"Don't ever imagine that I talk to people. I am talking to a very small group of what I consider friends. These are high IQ young men mostly, but they're not all young. [...] I am trying to convince them to find ways to form, as I tell you, a new Gen'yosha, a new Dark Ocean
Society, a new mobilized mafia, or secret society in the effective sense. A series of such decentralized mafias for the purposes destroying this zombified excuse for a civilization. And it is not my purpose to come online and tell you how to live the life of a good man, and still
less to message somehow people or masses or nations in general how they should behave or what to do. That's of no concern to me whatsoever. And it's also very bizarre to think you could do that, whether you do it online or on whatever other form of communication. Now as regards
sexual morality, I will point the example of Roosh, an unfortunate. And he had a decent blog and forum for men to discuss practical fun matters, fun matters of where to find girls and so forth. And he had some considerable experience himself with travel, and with various kinds of
women and such, and a considerable network of friends worldwide. His experience and connections would've suited him well to become a pimp of some kind and to use the power of the underworld as far as was possible at his fingertips to undermine the so-called democracies. Or if he
was too high-profile to do this, because you cannot run mafia when you're high-profile... [...] In the case of Roosh, he would've been well-placed, if not as mafia leader, but then as a media node to promote ideas and behaviors and notions that again could chip away or somehow
dissolve the doxies and delusions of moderns. He could write book, he could do many kind messaging in that direction that he knows well. But for whatever reason, he chose to give up the knowledge that he had and the experience he had, and instead to tell people that he found
religion, and that he is now a good man, he has been saved from his former coomer existence and he will display his religion. And I find this absurd. What does it have to do with anything? It's of no use at all anymore in destroying what exists. I think it's just a political
nullity. They [...] whatever you think we are fighting, is happy or indifferent to you producing children. From one point of view for them it's more meat for their machine. [...] You are mistaken if you think they care that you live a moral life yourself, or you go to church or
have a family. It's of no political import at all. Where Roosh could have been useful, and I say this in the best way, but as a maggot chipping away at them in various ways. But now he's just a political nullity. [...] On the other hand, you yourself being a louche, a lecher,
having sex with many women or whatever, this doesn't have any political significance either. So it's not that I'm advocating that or anything else. If you want actually my opinion on these things, I will tell you, although, I think already I have during the course of this
Caribbean Rhythms show since the beginning, in my book and elsewhere: I think people are disgusting. The thought of the average human having sexx0rz makes me sick. It should maybe in principle be banned for most people. [...] But what do I care for this, sexual morality? Insofar
as your own personal life is concerned, sexual excess and similar type thing is a waste of time. But so is gluttony. These things should be avoided. [...] For myself and those like me, I would say Stoicism of a certain kind, even neo-Stoicism of the kind Dominic Venner I
understand he recommends this. But it's quite different from ancient Stoicism or what gets peddled about now under that name. [...] The modern world distracts you with sexual diddling and titillation. It's a waste of time and energy. [...] Why people should need to ask me this at
all is strange. It's in my book and it's in the passage where I talk about chimp in state of nature. That's the whole point of that passage. The preservation of vital essence is in my opinion especially important to execution of any great task. However, it doesn't matter whether
you're a coomer with your hand or your wife, by the way, except, I would say being a coomer with your hand is the worst, because there's no limiting principle, whereas with a wife or even with a prostitute it's not as bad. In all these cases you're still a coomer. In the essay I
recently discuss of Nietzsche, the Third Essay of Genealogy of Morals, he explains that for certain kind of men asceticism, the keeping away from sexual relations in particular, is of great importance. It's important for their freedom of life and their focus of power of mind. And
I believe in this! I disagree that you need especially religion for that. Many ancient philosophical systems, both East and West, they offer this same advice on entirely secular, natural, practical grounds. [...] But the chimpouts show something else. It does not matter how much
bluster or edgy language you think you use. There is no way to make the 'blowjobs are mouth sodomy' 'you're going to hell for looking at a woman in a bikini,' there's no way to make that position, so-called, not be a caricature. At least not today. No way! And this why despite
the fact that I may, as I just told you, agree with some of you traditionalists on the matter of sexual morality in practice, in public on the other hand I refrain from talking what I just said now and in general from public messaging on that flavor. Any talk about sexual
morality along those lines usually comes pre-caricatured. Almost always. You make a joke of yourself. You can have all the bluster you want, but you can't actually repackage that, social conservatism in general, you know you cannot have cool schoolmarm. Furthermore, you invite
closet cases who purity spiral into your sphere when you focus on these issues. If this is your concern you have to think of ways to outflank the matter somehow so that you do not fit into the pre-made caricatures of you. But unfortunately many on the right do this and they
embarrass themselves and us on that process. So this bring me to most important point I wanted to make on this segment. On the matter of sexual morality in the abstract, again, I may even agree in practice with a religious traditionalist. In fact, I would even say it's the most
important part of the political and social legislation of a people, because it concerns the composition of the next generation. The matter of eugenics is not really fully distinguishable from that of sexual morality. But I disagree with you, not only on the matter of moralistic
messaging and of being a moralf*g and of making a fool out of yourself in this way, but also in this more important way, that again I'm not in a position to be a social and political legislator and neither are you. I am some guy with small humor account on internets. I have a
book people enjoy, great. I want to try write second book to entertain you. Hopefully come in next few months. But even if I were to persuade let's say ten percent of extreme energetic intelligent men today, everywhere, ten percent, which is a huge number, if I was going to
persuade them with my book, or message, or show, even in that insane dream scenario I wouldn't be able to effect political or social legislation meaningfully, because we live, as I say, in utterly corrupted time. We do not live in a time where legislation of this type in the
highest sense is possible to begin with. Merely introducing, for example, one contextless measure piecemeal into an already malevolent structure of the modern state and of mass societies - I don't even know what kinds of unforeseen and unintended effects it would have. That's not
how true legislation works. You need to have the whole thing. I'm not interested in being another lobby group at the pig trough of modern prestige economy. And the conditions and material for legislation, the human material for a new morality and new state are not present at this
moment. This is my view. So I am interested rather in undermining the states as they exist, not in introducing some minor reform within them. So consider the very controversial late matter of porn lately. It's become part of moral hysteria on the right to inveigh against porn and
to believe that banning porn would solve a great many problems. Well I disagree, but it's not because I love porn or I think it's good or think it can be good. I think porn is psychological warfare. And the right's religious schoolmarm approach is to basically allow only the
other side to use this weapon. In other words, it's unilateral surrender, because you in fact cannot ban it. But you would only make it more valuable and taboo, [...] because you, in fact, will not have dictatorial powers. When I've made this argument, I've been confronted by
uncomprehending repetitions that I supposedly want to make based porn or positive porn or whatever or other stupid arguments I hear that you can indeed somehow ban it, and these arguments go, 'we'll gain control of the centralized internet, we'll put them in jail, we'll h*ng them
and we'll install a theocratic regime.' Okay, you can keep fantasizing. Unlike you, I realize that I am not going to be in power. My friends are not. And believe me, you are not going to either. You are not going to be in power likely ever. And you will never have the kind of
dictatorial power you imagine. And it's useless to come online, or in a magazine or whatever book and to write as if you will have this power with a list of policy preferences and theories about what you would do if you were dictator. This useless engagement in fantasy. Porn will
continue to be produced, people will continue to watch it, it will continue to have bad effects, and you either use this psychological weapon or only the other side. It's that simple. So you see where part of my disagreement with some on such matter come from. I am interested in
attack posture, and they are not. [...] But insofar as there is political activity, this what I recommend: Rotting. Rotting! Rotting! My purpose in part, then, is to convince men like myself, then, no longer to be caretakers of societies, but insofar as they must act politically
to be destabilizers and sowers of so much chaos and insanity that above all what must happen is this state system, otherwise called the Pax Americana, that suffocates the world, that it becomes at least weak enough that certain holes emerge geographically appear which can offer
opportunities for action and for foundation to start anew in other parts of the world. The Jolly Roger can be raised proudly over Equatorial Guinea or Cape Verde or many such places, and where we can gather strength from the chokeholds on world's resources. The Jolly Roger raised
up high!" - Caribbean Rhythms with Bronze Age Pervert Episode 130
Loading suggestions...