Via reader oldfury, a Chesterfield warning on the dangers of reorienting one’s foremost purpose to the objective of empowering women.
As women are a considerable, or at least a pretty numerous part of company; and as their suffrages go a great way toward establishing a man’s character in the fashionable part of the world (which is of great importance to the fortune and figure he proposes to make in it), it is necessary to please them.
I will therefore, upon this subject, let you into certain Arcana that will be very useful for you to know, but which you must, with the utmost care, conceal and never seem to know.
Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together. Some little passion or humor always breaks upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted, their age increased, or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their little passions, and overturns any system of consequential conduct, that in their most reasonable moments they might have been capable of forming.
A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world that they are proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it.
-Lord Chesterfield in a letter to his son
Chesterfield here is essentially arguing for restricted female agency, and therefore the necessity to men of wisely shielding women from matters of true importance – like immigration policy – while pretending as if women’s counsel was desired.
Feminine women don’t really desire, as beta males are wont to believe, full egalitarian inclusion in serious business or political decisions. Having it bores them and they often rebel by deciding for changes that subvert the bounty for which they were charged by obsequious, supplicating men to protect and preserve. What women really love is the man who “trifles with them”, but also assuages their fear that their instinctive female predilection for flirtation and little passions won’t be exploited to embarrass them in polite company as frivolities.
Best thing I ever learned here.
LikeLike
4th Earl of Chesterfield was a brilliant mind and every young man should read the full text/letters that you can find here
https://archive.org/stream/letterswrittenby00chesuoft/letterswrittenby00chesuoft_djvu.txt
That is the wisdom an old era when red pill reigned supreme and man needed to deserve the right to be called so
Only one look at the utter ugliness that is Britain today
will make you perfectly clear that kind of Lord Chesterfield will not walk those street again
Cameron, Johnson Farage that is best that Britain has today and even that is better that it will have tomorrow
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like how you reference immigration as a serious matter when arguing women are like grown children. You commit a major contradiction in that the economics you support treat men like children. Factory jobs protected from competition by immigration policy is a welfare cheque with a punch clock.
The only difference between Trumpist economics and alimony/family courts/divorce laws is the welfare benefits those with penises instead of those with vaginas. It’s free-riding either way.
LikeLike
What silly argument. Wages are now welfare. You don’t work??
LikeLike
They are, in whole or in part, when workers are protected from competition.
LikeLike
There’s much more to immigration policy than the protection of labour. But as to the protection, a worker in a rich country if already competing with workers in poor countries, before the doors to immigration are opened. When mass immigration is allowed, the worker is competing against workers who have an advantage in mobility, numbers and cost-of-living that facilitates undercutting. It’s a one-sided contest.
LikeLike
Dear Mrs Seymour,
You blather. Your “argument” is nothing more than a string of confused images posing as analogies. How can “economics”, being nothing more than a vague abstraction, act like a father to men?
And then you have an abstraction, “factory jobs” being protected from another abstraction “competition”.
What does this mean? Anything? Everything? Nothing?
People do things. Not abstract entities. Have you not heard of the concept of “human action”? That means that is is human choices, plans, and actions that cause history, not abstract concepts.
For example, “The revolution was planned and funded by the Jews”. HUman action with identifiable actors.
And if there is “free-riding” going on, who is riding upon the efforts of whom? Again, you don’t say. Just handy abstractions.
This kind of talk is classic politician-talk. It is intended to remove *people* from the discussion of who pays and who gets. To keep us in the dark as to our real enemies and interests.
Let me make it clear what you are saying by adding actual groups of people back into the discussion.
“You commit a major contradiction in that you want white men with families to protect themselves by demanding shitskins not be allowed to undercut their wages and conditions. This is “free-riding”, meaning it will get in the way of passing what was formerly their wages onto Jews in the financial-skimming industries.”
Fixed it for ya, ma’am.
LikeLike
Exactly so. In Seymour’s world of “real competition”, the man willing (or desperate enough) to degrade his and his family’s standard of living the most “wins”; and any attempt to manage this market is childish folly (unless, of course, we are talking about managing the market of money itself — this, you see, requires absolute control and the most careful management by an elect priest class of ultra competent technocrats to prevent us all from starving to death).
Got it, goyim? Good. Now get back to work and stop asking stupid questions. You know who asks lots of silly questions? Extremists. That’s who.
LikeLike
Another fairy heard from.
I guess enforcing borders and restricting immigration is likewise a system of sexual welfare, so a nation’s men don’t have to compete with the rest of the world’s men so as to have children that actually look like the father AND mother… and have the identify character to continue the life of said nation AS the nation that it evolved into over the course of centuries.
I swear, the quality of shilling, like everything else, is not what it used to be.
Strike one, (((Seymour))).
LikeLike
LikeLike
This gets me to thinking about what the shittest of feminism actually is at its essense. It makes the woman seem to look like more of an adult than a man…….
LikeLike
Time for the Chesterfield heritage to rise up and tow the line.
Age old wisdom needs to be applied. With force.
#whitemanrising
LikeLike
being a shitlord is simply reclaiming the attitude that came naturally to us prior to civil rights/equalist brainwashing, with one huge difference: we now live in a post-birth control world.
in Lord Chesterfield’s time, sex equaled pregnancy, or a good chance of it. women didn’t hold ALL of the cards of reproduction, only some. without the moral/social backdrop of sex=pregnancy/offspring women’s accountability collapses, and men’s right along with it (at least with regards to sex).
yes, women can and should be treated like the children that they are, but the fact that they hold nearly all the cards when it comes to reproduction and building families should sober up any man who thinks that their lack of maturity precludes them from possessing a devastating amount of power over the genetic future of our people.
it will be interesting to see where the response to this biological imbalance, the rising shitlord era, leads us. logical extrapolation suggests that a return to pagan warlord-type societies including forced pregnancies is not far off.
LikeLike
What I think you mean by “our people” does not exist for women.
Women are hard wired to breed with winners. Period. The winner’s tribe doesn’t particularly matter. What “our people” means to her is her children and grandchildren.
In a very real way, the opinions/loyalties/pet issues etc. of white women don’t matter at all (because they will naturally change to accommodate the winners). The only way to prevent the planned white genocide from succeeding is for white men to become winners again. This will require taking back powers that will not be willingly relinquished without a fight. Do enough of us have the will?
The next 20 years will give us the answer.
LikeLike
Precisely.
Now quit blogging and go get the 6-pack she wants,
You want it too, don’t you ?
LikeLike
“The only way to prevent the planned white genocide from succeeding is for white men to become winners again.”
Yes. Winners AND unapologetic TAKERS .
LikeLike
wolfie dear,
she wants a shitlord to lead her on the way.
whether the shitlord weighs 180 toned pounds or 350 blubbery pounds it matters not one iota.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on parallelplace.
LikeLike
Have you ever read Otto Weininger’s book Sex and Character? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
LikeLike
LikeLike
Ask a women what she thinks about something and she can only tell you how she feels about it. Ask her she feels about the subject a few days later and you”ll get the same answer.
LikeLike
Captain Obvious makes me laugh, genuinely. He keeps fucking putting Jewish stars on everyone: me yesterday, and this Seymour dude today. It’s fucking hilarious.
Anyway …. ah ….. I have never heard two females discussing an abstract topic intellectually and intelligently. It’s been my misfortune to have overheard many, many twats going on and on about numerous things — all minor, almost all socially related. Their banal laughter and their joy at living shows you that idiocy can be a good thing.
Chesterfield was an Englishman, and that species of man tends toward circumspection and politeness. His solution would naturally tend toward “humoring” women with acknowledgement of their opinions.
I actually think women are, sometimes, a little smarter than this and aware that they are being ignored. They have very sensitive antennae for men’s true opinions, and I don’t believe a civilized English gentleman has the acting chops to fool one for long.
In my personal experience, a posture of dominance — that is to say, I, Sorcerygod, controlling things smoothly — allows one to eschew polite baubles like pretending to listen to women. If you can maintain a hold over a woman, emotional or otherwise, you can bluntly let it be known that you will be ignoring her.
And actually, there is a feedback loop between disregarding a female and upholding control in general. The more you rule (assuming you have charmed her enough to surrender to you) the more you can broadcast your indifference to her and then the more you can rule.
Most men, who give up to women all control, are disbelieving that men can control women, but in fact, as long as women believe they have OWNERSHIP of you, will cede apparent CONTROL to you. What women want is a dog who obeys, but they prefer a dog with wolfish strains, and so you can disregard them and they don’t mind …. but eventually they will want you to be their good boy. The thing to do is to subvert that paradigm by pounding on them, again and again, and hurting them in a variety of ways, as long as they are emotionally helpless to leave you. Consider that.
LikeLike
LikeLike
If you are interested in more of my thoughts, feel free to visit my site at
http://www.sorcerygod.wordpress.com
I talk about money and politics as well, and have short stories. The one about raping Oprah Winfrey is an especially funny one. Scroll down for that.
LikeLike