Hedonistic adaptation is where you see these douches e.g actors or oil sheiks say buy 5 Ferraris or have these obscenely large , multiple homes. One porsche isn’t enough you gotta have 4 and on and on. Some materialism is cool though. Buying some quality stuff can elevate your state of mind. Gives you confidence. A Rolex will last you a lifetime and you can pass it on to your kid. Some high quality shoes also as an example. Stuff that costs nothing are like tucking in your shirt, good posture, eye contact. Not looking slovenly.

      2. Are you saying that unconditional love and wall to wall free welfare state are the same thing?

    5. Well, atheism has proven itself so avantgrade, all the societies that embraced it have experienced a revival, specially the Soviet Union, oh wait….The truth is that the West is already Godless and is dying at a pace not even the corrupt Roman empire would have dreamt of.

      1. But deeply religious societies prosper and flourish, don’t they? Oh wait… every shithole in the world, from Somalia to Afghanistan.

        1. The deeply religious United States between 1900-1960 did pretty well. So did the Irish Republic between 1920- recently, when it was contaminated with modernism and it’s economy collapsed. Spain prospered under deeply Catholic Franco. Poland is doing just fine, also.

        2. Most of the top countries by GDP and HDI also report the largest percentages of non-believer population. The data is scattered over many articles but you’re welcome to call me on my bullshit. But we don’t need to throw statistics back and forth. It is a well known fact that 1st World countries, the most prosperous with the highest standard of living: the Scandinavian, America, Canada, UK, Germany, France and most of Western Europe (save the PIGS but we all know how they do), Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, are deeply secular, both because they have the largest populations of non-believers, non-religious or non-practicing and because they are committed to secularism in their policies and practices.
          So where are the most devoted? In Latin America, Middle East, Africa, South Asia, South East Asia… that is, the regions with the most poverty, crime, violence and corruption. As I said, the shitholes of the world are amongst the most deeply religious countries.
          However, correlation does not imply causation, does it? So these facts wouldn’t be sufficient evidence to claim that irreligion produces prosperity and religion produces poverty. I’m just pointing out the folly of linking religion to prosperity. It’s absurd to say that the US, the Irish Republic or Franco’s Spain did well because they were religious, rather than because of economic prowess and successful policies, or that the USSR collapsed because of atheism, rather than because of Communism.
          But if you really want to go down that road, I refer you to the facts above.

        3. Even if your statement weren’t meaningless, what does it even have to do with economic prosperity?

      2. And remember, it was godlessness, not economics or ideology, that destroyed the USSR. When you murder and imprison millions of faithful and hundreds of thousands of clergy, God is bound to stack the deck against you, say, in the form of one bad harvest after another, sky-high infant mortality, barbarian (i.e. German) invasion etc.

  2. The author writes that women are now more educated than men. I’m getting a bit tired of saying that males outperform females on standardized testing globally ( check PISA results) and in almost every subject. The coursework culture was introduced, or rather ramped up when feminists and women complained about female underreprestation. There is now a great deal of research that shows female teachers downgrading male (course)work and pushing up the female grades. I hate it when our own by into this bullshit. I hope one of the ROK writers will do an article on this problem soon.

    1. You’re own answer belies the truth of the statement. Yes, female teachers and in fact male teachers do downgrade male coursework grades and push the female grades up. The entire system of education has also now been totally feminized. This leads inevitably to more women obtaining degrees. Say what you like about the actual value of a degree, it is a big key to socioeconomic success, and men are being crudely discouraged from obtaining them at every turn. Slowly this is working.

      1. who cares, the bitches end up miserable. At 27 they all look for a man with a good job to marry. ALL of them do this, at a deep level they understand they don’t intend to work a full career. These policies are directly fucking women the most over the long term.
        there are still plenty of blue collar jobs for men where you barely have to work around women.

        1. The continuous existence of blue-collar jobs for men desiring to work amongst their own is irrelevant. Yes, there is still an ‘alternative’ to the toxic environment brought about by some women in the workplace but that does not make the educational system’s stance any better. Furthermore, these jobs normally don’t pay as much as jobs requiring more qualifications with some notable exceptions.

        2. Also, I can sense a bitterness (a deep bitterness too) when women get up around 32 or 35 and start to realize that they have another 30 years of work left because their husband plateaud at 70k or something, divorced or not. When attractive, ‘have it all’ types are working away at age 38, getting a daily wall-bashing, and a lot of their less attractive female friends from the past (via facebook or real-life) are coming into their beta husbands jackpots, then the ‘have it all’ alpha girls who are STILL working 50 hours a week are pissed off. When homely Mildred from high school who married that geek is now posting FB shots of infinity pools and boat trips, then Hailey the Pi Phi is NOT happy about that 6:30 alarm bell on Monday morning.By their forties, that huge SMV gap between Hailey and Mildred starts to close fast. Especially if Mildred so much as goes for walks and avoids a serious addiction to sugar, catapulting her ahead of 88% of American women.
          Now a divorced, post wall ‘have it all’ type who outearned her husband (the whole point of supremacy feminism, right?) and now SHE has to cut him a check for 500 a month. Oh, man. THe bitterness. WHat’s that? Another update from Mildred. She’s staying in a four star motel built up in the canopy of the Amazon jungle. Her geek just sold a program to Microsoft and they’re off globetrotting. FUCK!

        3. Catch the season premiere of ‘Mildred & Hailey’ right after ‘Gay Watch’ followed by ‘Nightline’ . .

    2. Women are not more educated than men.
      Girls are getting better grades than boys in school.
      Women are getting more degrees than men.
      That has nothing to do with education.

    1. Is the article too politically correct for your tastes? What should have been added? I thought I was treading on the edge enough by quoting two individuals whom the Left consider ‘racist Nazi fascist war criminals!’, but perhaps I could have been edgier?

  3. I’ve always wondered why religion is even a thing in the manosphere, doesn’t it go against pretty much every manosphere tenet?
    Be “nice”, put women on a pedestal, marriage is a good idea, and so on. Isn’t this the opposite of game/manosphere teachings?

    1. I would say the long history of patriarchal religious practices are anything but ‘putting women on a pedestal’. You’ll note that as the West has become less concerned with ritual, men have grown increasingly powerless and weak.
      This is more a political tract than a pick-up guide. Sorry if it wasn’t what you were looking for.

      1. Except Mary that is. That is the woman that is put on a pedestal. Devotion to her and the affection for her is what I find personally suspect. Devotion to the patriarch of the universe and his son I do not find suspect.

        1. The ‘mother holding baby’ symbol goes way back predating the church. Isis is depicted holding her son Horus. Also Sacajewea. It is only proper for an obelisk to tower over such an image. The obelisk represents man’s overcoming an ancient order of ‘bitch rule’. Like the leather whip wielding dominatrix in Genesis II. Some men make fetish of the B&D whip lady in fishnets. Watch what you wish for man. IT WAS REAL at one time. You wouldn’t want the game to turn real. Still I don’t think the mother/baby image coincides with feminism but depicts woman in her feminine role.

        2. One of the chief reasons I am reformed in theology is my detestation of the idolatrous devotion to what they percieve to be the Queen of Heaven as well as their practices involving Mary statues and images as for me:” Dei Sola Gloria”.

    2. “Be “nice”, put women on a pedestal, marriage is a good idea, and so on. Isn’t this the opposite of game/manosphere teachings?”
      I don’t know where you get that but Christianity (not today’s watered down version) is very patriarchal.

    3. I have only seen girls becoming devout Christians ditch feminism. Instead go being told that their emotional make-up and weaknesses (and strengths) are due to oppression and social construct, the Bible tells them that they are created this way with a purpose.
      So the girls embrace their femininity and can focus on “everything beautiful” instead of career, fighting the patriarchy etc.
      And the girls really like it. They seem very happy.

  4. Modernity is one of the cruelest ideologies. In deals in vicissitudes. That’s its power. Despite feminism, we still like, in fact demand our functional masculine archetypes- men must be strong, decisive, heroic etc and at the same time, a man must behave, if he’s to be truly modern in a totally compromised manner, both in the work-place and in the home where he must yield to ever type of mind and soul destroying feminist platitude. For example, the constant moaning, helplessness and resentment combined with the coldest indifference to so many things that have an innate value in themselves that are totally lost when the mind is made barren to this preordained ideology. Modernity fucks you at every turn- in relationships, in mass culture, in the work-place it says “do as I say but not as I do”. Then, you get men who’s only idea at getting back on this disordered system is to lunge into the simplicity of religion or others who just go through life fucking as many women as they can and yet others who just amass piles of crap that says “I made it!” However, the solution to this lies in the ability to be totally detached, the ability to play all of the above poor players without them even knowing it- the first step in this is to realize that most of them are conditioned (no matter what their IQ is) by a small set of emotional- reactive principles- once you realize this plain fact, you will become the master once more.

    1. “However, the solution to this lies in the ability to be totally detached, the ability to play all of the above poor players without them even knowing it”
      That’s powerful stuff there. It’s the tack that I’m trying to take. Quietly play the world for the things I want. That’s all the left is doing–imposing their will and getting what they want (however insane and jumbled their minds are). Too many good little white boys are clinging to ‘duty’ ‘man-up’ principles and they’re just losing the game. It’s like clinging to the old fashioned set-shot in hoops once the brothers started jumping around and springing all over the place. You can cling heroically to the set-shot and lose badly or adapt to the new game. If the culture is giving a huge middle finger to decent, modest, traditional, hard-working white men, then fuck it. Go wild and be smarter. A lot of the older principles of masculinity can be a real stealth tool these days.

      1. What women fear and other lesser men come to respect in another man is that old-fashioned virtue of silence and reticent. It denotes, that this guy has an inner sanctum and that he is the gatekeeper too, namely that he’ll decide, who he wants in his inner circle. This is the hallmark of true masculine strength and leadership, as it defines a character that has discernment and judgement and who’ll discriminate actively against empty headed, compromised men and domineering shallow women who’d make a pig sty and prison out of his kingdom.
        What, I do say about these people? Play them with their own pseudo kindness, insincerity, flattery, and banality, until the irony of their own hollowness comes to haunt them, through their broken marriages, through their barren careers, through their obsession with their age and disappearing looks. They’ll then come to you for advice, and start to wonder about YOU- perhaps for the first time in their lives, even though they’ve known you for years. At this point you have options, perhaps you’ll feel sorry for some of them…do I let them in out of pity? This can be fatal, especially with a women. Or, perhaps this is the time I sting them with my scorpion tail, When they are most vulnerable? And who could blame oneself with some of them!
        Nevertheless, a strong man knows how to wait and watch and discern, ultimately he is judge of all who want to accompany him on his journey. Yet, he knows, if needs must, that he can do it alone.

        1. I can try to add a little myself. A guy should get to a state or reticence just for the sake of it alone. Not just verbal reticence but emotional reticence as well. Sometimes you can cash in on it later, as you explain. Sometimes, you can’t. Either way, you shouldn’t care that much. The point is that you should get to a state of near total apathy for how you are regarded. This would lead to a more reticent demeanor simply because you’re not bleating away in an attempt to impress. It shouldn’t matter to you. I can say that before Millenials came along I would have said that reticence and masculine reserve would always win the day eventually. With Millenials, that’s not the case. The women are so far up their own asses that they wouldn’t even notice and the men are so detached from masculinity that they wouldn’t know either. Most of them are so busy supplicating to the feminine imperative that to simply shut up and wait for respect would never even occur to them. The bottom line is that it however it ends up being regarded, masculine reserve is the only way to carry yourself. Anything else is supplication, gossip, chatter, feminine.

  5. Good article my friend. The whole “enjoy the decline” attitude I see in the manosphere is ultimately rooted in despair. I expect you’ll get trolled by the Godless heathen usual suspects, but it’s good when men demonstrate that there’s more to life than increasing notch counts or accumulating swag.

    1. Many thanks. I don’t want to deny those people anything at all. If modern men want to be ace playboys there are literally all the resources they will need right here in the Manosphere, and not a huge amount more that can be said on the subject, it has been covered so well by essay writers on ROK and elsewhere.
      But I stress this isn’t a religious article. I’m not discussing any theological questions here (I don’t even mention any particular creed by name!), and some seem to think that I am. Instead, I’m addressing the state of man in the past, and the state of man today. Questions of metaphysical attributes and qualities do not need to become synonymous with a discussion of religion unless the reader wants that to be the case. Nothing I’ve written here is really in contradiction to what this site’s owner, Roosh, stipulated when he discussed ‘NeoMasculinity’. In fact, I re-watched his video on that topic before writing this essay, framing it as a Reactionary overture for the Manosphere, how the radical right views the political project of reclaiming manhood.

      1. I don’t claim to be a disinterested observer in my articles; ultimately I’d like to see everyone enter the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. I try to write in a way that makes the reader curious enough about transcendent and spiritual things to pursue their own studies. It’s a fine line to walk, and I think you succeeded at it. Well done.

      2. “When manhood returns it will have no help from those forever gelded by the feminine nature of the Enlightenment”
        How is the nature of the Enlightenment “feminine”?
        Would you say men like the Founding Fathers of the United States or the Libertadores in South America, who were direct products of the
        Enlightenment, were feminine?
        “Where the men of our distant past were […] masters of their own destiny”. The idea that a man could change his fate through the use of reason and science to master nature and overcome god’s will was one of the main legacies of the Enlightenment.

        1. To your first point, not in the crude sense of visible attribute, but in the sense of absolute principles, yes. The Enlightenment was the overthrowing of Organic authority, with suffrage, multiculturalism, etc etc as its ultimate necessary outworking. Guenon and Evola speak of ‘Solar’ and ‘Lunar’ principles, solar representing masculine tendencies and lunar representing feminine tendencies. Solar principles are identified by hierarchy, while lunar principles are identified by appeals to egalitarianism and thus the imposition of artificial or faux hierarchies.
          As for your second point, this is a misunderstanding. The Enlightenment was not about ‘overcoming’ God’s will… this would be absurd. It was about denying that God had any will at all. For more on the nature of science, see Guenon’s treatment of ‘Sacred and Profane’ sciences

        2. Am I supposed to take Guenon and Evola’s assessment of the Enlightenment at face value? It seems like your whole case rests upon these guys. I can’t be bothered to read the personal opinions -these “Solar” and “Lunar” principles are obviously made up so why should I care?- of two relatively obscure figures who write mainly about topics I’m not interested in just for the sake of this discussion.
          I disagree with your typification of feminine and masculine principles. Nothing is more masculine than questioning authority -that’s why rebels, reformists and revolutionaries are overwhelmingly men. Nothing is more masculine than the idea that no man is entitled to rule over another just because of a “divine” or “natural” right or any sort of alleged inherent fitness to rule; that every man is a sovereign in his own sphere and it is in this respect that we are all equal. This is the equality the Enlightenment promoted. This kind of equality is not a feminine principle. Submission to authority, on the other hand, is.

        3. Yes, what you think is the way everybody else nowadays thinks, which is the whole point of this article. Evola keeps stressing that his books are written for a specific human type, not for the masses. He knew that most people would reject these ideas as doing so is the very point of our times.

        4. You’re free to hold that opinion, but it’s incorrect. As Agent Eighty Two stated, the ideas promoted by these figures among others are not ones targeted at the masses, so I’m not expecting all to accept them. Submission to natural hierarchy is incredibly masculine. How do you think an army operates? Tell me which society would win in a war, all other things being equal, one in which every man questioned the authority of their leaders, or one which was a cohesive fighting force. What you equate manhood with is anarchy. Your implication is thus…
          1) Men had never achieved true manhood until the ‘Enlightenment’ was realized in the 1700s.
          2) Post-Enlightenment men are real men
          3) Real men are those that are completely subjugated to the ideals that now exist, which are a necessary outworking of the ‘Enlightenment’, feminism, equality, democracy, etc. all things which have made men domesticated house-bitches who get screwed out of all their money in divorce courts, and have to fend off rape allegations at every turn. Yes, this ‘Enlightenment’ has truly created a masculine society. Viva La Rebellion!
          The fact is, you do submit to an authority, as much as you like to think you are a rebel. The only problem is, you submit to a false authority, a ‘Lunar’ authority, an inherently effeminate authority. This is what ‘equality’ means.
          Vilfredo Pareto said –
          “Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor, and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor, this latter being their chief concern.”
          This is what you serve. It’s a caste system inverted. True men serve an organic caste system which recognized superior and inferior, king and gutter trash, in that order, rather than the reverse. Whenever one argues for equality and ‘Enlightened’ principles, know that he is arguing for every facet of what exists today. Feminism is a natural outworking of the ‘Enlightenment’. It existed in no time prior.

        5. So the more people reject their ideas the truer they are. That is convenient. It dismisses all criticism while stroking the egos of supporters at the same time. It’s the same old “most people don’t believe this so it must be true” principle behind every cult ever.

        6. No, that’s not it. What Evola and Guenon talk about, is not their own invention, and people such as myself who have extensive background in philosophy and world religion can verify the depth and subtlety of what they propose in ways that dabblers cannot. Which is what I meant when I referred to the commonality of your outlook towards these ideas. They are typical of the mass opinion, and mass opinions are always amateur by their very nature.

        7. Your army example is not submission but organization, which is a concept foreign to women, who have never organized themselves for the sake of a bigger purpose. We men have the ability to put our individual interests aside in order to better fit the capacities we are assigned. Hierarchies are established and authority is accepted on the basis of attributes that are relevant to the task at hand. But this is a temporary and limited arrangement.
          Besides, this authority is not unconditional. There’s one thing all great leaders have agreed upon: in real life, authority has to be justified to those who accept it and nothing is more important than keeping the trust of your men. This is why incompetent generals face insubordination and bad kings face rebellion. Whenever authority is revealed to be based on nothing, men will question it.
          Of course the authority of particular rulers was questioned before the Enlightenment, mainly because of specific factors like abusive behavior or poor performance. But the contribution of the Enlightenment was to provide a rationale to universally question the authority of every ruler. The Enlightenment questions rule itself. As you see, I’ve not implicated any of the things you say I implicated.
          There’s no “natural hierarchy”, no “organic caste system” and no
          absolute superiors and inferiors. If you believe in those things, have
          fun submitting to some inbred king.
          Submission is completely surrendering your will and accepting authority unconditionally and without question. A man who submits is lowering himself to the level of a woman, who is fulfilled through submission as it allows her to avoid accountability. A man never waives his agency and he expects to be accountable at all times.
          I can appreciate what your philosophers mean with those symbols but that’s what they’re to me: symbols. It seems like for you they are something else.
          The Enlightenment was not a monolithic set of thoughts, more like a historical period with a few common points. It mostly produced wildly differing ideas but Feminism was not one of them. None of the necessary conditions were given yet. Feminism as we know it today is a direct product of Marxism. If I were you, I’d put more effort into actually getting to know the things I oppose, like Feminism, rather than just lumping all the things I don’t like together and assuming they’re all related.

      3. Would you recommend or advocate new , red pill , men’s clubs then? Fraternal organizations ordered around neomasculine /redpill ideals??

        1. Hmm. Maybe an opportunity there. Resurrect the old fraternal orders (e.g Masons, IOOF, Elks) vs something new that is the dilemma.

        2. I assume economic conditions will worsen in the near future, dramatically so in fact. Unfortunately it is likely our abundant luxury which has caused men to discard leisurely fraternal activities. They remain popular in Russia.

        3. Привет из Франции !
          Боже, Царя храни!
          Dieu sauve le Roy !

    2. “Enjoy the decline” is completely open ended and could mean anything to anyone. I agree it can be used as an excuse for frustrated men to give up and submit themselves to vice.
      I keep posting onto ROK the below reference to a RooshV forum post by the Lizard of Oz. I think this is the most uplifting and empathic motivational post in all of the manosphere. I believe this post speaks to the true spirit of what “enjoy the decline” is supposed to be about.

    3. Civilizations rise and fall all the time…for good or ill…we could not have King Arthur & Charlemagne without the collapse of the Roman Empire…fighting off the Arab hordes gave us Spain & Portugal, two nations that built empires…throwing off the Mongol yoke created Russia…and the United States assumed its mantle as a global power in response to Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan…the process will contimue, the question is which civilization have pride in themselves vs. the ones that do not.

  6. From a fellow rightist, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was far from an orthodox martyr but a fascist war criminal. In order to promote the True Virility of men, you don’t have to go to the worst of them, you will only hurt the message you are trying to deliver and our cause.

    1. *sigh*, a couple of points –
      1) Codreanu could not be guilty of ‘war crimes’, since he was involved in no wars, (although he went through the academy for WWI). The fact that you’ve stated this hints at some historical ignorance of Romania during the period on your part.
      2) He wasn’t a fascist. You might want to actually study the Italian Fascist movement, and the Romanian Legionary movement, to learn massive differences between them.
      3) After the war, the movement which Codreanu founded, the Legion of the Archangel Michael was one of the few right wing movements of the period cleared by Nuremberg of ALL charges against them (these were “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity”, and “collaborationism”). In fact, the only governing forces who did imprison Legionaries were Hitler’s Germany, and the Romanian Communist regime.
      This is the unfortunate result of the large-scale whitewashing of early 1900s history by contemporary teaching establishments, so I don’t blame you, but be more thorough. Codreanu wrote a fair amount, most of it autobiographical. I’d start there if you want it from the lion’s mouth and not from Liberal professors who hate all nationalisms on reflex.

  7. Great article.
    I want to become an aristocrat of the soul. Is there any list of the precepts and principles I need to follow?
    Should I start with reading all Evola and Guenon’s books? I know there isn’t any magic bullet answer, but some guidance would be appreciated, although I know it’s a life-long process.

    1. Thank you. Start with Rene Guenon, just because he’s easier to understand the concepts in the initial stages from. Evola expects a lot of you. The document you want to work towards is Evola’s ‘Ride the Tiger: Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul’. In between some exploration of esoteric Eastern mysticism, Evola outlines how men who see the world as it is must always self-improve and should not pre-occupy themselves with the current state of affairs. The future is what matters. The negative forces which are killing human civilization have no rooting in a higher principle, and thus are on a short chain. They will come to an end sooner rather than later.
      The reason why this is all so important for men, in my view, is that we might actually live to see it end, something that the great men of the last 300 years who have resisted Modernity, did not expect for themselves.

      1. Thanks.
        I’ve already read some Guenon but will continue. It’s near impossible to find Ride The Tiger in my language (it costs near 200€ to buy it, I’m not kidding), so I’ll read it in English. I actually enjoy going through old bookstores in Paris and ask for Ride The Tiger, usually they know it very well but they say they don’t have it. Makes me a good excuse for wandering around.

  8. Mark,
    This is one of the most powerful articles I have read on Return Of Kings. We as men are a lost bunch compare to those men of days past. As I read this post and looked at the pictures I would see Men who were confident in themselves who exuded strength, ability and power. Something I believe we have lost in Modern Times.
    And in order to get some sort of semblance back like Mark said we would have to be reborn!
    I have to find out more about the Virillities
    I wish we were still like that today!

      1. Mark, it’s great to see you bringing Evola to ROK! Now that everyone who was interested has been introduced to the Stoics, Evola is the next step for those who feel that stoicism engages the rational part but not the spiritual part.
        *EDIT: there is also a very good talk on Youtube by the incomparable Jonathan Bowden called “Julius Evola: The World’s Most Right Wing Thinker ” which is very inspiring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs
        There is an unusually detailed Wikipedia entry on him, taken mostly from the excellent introduction to “Revolt Against the Modern World”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
        It’s amazing to see how he anticipated the situation we now face in 1934. Forget “Enjoy the Decline” and “Ride the Tiger” instead!

    1. “As I looked at the pictures I would see Men who were confident in themselves who exuded strength, ability and power”
      well just don’t let the central man in the top picture – the Russian tsar Nicolas II – mislead you with his extensive mustache. he was NOT “confident in himself”, and didn’t posses any strength, ability or power.
      like i already mentioned, Nicolas II was indecisive and weak, caused senseless death and suffering to countless thousands of Russians, brought the country to the verge of disaster, and was one of the main reasons for the success of Bolsheviks.
      with all due respect to the article’s author, i just don’t want this worthless tsar to get any undue credit here.

  9. “Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere.
    Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified.
    Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated.
    Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated.
    Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed.
    Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and
    — Confucius, 500BC

  10. Modern men are product of today’s peaceful society and consumerist culture. Heroism is unneeded in the peaceful (and therefore stagnant) Western world and asceticism cannot exist in a consumerist society.
    In such society, women become the dominant sex while men become second rate citizens to be exploited. Any man displaying his masculine energy is either punished or used by the government as military pawns.
    The brutal truth is, our society will continue to decay and masculinity will continue to decline as long as we live under the current system. No amount of intellectualizing and imbuing oneself with ideology is going to change that. The system must be destroyed first.

    1. The system must be destroyed. There is some type of almost mythical truth in this statement- alas I don’t think it will die a natural death.
      There is still one area that is nevertheless immune largely from the corrosive influence of modernity and that’s the natural world and this has always been man’s natural domain. Women are clueless when it comes to using their instincts and judgement in this field and always fall back on a man’s superiority in this area. However, as you correctly say modern consumerist society has no need for this type of knowledge, weird to say, but it will probably take some type of natural catastrophe to bring men back to themselves. I wonder in such cases where this knowledge was essential for humanity’s survival would you still have all the spoiled, feminist suburbanites decrying the white man’s crime.

      1. Destroy the ‘system of operation’, not the beautiful architecture. Keep the great dams and majestic bridges, roadways and sleek vessels of transport, the giant ships and aircraft. Keep only that which we built. Keep the skyscrapers. Keep it all. Why? Because WE MEN BUILT THAT. It’s ours. Civilization is OUR JEWEL.
        It can’t be that difficult to rout out the individuals negative to the manosphere once it grows to critical mass. And the greatest aberration of modern day THE MANGINA will actually uncreate itself like the ouroborus (snake eating it’s tail) returning to the vagina from whence it came. With luck, no vaginas will be available or willing for the mangina and they will find the next available oriface, THEIR OWN ASSHOLE. With their heads fully in their rectums, they eventually ‘uncreate’ and return to their metaphysical zero point. POOF! (or gurgle) It is natural course for the great mind of man to grow now. This is our day.
        Or: ‘keep the hardware, but scrap the defective software”
        Or this one: ”Keep the baby for pete’s sake but flush the dirty bathwater. There’s DOO DOO in it!”
        Above all DON’T CUT YOUR HAIR MEN (the samson rule). And don’t obey any counterfeit queens (Beatrix, Liz). We’re not insectoid. Only the bee or ant insect species is queen based matriarchal with a queen egg sack that has lifelong fertility and legions of smaller expendable warrior and worker betas. OUR HUMAN females lose fertility at half life. We are mammalian and tribal patriarchal HOMOSAPIENUS ERECTUS. No ‘bug flag’ shall ever fly over our species.

    2. and what society, in your view, breeds masculine aristocrats of the soul? there is, for example, plenty of violence in Rwanda, Congo and certain areas of South Africa… is that the example to follow?

      1. Ancient Greece, Rome, the old Europe were all civilizations that bred masculine aristocrats. No need to use the worst examples to make a counter-argument.

        1. i don’t know… homo-erotic relations between warriors in ancient Greece kinda bother me. in any case, to each his own. i think there are enough opportunities to express extreme masculinity in peaceful societies for those who wish.
          i think that non-peaceful societies were way more “stagnant” than peaceful ones – and if they did develop than it wasn’t thanks to wars.

    3. How is heroism uneeded in a peaceful world?
      Men who strap themselves inside of tin cans with limited air, food and water, then blast to the moon are pretty damned heroic.

      1. How often does that happen and how many men ever made it to the moon? My point is that most men cannot find heroism in a peaceful society and the result is what we see now today.
        If today’s peaceful society encouraged masculine heroism, we wouldn’t have all the problems that we have today with women and this site wouldn’t even exist.

  11. While feminism & hypergamy is in play the end result is going to be societal decline. Surely even the Catholic Church can see it’s decline in the western hemisphere is largely due to this? Yet i’ve seen little evidence of the church despite it’s influence and resources has even attempted to restore balance..
    Remove incentive for men to productively participate in society and they will simply withdraw or revolt. It’s only going to expedite as a larger percentage of each generation going forward are forced into celibacy.

    1. I agree with your assessment of the crisis men are facing. In fact, I did a grave analysis on the ‘abdication’ that men will be forced into, the so-called ‘sexodus’ a while back.
      The Catholic Church has big problems, and I know the Traditional Catholics acknowledge this fact and provide an intellectual response that is both grounded and well presented. Since I’m Orthodox, I can’t fairly perceive the issues that need to be addressed in an objective manner however, so I won’t.
      But I do think a nation’s cultural character does have a big impact. Compare Argentina and Poland for example. Both are Catholic dominated, and yet Poland is probably the most socially traditional country in Europe, and Argentina is a progressive slum. And this is even as Poland has had to fight off political influence from the EU! A question Catholics need to ask is why in Poland, the priests seem to have been amazingly successful at their job, but in other countries they have failed so appallingly?

      1. That is a very interesting analysis indeed and in line with my thoughts, especially re Japan.

      2. Do you really consider Argentina a ‘progressive slum’? I’d be interested in reading your arguments.

        1. That is true and same-sex marriage is supported by a slight majority of the population but a significant minority of the population stands opposed. However, I wouldn’t place it on the same level of degeneracy as much of Western Europe and North America.
          That video is absolutely horrible but I would say those are extremely rare occurrences. Like most relatively prosperous nation-states Argentina has a few groups of self-proclaimed radicals and would-be revolutionaries who cause all sorts of trouble but these things are far from normal in a country which is still firmly Roman Catholic. Granted, I only visit Argentina biennially; things can change quickly.

        2. I am disturbed that the current pope seems to be a Peronist and seems to support the Argentine claim on the Falkland Islands.
          Argentine Catholicism is too much affected by Liberation Theology.

    2. No church is effective or strong enough to steer man’s course when its followers are swaying sheeple. A church is only as strong as its collective of firebrand male minds and voices.
      By that I mean if all the men with minds on here, men of the manosphere, were to call themselves a unified ‘church’, then that church would be like an iron fist that no other church on this planet could match.

  12. umm… the guy in the top picture is the Russian tsar Nicolas II.
    Nicolas II was a total idiot, indecisive and vile dumbass, and beta at its best. he virtually destroyed Russia, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Russian lives wasted in vain, and who is one of the main reasons for bringing Communists to power.
    how exactly is he supposed to symbolize “Aristocrats Of The Soul”?

    1. I have a little more charitable view of the Tsar. He was certainly not one of Russia’s strongest rulers (often listened too much to family members rather than the priesthood for example), but ultimately his downfall was due to events and changes that were always going to swamp him. Russia has experienced leaders more inept than him before, and had survived.
      After studying Rasputin and the coincidences that led to the toppling of the Russian monarchy, I cannot help but see almost a pre-ordination in it, like Russia was always meant to fall. There is almost a diabolically intricate design to the end of civilization.

      1. WW1 helped crush all the monarchies of Europe abruptly. Tsar Nicholas II was actually too nice from what i’ve read. …utterly devoted to his wife and kinda of a “beta”. The Tsar was also just had bad luck i.e. fate with his hemophiliac stricken son, Rasputin, WW1

        1. All true, and I think the son is the major factor that actually led to his increasing blindness to his wife’s failings. His heart truly broke for his son. It is no surprise that someone who had Rasputin’s ‘abilities’ was able to gain so much influence within the royal court. Unfortunately the priesthood acted too late in trying to assassinate him, and the aristocracy acted too late in succeeding to assassinate him.

        2. German Emperor William II was also feckless and neurotic; the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Francis Joseph was doddering and maybe senile. None of the WW1 aristocrats seem to acquit themselves well.

      2. from the very beginning of his rule, everything Nicholas II was involved with was a total disaster: from his unacceptable reaction on the Khodynka tragedy, to disastrous war with Japan, to Bloody Sunday, to Rasputin, WW I and whatever else.
        that’s politics, however. your article deals with personal traits.
        as a person, Nicholas II was indecisive and weak. he felt uncomfortable around people. he had an ego of a little girl: if his ministers came up with a worthy decision or solution, he often decided to do something different on principle – in most cases stupid and inane – just to demonstrate that he’s “in power”.
        Nicholas wanted to avoid confrontations at any cost. He would appear to agree with officials – but the next day they could find themselves dismissed to their total shock. This made him appear deceptive and indecisive – terrible traits in a ruler and person in general.
        all this doesn’t make him evil, of course – just a bad ruler. the point is that he was a below average chump who in no way possessed any qualities of a strong noble man – or could be a decent example to others.
        naturally, i personally couldn’t care less what pix you choose for your articles. i just find it bizzarre that you accompany an article about desirable traits of men with a pic of Nicholas – who in fact represents many things you actually oppose.
        it’s like posting an article on importance of staying fit – and top it with a pic of Chris Christie as an example of a fit man.

    2. Military historian S.L.A. Marshall described Nicholas II as having “a highly effeminate nature.” Not exactly red pill, is it?

  13. This is a genuine question, Mark Citadel: are you a fascist? (Using the term to mean an adherent of the political philosophy of fascism rather than as the usual meaningless insult.)

    1. No. In my own personal critique of Fascism, it supported too much interference with market forces, was inherently populist and anti-aristocratic, was degeneratively secular, and was more concerned with cults of personality than sound philosophical principles.
      Like Evola, I would critique Fascism as an ideology, from the right. I position myself as profoundly anti-Modern in my outlook, and Fascism was a Modernist ideology, despite some promising figures within the movement who were swamped out of influence in the early stages by Mussolini’s die-hard sycophants.
      That’s not to say I’m against dialogue with people who self-identify as Fascists, on the issue of manhood for example, its a topic we might be in almost total agreement on. However, in the end, I don’t think Fascism has any future prospects in the explicit sense, and was a trend peculiar to the time period in which it occurred. Its early theorists have some good insight, but really Fascism doesn’t have anything constructive to offer men that hasn’t already got a record fraught with problems and failures.

      1. The Social Pathologist had an interesting series on Hitler and fascism a year or two ago. Basically, his conclusion was that fascism is what you get when alphas decide that socialism is a good idea.

      2. Your Disqus contributions have sent me off on a journey looking at the ideas of “Neo-reactionaries” and the writings of Evola. Interesting. Very interesting.
        I think those ideas are closely mirrored by Putinism. I can also see them in the style of government of Prayuth Chan-Ocha, the military prime minister of Thailand.
        These ideas, however, come across as extreme in a Western milieu and very far from the mainstream indeed. They are also not particularly in line with the post-Enlightenment liberal traditions of the Anglosphere and to the non-pedantic mind, barely distinguishable from Fascism.
        (Yes I know that neo-reactionaries reject the Enlightenment!)
        Your philosophy comes across as an oriental rather than occidental one.
        The West is too deeply wedded to liberal democracy even to begin to understand this philosophy but eastern countries have no such hangups.
        Perhaps this is why Red Pill men are drawn Eastwards, and have been since the Victorian era when Feminism first arose.

        1. I’m glad you’re looking into these ideas. Putinism is a little far from what we are proposing, but its vaguely headed in the right direction. You should read up on some of Putin’s ideological influences though, Aleksandr Dugin and Ivan Ilyin, who mirror a lot of our views more accurately than the current regime.
          We gladly wear the title of extremists. We’re not really aiming for the non-pedantic minds. I’m never going to convince Chris Matthews of anything.
          What you say about redpill men being drawn eastwards is a very interesting phenomenon. I agree your analysis is correct, they are seeking refuge from feminism.

  14. [We are taught to abandon self-sacrifice and the ritual life, to cast off the religious beliefs of our ancestors as the crude tools of white privilege and autocratic rule./]
    Dam that reminds me of my first class in college and this was for accademic writing. The professor was this short cut hipster glasses wearing feminist looking woman. But since it was an international class, she fot them to talk about their hosts countries superstitions or culture or law and ask their opinion on it and when they feel embarassed, shed jump on it and get the class to kinda laugh and mock it while praising the person for walking away from it. These were people from brazil,china,iran(she really jumped on this one) and was kinda pushing the progressive liberal ideas. i didnt quite see it at the time but knew that she was trying to westernize them. THink this whole multiculturalism seems like a trap to indoctornate these migrants so they can go home and change and influence and shame thier own countrymen while these professors dont get to be called racists siince they are only “educating them” and not telling them what to do.

  15. Greetings, I’ve just only skimmed the article, but one picture jumped right at me. Is the person who I think it is ? The Great Corneliu Zelea Codreanu ? Deep respect for co-nationalistic historical value !

  16. There is only one rule: The winner is the one who wins. Everything else is tactics and strategy.

  17. When I look back and read what men of old did with much less it makes me feel ashamed. Not in a bad way because now I aspire to be like them I want to be like my grandfather or his father . Some of us have been subject to being raised by already pussfied men and now it’s up to us to un pussifiy ourselves not for civilization but for the peace of mind they we will die being our own man and not what society forced upon us

  18. As a child, and again as a father, I read the “Little House” series of books. Charles Ingalls (1836-1902) a.k.a. “Pa” was one tough character, at least by today’s standards.
    Then I watched the 1974 pilot of “Little House”, starring a clean-shaven Michael Landon (the real Pa wore a full beard). They cross a rain-swollen river with the horses swimming and the wagon floating, and upon reaching the other side, Landon falls to his hands and knees and sobs. Give me a break. If the *real* Pa ever cried, it was the day they buried his infant son (an event the books omitted).

  19. Great Article. Evola would be proud – his “Ride the Tiger” is one of my top 10 favourite books

Comments are closed.