On Satanic Masculinity

    There is no universal standard for individuals. Even though I have opinions on how people should act, I can't force people to make decisions so long as they make those decisions as autonomous individuals who respect autonomy. However, it wouldn't be too far off to prescribe a set of values to make sure that people enjoy lives as best as they could, as some forms of cruelty are senseless, and having them allowed in the system, while justifiable, does nothing but serve as impractical.

    While the principles I advise are often aligned with the cultural left, I would be remiss to abandon my right-wing tendencies. And one of those tendencies would be an interest in gender norms. It would be practical to establish a voluntary set of codes for men who feel a need have structure in their day-to-day routine, and find the feminist view of "Toxic Masculinity" to be shaming masculinity (technically it's about wife-beating, but I don't see feminists trying to determine what aspects of classical masculinity cause abuse, and often times confuse voluntary fights between women and men with abuse of women, and competition with sexist domination.).

    Another reason that is less important is to respond to a man by the name of Michael Witcoff, or @BrotherAugustine on the cesspit that is Gab. Witcoff is a fool who believes that a Jew was wrong to be upset about the former trying to rationalize antisemitism, and believes strength can be found in submission. This article will be largely a response to his article, so I'll number my code in roman numerals, so you can press control+f II and then get to the codes if you want to skip my response.

Be warned, I type my response out as I go, so it will be a bit messy and disorganized, to say the least.

"With every passing generation, men become weaker and more confused. This is not only because of dropping testosterone levels across the board, but also because men have few – if any – strong role models in modern America. More and more young boys are raised by single mothers or in female-dominant homes, and then they go off to public school… where their instruction and discipline is performed almost entirely by women. What’s a young boy to do?"

They probably blame soy for the decrease in testosterone rather than phthalates or over chemicals. To give them credit, they might possibly believe in environmentalism, I haven't read that far into his post history.

But an issue with Witcoff's ideas is that assumes single motherhood is the death of masculinity and more prevalent than it is. He also assumes school boards are also an issue. The issue is that these factors aren't the only ones. Most parents, in general, don't want to be parents, they want to be friends with their kids, reflecting on how strict their own parents were. Those who aren't friendly take the ruling too strict mimicking the faults of parents' past. To solve this issue, the father would need to be a mentor figure, to teach the child right from wrong. The father can teach the child that sometimes the mother doesn't always know best and that sometimes risk is good, but precautions must be taken to ensure that this isn't the father trying to take control from the mother for himself. As for the schooling, this would be tricky. If you believe in homeschooling, it would be done by the mother since the father is working.

"Eventually, in the modern age, he finds his way to the Internet. Faced with an unprecedented plethora of choices, he must wisely navigate the endless sea of public figures who claim to teach “true masculinity.” Nowadays the PUA sphere has been largely supplanted by the more general “male self-improvement,” which always teaches how to indulge in one’s material temptations more successfully; not only more premarital sex – as was the niche’s focus in my own adolescence – but more money, more cars, more of everything he wants…all while compromising as little as possible."

Is this meant to be bad? Hell, it might mean the end of the debatably bad parts of Pick up artistry, and not through any feminist means. And what's wrong with material success, ignoring your religion's baseless views on ignoring success in favor of domination by a tyrant?

And the rest is basically "God knows best and minor things send you to hell." The article is overly long.

So that was shorter than intended, so here's the code:

I. Fighting is domination over those who unjustly oppose you and should be praised when practical.

II. Self-reliance and providing materially for your close family are highly prosperous.

III. Control over emotions and restraint of expression are wise and desirable, but full control requires asking for help if needed and not allowing them to sway your choices to self-destruction.

IV. To woo a romantic interest into commitment is the best sign of desirability. To ask without threatening produces no true harm, but restrain yourself to asking twice to be respectful, and try to avoid friends and never attempt with family.

V. To be a father is to be a mentor, to guide. Not to be a friend, nor a drill sergeant.

VI. Proper care for testosterone should be taken when available. 

VII. Facial hair and other male body parts should be prominent. Strength should be maximized.

VIII. Women should not control men on matters that do not involve women in general not the woman in the man's life.

IX. A man should find attraction to women who are feminine, as they fulfill their natural sex as men do.

X. Avoid things you grew up believing feminine, unless it is to make your daughter happy, or as comedy.

XI. Male sexual prowess is encouraged in consensual parties, either among two, many, or one.