Compared to the 21st century, life in traditional Western society, before the Industrial Revolution, was more bearable. Men were able to lead fulfilling lives because society gave them greater freedom of choice. In those bygone days, elites were wise enough to understand that making it easier for men to satisfy fundamental biological needs would be conducive to the well-being of society.
Among these biological needs are sex, female companionship and the continuation of one’s genetic lineage. The Greeks allowed these needs to be met by introducing enforced monogamy, which had the beneficial side effect of mitigating sexual competition between males. This competition is the result of the female’s hypergamous mating instinct. However, this desire to “marry up” is an irrational impulse because it drives the female to pursue the best man even though, as F. Roger Devlin, in his excellent study on feminism, points out, “only one man can be the best.” In Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, Praxagora and her female compatriots pass utopian communistic laws in the Athenian assembly, including one ordering attractive males to copulate with old, ugly hags who prefer young handsome studs over men their own age. This episode is among the most accurate portrayals of female hypergamy in literature. Since women are under the control of their emotions, hypergamy will always play a significant role in female decision-making, whether consciously or not. This is why women neither make suitable workers, nor suitable leaders. Hypergamy practically guarantees that women will lack a sense of fair play, especially with men who don’t “make the cut,” sexually speaking.
Female hypergamy always turns the work environment into a sexual battleground, with outcomes predetermined by Darwinian laws of sexual selection. Male worth is no longer decided on innate ability, but on indicators of reproductive health, i.e. a chiseled jawline. When hypergamy is unrestrained, with too many females in administrative positions, it destroys the livelihoods of all but the most dominant males. Without enough males to sustain families on a workingman’s wages, fertility rates will decrease, undermining the government’s ability to produce wealth. Ancient societies would be highly vulnerable to collapse because of runaway hypergamy, given the rudimentary development of labor-saving devices. These technological and economic limitations made ideas like womens’ liberation virtually inconceivable, since without sufficient manpower, ancient Mediterranean societies would not have been as wealthy or as powerful. This need for manpower – bodies – was undoubtedly the motivation behind Augustan family legislation penalizing adultery, celibacy and childlessness. The emperor feared the extinction of the great Italian families, along with the empire, unless they replenished the population at or above replacement levels by continuing their genetic lineage.
Pre-industrial life offered other advantages. If a man was, through sterility or some other disability, unable to procreate, he could make his mark on the world by becoming a poet, philosopher or artist. Since few people were literate and leisure time was scarce, competition among writers and artists was never as fierce as it is now. Among surviving works, are many of slight literary merit, i.e. The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius, which have outlasted their authors by centuries, to be mined as a treasure trove of historical information by generations of scholars. When enforced monogamy was the norm, perpetual chastity reflected genuine moral resolve in the face of temptation. Witness the enormous popularity of this ascetic practice among Christians of late antiquity, after Anthony had abandoned urban life for the Egyptian desert. These days, perpetual chastity is a reflection of underlying genetic inferiority, not moral resolve or ascetic mastery over bodily impulses.
The Greeks and Romans, like all Aryan peoples, inherited a caste system (which was neither as trifunctional nor as pronounced as the caste system of the original Indo-European society), with slaves relegated to the most back-breaking, menial tasks. This imbued life with a sense of interconnectedness, giving meaning and purpose by assigning each man a predetermined role according to birth or ancestral origin. In such an order, individual worth was evaluated on how well each man performed his respective role. Able-bodied persons were not left out, unless they chose to abandon society, like the Cynics or Egyptian hermits. This highly structured social hierarchy was viewed as an integral part of the Aristotelian Great Chain of Being, beginning with the tiniest grain of sand to the primordial source of all motion, the Unmoved Mover.
At the top of the hierarchy, were emperors and kings, who demanded apotheosis for themselves. The aristocracy, i.e. aristoi and patricians, were spared physical drudgery, the guardians of the classical order having reserved for them the opportunity to strive for excellence. Beneath the aristocracy of the Roman empire was the Italian citizenry. The free woman was under the authority of the paterfamilias. Women were only accorded respect if they were good housewives and mothers; if they were promiscuous or wayward, they were stripped of the privileges of citizenship and registered as whores. At the bottom of the social pyramid were the conquered populations, a source of tribute to Hellenistic kings and Roman Caesars.
The order and hierarchy of the classical world was carried into the Middle Ages. Aristotle’s conception of hierarchy was later absorbed by the Medieval Church, which ideologically justified its ecclesiastical supremacy over the feudal order by claiming the infallible vicegerency of god on earth. Peasants toiled away for their lords, bound to the land for the rest of their natural lives. Vassals were granted land tenure in exchange for offering their lords military assistance on the battlefield. The droit du seigneur, if true, was only a minor inconvenience compared to the privilege of swearing an oath of fealty to a distinguished lord and serving him with honor and distinction. Oaths of fealty and lifelong service were staple features of the medieval chivalric code which, in the poetic language of Edmund Burke,
… mitigated kings into companions and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power, it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a domination, vanquisher of laws, to be subdued by manners.
Compared to the classical and medieval worlds, the modern age is a black pit of Western cultural degeneracy. In our age of sexual immorality, where elites and corporations have joined forces to inundate society with “free love” propaganda, it is paradoxical that beta males find it increasingly difficult to satisfy their biological urge for sex and companionship. The only thing that womens’ sexual liberation has accomplished is give female hypergamy free rein. Often, beta males must settle for women beneath them in status and attractiveness. These women are typically monkey-branching, cock carousel-riding, long past their expiry date, the opposite of good housewife material. Without the stake in society once assured him by institutionalized monogamy, young men are (rightly) dropping out of a liberal social order that trivializes beta male concerns. The hikikomori and kakuhido of Japan and NEET of the Anglosphere are the most well-known examples of this trend. Others, faced with a lifetime of loneliness, choose suicide and drug abuse as a way out. Some die of health complications associated with prolonged social isolation. Surprisingly, they rarely snap and kill innocent bystanders, despite the public humiliation of lifelong sexual starvation – a tribute to their great composure in the face of intense personal suffering.
|Women’s clothing 1940s|
Another source of beta male suffering is womens’ cosmetics and fashion. Women dress like whores because they are instinctively hypergamous, in addition to being openly encouraged to do so by Western liberal society. The ubiquitous “yoga” pants, designed to release the everyday woman’s inner whore, are worn to attract dominant males, but unfortunately pique the sexual curiosity of a growing male sexual underclass. This needless titillation forces men to endure physical and emotional torment. In a truly civilized order, women would be banned from titillating men against their will, given that not all men have the financial resources or reproductive health to attract females of prime reproductive age. For this reason, ancient lawgivers enforced standards of feminine modesty; they reserved the private sphere for females, but the public sphere for males. This tendency to order and reason differentiates classical past from decadent present.
Under feminism, only females and alpha males have rights to sexual autonomy. Sex, a basic human resource, is monopolized by alpha males, while men at the bottom of the sexual hierarchy must either be satisfied with damaged goods (promiscuous women no longer in their reproductive prime) or be permanently excluded from the sexual marketplace. Few men complain about the injustice of the liberal state’s regime of enforced chastity because lesser men are expected to passively accept their status as sexual losers. Complainers are kept in line by modern society’s version of 1984’s Junior Anti-Sex League: feminists and their personal army of deluded white knights. Instead of proposing rational solutions, feminists admonish beta males to work on their “personalities,” find hobbies and shower daily, even though none of these things affect sexual market value in the slightest. If the language of emasculation doesn’t work, i.e. “You can’t get laid,” intimidation, threats and round-the-clock police-state surveillance surely will. The impression one gets is that voicing concerns about sexual starvation – in our age of imagined sexual freedom – is even more taboo than frank discussion of sex during the Victorian Age.
Why are women given such a privileged status in post-Western society? One possible explanation is that feminism functions as a modern-day Neolithic fertility cult. This is not surprising, given the extreme matriarchal focus of liberal policy. Women are worshiped as living gods by sexual fascists, i.e. armies of government bureaucrats, lesbian ideologues and white knights; meanwhile, non-alpha males are treated as disposable commodities, everywhere encouraged by society to passively accept their inferior status with a smile. Seemingly harmless actions, i.e. looking at or saying hello to women, can be dangerous for non-alpha males. Sexual fascism means that wealth can’t even protect men from the accusations of shrieking harpies, basically frigid old hags who compensate for their inability to attract alpha males by taking down rich and powerful men.
Feminist sexual fascism is not the only problem the beta male faces. If he is race-conscious, he must witness at firsthand his community being torn apart by the marauding non-white hordes, while all he can do is stand by and observe the destruction in silence. Gone are the tight-knit communities and social bonds of the past, torn asunder by the elites through white race replacement. Third World chaos, which has flourished in its stead, has deepened the alienation of urban industrial life, hence the modern phenomenon of white flight. This state-enforced invasion is a violation of the contract that once bound together in indissoluble partnership “those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born,” making it forever null and void. The average man no longer owes the state anything, apart from his everlasting hatred and contempt.
Beta males find themselves increasingly disposable and unwanted in what is fast becoming a New Stone Age. The foreign take over of Western economies and governments encouraged by globalist elites has marginalized the beta male within the country of his ancestors. He could die in his own apartment and remain undiscovered for months, until the stench of his rotting corpse escapes from under his front door. The government is his mortal enemy, hell-bent on destroying him, his race and his culture. At no time in history has a government been more hostile to its own people. In the Middle Ages, lords protected their vassals from the vagaries of fate; today, government bureaucrats subject their citizens to Third World rampage and legislation based on flawed social science.
Some will retort that the 21st century is the greatest time to be alive because of the enormous technological and scientific progress made in the last two or three centuries. Regardless of how beneficial the Scientific Enlightenment has been, its discoveries are worthless if they are used to undermine the backbone of Western civilization. This would be the average white man, who requires satisfaction of his fundamental biological needs to be a functional member of society. Depriving them of the means to satisfy their needs may prove fatal, since without average white men to maintain civilization, what is left will decline precipitously.
If Western discoveries are used to undermine white racial hygiene and ethnic homogeneity, they become weapons of biological destruction. In this regard, mass transportation is a double-edged sword because it can be used to undermine living standards in white countries by importing millions of non-whites. A growing population of Third Worlders will inevitably drain state resources, slackening the pace of scientific and technical progress. Medical discovery has been largely beneficial; some may laud the ability of medical researchers to prolong lives and combat the spread of disease. However, if medicine is used to prolong the lives of the genetically defective, it is just another form of sadistic cruelty masquerading as Christian charity and compassion.On the other hand, Christian “compassion” multiplies human suffering by leaps and bounds; far from being truly compassionate, Christianity embodies all of the worst features of feminine nature, i.e. hypersentimentality and overnurturance, while eugenics – the only real source of genuine empathy for the suffering and dying – is alone conducive to the general welfare and happiness of society. In this respect, the Greeks were more humane and civilized than us moderns since they practiced eugenics at every opportunity.
The beta male is in a more degraded condition than Roman pleb and feudal peasant. At least the latter were able to carry on their genetic legacy in an ethnically homogeneous community, despite whatever humiliating treatment they may have received at the hands of the aristocracy. As horrific as droit du seigneur sounds to modern ears, it was nowhere near as horrific as the beta male’s life under Western democratic tyranny. Although expected to delude himself into thinking he’s happy, it’s obvious he continues to suffer under the yoke of state-imposed chastity and Third World invasion. What is unusual is that the beta male imposes this hardship on others, without uttering a single word of protest in defense of his own genetic interests. This stoicism in the face of great suffering, would be noble, but for the herd-like acquiescence in their own destruction.