It may surprise some, but in all the archives of game, there is no definitive treatment of The CQ. Well, that ends now. Atavistic Intelligentsia is taking a stand: no more miff-tiffing. You guys know what I mean. The arguments are iron-clad–ethical, metaphysical, practical. Maybe the alt-right can excuse some forms of degeneracy, but this we cannot tolerate. Delenda est cunnilinctio!
No society is built on the family. It’s the Mannerbund, stupid. Greg and Singh discuss this building-block of civilization. They cover the sublime theories of historical philosophers like Peter Turchin, and the less refined practices of certain alt-righters. The Greeks, the Vikings, and the Brownshirts also come in for praise and criticism.
AND: A lot of people conflate male-solidarity with homosexuality. Where do you draw the line, goyim? AI refutes this typically Yiddish fallacy. It’s not gay. It’s homoerotic.
The Occidental Observer on hypermasculinity in ancient Scandinavia.
Music: Intro: Fyrdung’s Folk i GevÃ¤r (as usual). Future Fash Intermission: It’s my 80’s (Perturbator / Dance with the Dead music). Outro: Die Braune Kompanie. Also Laibach “Opus Dei” (Life is Life) back-drop to the classic “precious bodily fluids” rant from Dr. Strangelove.
TRIGGER WARNING: The following article contains nuclear-grade Real Talk. If you havenâ€™t taken your iron-pill today, you might want to read something else. Even for hard-core Stormfront proles, the conclusion may be tough to swallow.
The Jewish Question and the Woman Question are rather tedious. Both issues are intrinsically â€˜low.â€™ People of common intellect find them interesting only because of their tendentiousness. Serious intellectuals, on the other hand, tend to shy away from such subjects, lest they be distracted from matters of greater philosophical depth. While acknowledging the bad, one should, like Xenophonâ€™s Socrates, focus on the good. However, these two questionsâ€“on Jews and womenâ€“cannot be avoided. They are of critical import in dealing with history, political philosophy and sociology. For a man to have any understanding of his world, he is forced to grapple with these two most mundane of issues.
As expected, given the generally lower intellects attracted to them, most of what is said about Jews and women is utter garbage. Just check your local university. So it is rare to find an author who addresses either question with the appropriate gravity. Such an author is Otto Weininger (1880-1903), who tackles both issues in his magnum opus Sex and Character. Weininger was an Austrian Jew who committed suicide at 23, but who, despite his short life, attained an unusually mature level of philosophical development. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein went so far as to call him a genius (albeit with certain reservations). Sex and Character is nowadays universally panned as misogynist, anti-Semitic and all-around evil. So you know it has to be good.
Unless you have been living under a rock (or an autiste living in a basement) you will have noticed that there is something severely wrong with white women in America and the Anglo Sphere as a whole. The second a young man enters the dating/hookup scene that is the USA he realizes this. All the lies Hollywood has fed you about the nice guy getting the girl in the end are completely fabricated. There are exceptions if you are exceptionally good looking but for most white men these days finding a white woman who is at an equal level of attractiveness or above his own is near impossible unless engage in a never ending battle of â€œgameâ€ with her. For celebrities or the top 1% of earners this rule does not apply.
As a white man who has traveled abroad to more traditional homogenous white countries and partaken in the company of many a nonwhite women in America, I can tell you that the maladaptive behavior of your typical white American female is not normal in most societies or considered healthy for that matter. The real question is WHY the average white American woman is this way?
There are several reasons including anti-white male Cultural Marxist / Feminist indoctrination in the public schools, media, Hollywood and College. But brainwashing can only go so far. Since the time that Edward Bernayâ€™s began marketing to the emotional nature of women with his Uncle Sigmund Freudâ€™s theories in the 1920s, women had begun to enter into the workplace and make their own money. This was partially driven by new inventions that lightened household work like the washing machine and gas stove but also by the need for factory labor with the men engaged in World War One. The great depression halted their takeover of traditionally male white collar jobs but World War Two and the ensuing 1960s Cult Marx march through the institutions saw the eventual inundation of the once mostly male labor force, ending in workplace quotas and female only monetary incentives to attract more women to majority male fields. The Coup de gras for white American men however was the importation of millions of more aggressive, less empathetic, more R selected, MELANIN enriched third world men.
Women are attracted to aggression, outgoing natures and nonchalant Cad like behavior in men. Read any book on evolutionary psychology and sex differences if you want to know more about human reproductive strategies. But to sum it up men with these traits in ancestral environments were more able to outcompete members within the tribe for resources and mates. As such women evolved to be attracted to these behaviors.
But here is the catch as humans migrated into colder regions of the world a new set of k selected behaviors began to arise (read Phil Rushton and E.O. Wilsons work on R vs K strategy if youâ€™re not familiar). In the frozen northern latitudes, especially during the European Ice Age, Cad like behavior would not allow a man to pass on his genes. It was not enough that you could attract a woman with showy R selected behavior, you had to also feed and protect her and whatever children she bore you. As woman did not evolve to hunt large mammals but gather plant based food or scavenge, they were forced to select men who would stay around and provide for them and their children in the cold barren environment.
For the first time in human history during the European Ice Age the selective pressure for attractive features fell on women and not men. As large numbers of men died while hunting and the ones who remained could not provide for more than one wife, like men in warmer climates could or where women could provide for themselves. This change led to two things.
1) The evolution of eye catching features such as diverse types of light eyes and hair among European women to stand out from their female rivals. Neotonous or childlike features also evolved like small noses, mouths and high foreheads as men are attracted to youthful traits as a sign of fertility.
2) A genetic tendency toward high empathy towards women and children among European men.
In the warmer parts of the world women did not need men as much and so selected for the most Cad like aggressive, dominant behavior and naturally harems formed as the few most valuable or dominant men reproduced with all the women. Geneticists estimate that of those people who survived to adulthood since the birth of our species only 40% of men managed to mate and leave offspring whereas over 80% of women did. The percentage of course varied by region and polygamy rates.
Paternal investment was also high in the Asian and North American Artic. But as Asia was not glaciated like Europe there was more food and lower male mortality rates. The same can be said of the population that eventually crossed into the Americas. This prohibited the selective pressures that would have led light eyes and hair to evolve. It would have also selected for less empathy among men as there was a more even sex ratio in these populations when compared to Europe. Though Asian females did evolve high levels of neotony due to the cold and the attractiveness that comes with it.
But what does all this mean for modern America and European populated countries today? What does it mean for white men?
Simple it means that nonwhite men will be more attracted to white women than their own kind. They will also be more outgoing and aggressive when approaching white women than white men. Of course this does not bode well for white men. With the increasing male attention from majority male none white immigrant groups, even the fat and plane white women get attention from these R selected males. It boosts their ego and makes them think they are more attractive than they are. White men on the other hand have fairly high requirements for starting a serious relationship with a woman, especially if it is to end in children. As a result white men are forced to abandon white women as they are either taken by more assertive nonwhite men or are driven out of the dating pool for all but the highest value white men due to their inflated opinion of their own value, as a result of this increased nonwhite male attention. As it stands 1 in 5 white women may be reproducing with a nonwhite man. The exact nature of these statistics is debatable as white now includes Middle East / North African populations and large numbers of mixed race white identifying Hispanics. Additionally according to anthropologists Peter Frostâ€¦..
â€œfrom statistics on children born to White American women, specifically the proportion fathered by a non-White partner. For the U.S. as a whole the proportion in 2013 was between 11% and 20% (the uncertainty is due to 190,000 births for which the father’s race was not stated). By comparison, the proportion in 1990 was between 5% and 13% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; see also Silviosilver, 2015).â€
Yes white man you women are being taken from you because you are too cucked to do anything about it. And more importantly YOU have let the women of your tribe become sperm receptacles for every savage tribe of men from the world over. Again Peter Frost draws attention to this with the following fact.
â€œYoung women are more likely to be sexually active than young men. This is crudely seen in infection rates for chlamydiaâ€”the most common sexually transmitted disease. Hispanic Americans still show the traditional pattern of greater sexual activity among men than among women, the rates being 7.24% of men and 4.42% of women. White Americans display the reverse: 1.38% of men and 2.52% of women (Miller et al., 2004).â€
So in essence white American women are whores and white American men are increasingly celibate.
Two other factors are amplifying this trend.
1) There are 105 white European descended men born for every 100 white women. This is not true for non-European descended populations with populations evolved toward warmer climates having equal sex ratios at birth or more women born than men. The current lack of wars and low male mortality in general leads to an oversupply of men in Western countries. Not to mention the majority male immigration into Western countries.
2) The men of all ethnic groups are darker than their female peers due to having more hemoglobin in their blood, subcutaneous body fat and eumelanin in their skin. As such women have evolved tendencies to see dark coloration with being more masculine. Which leads women to see white men as weaker and less dominant. See Peter Frosts Fair Women Dark Men
So the situation as you can see is grim if youâ€™re a white male looking for a white female. White females and in particular blondes are in demand by men from every race be it East Asian, African, Arab, Asian Indian or the varying masses of mixed race groups from Latin America.
The real question is white man what are you going to do about it?
Grimey, gaunt-eyed throngs are groping their way across the world. Europe–the object of their longing–offers all. The black and brown masses, hearing her Siren-call, know that they will be welcomed. Europeâ€™s ancient populations are tired. They see no reason to resist.
Such is the premise of Camp of the Saints, the 1973 novel of Jean Raspail. It has rightly received a lot of attention lately, as swarms of Syrians and Somalis, Nigerians and Sudanese, Eritreans and Iraqis begin to infest the Old Continentâ€™s cities. But Raspail was not the first to imagine an ignominious and anticlimactic end to Western Civilization in its homeland. Forty years earlier, another had imagined the same scenario.
Not only imagined, but predicted. In 1933 Oswald Spengler, Germanyâ€™s most celebrated philosopher of history, published his last major work TheÂ Hour of Decision. Spengler is known primarily for Decline of the West, his two-volume, thousand-page meditation on the meaning of history. But perhaps he should be better known for Hour of Decision, because in it, he prophesies many aspects of the current crisis.
The Hour of Decision, at 230 pages in English, is much shorter than Spenglerâ€™s magnum opus. Decline of the West explains why and how the West has reached its spiritual and cultural peak, and will remain largely stagnant for the next few centuries, before it collapses totally. Hour of Decision is more specific. It describes what exactly will happen as a result of this inner decay. Continue reading Spengler’s Last Prophecy
Singh has a confession to make: He was once a libertard. The Austrian School may be the only game Economics-town, but what happens when you open the gates? In come the Straussians and the Frankfurters. What’s an autiste to do? Singh guides Ritter through the morass of sophistry.
Also: The Propaganda organs are going all out on The Trumpenfuhrer, letting loose a fusillade of frivolous lawsuits and solipsism.
The alt-right has really come into its own over the past couple of years and with this comes growing pains. One trouble we face is the integration of women into the movement. Many alt-righters had manosphere days and many of us former libertarians have seen what happened with female entryism there. In normal times, it is fair to be skeptical of women in politics, but we are not in normal times and we are beyond politics. It is not simply a political movement that has arisen; it is a rational desire for an ethnostate and for the restoration of a white way of life. It should be obvious that a white society requires white women, but I intend here to assuage some legitimate concerns.
Before delving into specific comments, I feel that it is necessary to address a fundamental fact. Our (((enemies))) actively wish for the destruction of our people. Divide and conquer is a time-tested and effective strategy. Our enemies know this and have used it to devastating effect. The rise of (((feminism))) and its (((backlash))) have brought much ruin to our people. These ideologies (feminism and masculism) are truly foreign to our people. It is sad that some would elevate one putrid semitic religion to counter the poison of another. Do not mistake me for engaging in egalitarian nonsense. I support the truly Western notion of sexual complementarism: the sexes require one another to be a complete whole. Too many accept Eve or Helen as their level of anima, but to save ourselves we must seek Sophia. And so, let me now white-knight for waifus.
â€œWomen who are into politics are nuts.â€ This may well be true, but consider the following: Jared Taylor frequently mentions how much more sane people with our political views are on average with the rise of the internet. Yes, the current crop of known alt-right waifus are probably abnormal by woman standards, but that does not mean they are completely off their rockers. My suspicion is that they fall into three kinds: 1) those red-pilled by male influence 2) those who are sperg-lasses 3) and those red-pilled by life. Of the first, little need be said. These girls were well-raised or have good taste. Obviously we should support them and ideally wife them. Of the second, we should not be surprised that slightly more autistic girls would be much more likely to abandon the ((((Narrative))). Of the third, we can imagine some lady faced with a frightening experience and then turning to, say, Coontown (RIP) or some other outpost of truth in the safer parts of the web. From there, we should hope she comes to us.
â€œWomen should be making huWhyte babies.â€ Duh. Of course. But how much time does it take to send out a tweet or post a comment, or even join a podcast? We shouldnâ€™t be watching TV or the like anyway. We moderns have plenty of free time, we should use it to good ends. I donâ€™t think anyone is arguing that women should abandon their children to engage in online political activism. As for doxing, well, thatâ€™s a chance we all take.
â€œWomen shouldnâ€™t be leaders.â€ Thatâ€™s reasonable enough, but donâ€™t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If a female-led party is the rightâ€™s best hope, so be it. As for leadership in the alt-right, that seems a curious notion. As we are not a formal organization we do not have leaders. What we do have are content producers. Donâ€™t like some ladyâ€™s content? Donâ€™t support it. Disagree with it? Go make your own. And donâ€™t whine about gals getting more support, you arenâ€™t in competition!
â€œWomen rent-seek.â€ Does anybody expect to make money off the alt-right? Some of our more talented content producers do need funds for their projects, and some of them will be women. Again, if you donâ€™t like it, donâ€™t support it. If you donâ€™t like that other men support them solely because theyâ€™re thirsty, well, change human nature?
â€œWomen and men are just different.â€ Again, this is true, but I think this is more of an argument for women in the alt-right, not against it. Men and women have different strengths and we should exploit that. Women are probably better at red-pilling other women. Even if they arenâ€™t, the endorsement of our ideas by women gives them a normalcy that they would otherwise be denied. It is easy to attack a bunch of men as pathetic losers who masturbate to anime all day, but that becomes more difficult with women around. Also, if we wish to be degenerate, we can leverage attractive waifus to manipulate thirsty guys. Every movement needs cannon-fodder; we canâ€™t all be philosopher-kings.
â€œWomen suck.â€ Have you seen any men lately? We are all in bad shape. Ours is a degenerate age. Women are like amphibians: a bellwether for environmental destruction. They are also less able to engage in cultural defection, pulled down by the stinging bitchiness of their fellows. Degenerate women abhor good women and will bring their entire cold arsenal to bear in an attempt to drag them down to their level. None of us can engage in total unilateral cultural defection, but women need more help to de-poz themselves than men.
â€œI donâ€™t want to wife some â€˜recoveredâ€™ degenerate.â€ So donâ€™t. No one sane is asking you to. I am asking that we remember the poisonous society we all come out of. If someone makes a good faith attempt at reform, we must allow them. Letâ€™s not get caught in the sort of holiness spiral that afflicts SWPLs. We cannot afford to turn away those who repent. But you probably shouldnâ€™t marry them.
â€œWomen are just not as important politically.â€ Angry young men control the politics of a collapsing society – that much is obvious. But what are angry young men fighting for, if not for wives and girlfriends and mothers and so on? Much anger stems from the degraded quality of women, giving them a promise of good women helps bring them to our side.
â€œThe Mannerbund.â€ Yeah, what of it? The existence of women does not destroy male companionship. It is true that the presence of a woman can disrupt a male space. The sexes do need separate spaces but we also need a commons. We arenâ€™t just discussing pension structures or the benefits of light, we are trying to save ourselves. As the physical commons falls further into darkness, we shall badly need our digital spaces. Also, much of the fixation on this topic is predicated on some silly ethology. Humans (and dogs and wolves for that matter, to address some silly analogies) do not have rigid hierarchical structures (chickens do though). Dominance is primarily a pair-wise affair as well as being environmentally mediated. It need not be commutative nor does it always go from A to B. Humans have troop aspects but we also have pair-bonding aspects, especially whites.
â€œWaifus.â€ The identification of alt-right ladies as waifus is a good way to frame things. These women either belong to alt-right men as actual wives or girlfriends or they belong to the community until such a time as they can be united with their one true shitmate.
â€œIâ€™m just angry/sad that I donâ€™t have an Aryan QT3.14/88 by my side.â€ Arenâ€™t we all? Either keep your whining to yourself or go out and make one. If you find you cannot, accept that the love-based northwest European marriage pattern involves high numbers of those who never marry. Devote your time instead to the cause, not moaning about bitches on the internet.
Leftists, and (((high verbal IQ))) types, love to create semantic traps whereby they can control,Â or â€˜frameâ€™, the conversation. A favorite is The Social Construct Trap, which works by giving us realists nearly irresistible bait–the claim that â€˜X is a social constructâ€™. (Where X is almost always race). Let us imagine a typical scenario, one which Iâ€™m sure many of us have lived: A couple of university students are discussing the role of poverty in life outcomes. One of them dares to venture that race has a role to play. The other student, recoiling in horror, invokes that talismanic phrase, â€œRace is just a social construct.â€ Our friend denies this. From there the conversation devolves into mere argument. Where did our friend go wrong? He forgot the rhetoric-dialectic distinction and he took the bait.
What, you may ask, is the problem with arguing against that stance, that race is a socialÂ construct? There are two subtle problems. The first is that this claim is simply a non sequitur. The example conversation is about the correlation of some phenomena â€˜life outcomes/povertyâ€™ and â€˜raceâ€™. It is not about the ontological status of race, no more than it is about the ontological status of poverty. Our friend is as justified in saying, and perhaps more so, that poverty is â€œjust a social constructâ€. He may respond like this: â€œYou say race doesnâ€™t exist because it is a social construct. Well, I think poverty doesnâ€™t exist because it too is a social construct. You say humans have clinal variation, hence race is socially and arbitrarily constructed. Well, wealth and income show continual variation, so it too is socially and arbitrarily constructed.â€ This may be a fun rhetorical gotcha, but it hardly advances the conversation, given that some progtards would probably accept the non-existence of poverty, the non-existence of anything, just so long as they donâ€™t have to accept race. Never mind that you are leaving some good arguments unused.
In many cases like this, our opponent is likely to let that word â€˜justâ€™ do most of the argumentative heavy lifting. â€œRace is just a social construct.â€ But what could it possibly mean to be just a social construct? Iâ€™m not sure we could say even unicorns are just a social construct. Horses exist, as do horns. This word â€˜justâ€™ or sometimes â€˜merelyâ€™ is a major weak point, for all the work it does, like the reactor core on the Death Star. They probably mean to imply that what we call â€˜raceâ€™ has no basis whatsoever in reality. Assuming they have any reason left, they should accept that skin color does exist, and that this has something to do with what we call race. If they accept this, then they must see that race isnâ€™t just a social construct.
Race might, one must now admit, be considered, along with many other things like colors orÂ money, in some sense a social construct. That is, human needs and capacities modulated through the medium of language give some shape to our world. The colors we perceive have, most assuredly, physical and biological foundations, but there are cultural variations in the number of color words. There is, supposedly a rainforest group that has many common words that pick out a wide number of shades of green. This should not come as a surprise considering their environment. Though English has phrases such as â€˜forest greenâ€™ or â€˜spearmintâ€™ etc. these are more the talk of paint companies than of everyday life. My point being that many of our concepts have some aspect that might fairly be called social construction to them. (For more on this sort of thing, Google around for John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality; Berlin and Kay, Basic Color Terms; and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.)
Lucky for us the social construction of race is not the significant part of their argument. EitherÂ they think social constructs arenâ€™t real (whatever the hell that means), in which case ask them for all their money or they think racial divisions are arbitrary, in which case ask them to take a step. The first part we dealt with, letâ€™s look at the second. They argue that because there is no distinct or objective boundary between races there are no such things as races. As an analogy, blue and green do not exist because there is no set point at which blue becomes green. This some may recognize as the sorites or continuum fallacy. To use the famous example, I start with a heap of sand and slowly remove grains of sand one at a time. No single grain removal causes the heap to go from heap to non-heap; therefore, no matter how many grains I take away I always have a heap. This is obviously ridiculous, and yet this fallacy is one of the most common of our public discourse. As for asking them to take a step, we all know that that is impossible under our Zenoian physics, an analogous problem applied to distance (see theÂ famous example of the tortoise and Achilles). (That was sarcasm, folks.)
The fundamental problem with people who argue like this is their childish selectivity. If theyÂ were acting as a modern-day Parmenides, fine. But they are not, they are engaging in selective and self- serving skepticism. They arenâ€™t acting as disinterested philosophers, but as motivated perpetuators of foolish ideas. The say race doesnâ€™t exist, but happily endorse the notion of color, or of distance, or of time. The philosopher David Hume wrote, â€œPhilosophy would render us entirely Pyrrhonian, were not nature too strong for it.â€ That is, we would be completely skeptical of absolutely everything, but the demands of life prevent it except as philosophical exercise. But when one hates nature and is always in revolt against it, what is left but as much madness as the unkind intrusions of reality allow? What to do with these people? Hume provides, more or less, the answer: â€œCommit them then to the ovens: for they can contain nothing but sophistry and delusion.â€
The Russians have first hand experience with feminist and multiculturalist lunacy. In the early decades of the USSR, the Bolshevik government concoctedÂ an artistic style called “Socialist Realism.” And no, they weren’t trying to be ironic. “Socialist Realism” depicted things the way Stalin and his fuck-puppets in the politburo thought theyÂ should be. This resulted in all sorts of absurdities, absurdities that you know well, because they have resurfaces asÂ some of the commonest tropes in current entertainment.
If there is one rule in art, it is that you cannot regularly violate the principles of psychological normality.Â In certain genres, you are free to mess with the laws of nature –animals can talk, it can rain jelly-beans, creatures that are half-man, half horseÂ can frolic in meadowsÂ of candy canes and corndogs, whatever. ButÂ even then,Â the characters must generally behave according to known psychological principles (the occasional wack-jobÂ notwithstanding). No one could tolerate a novelÂ where all the male characters were happy to let some dipshit boff all the women, asking for nothing in return but 18-hour days toiling in the uranium mines. It’s too great a stretch of the imagination. People just don’t act that way.
One of the most blatantly absurd tropes is the bad-ass girl who beats up or kills dozens of men. You’ll find her in bothÂ Socialist Realism and current US entertainment. Â This trope (goddamnit, I sound like Anita Sarkeesian)Â has madeÂ cop-dramas and Hollywood action flicks not just predictable, but unwatchable. Â Now, you might object that the bad-ass girl isÂ only an abuse of physical reality, not psychological normalcy. But you’d be wrong. Of course a girl can hold down the trigger and mow down dozens of studs. What is so irksome about the bad-ass girl is that she is a psychological abnormality. When it comes to fighting quality, the typical woman does notÂ compare to the average man. Even Homo Americanus, betweenÂ marathon red-tube sessions and IPA hangovers,Â wouldn’t lose a fight to a girl 999 times out of 1,000.
So of course Socialist Realism got off to chicks racking up rediculous K2D ratios. InÂ Chapaev (1934), bad-ass babe Anka mows down rows of Tsarist soldiers (the sexy dudes in the screen-shot below,Â note that the officer looks like he’s chomping on a stogie, but it’s probably a whistle). But even before Anka goes all Audey Murphey, a bunch of her male comrades loose their nerve and flee, only to be rallied by their commissar.
But Chapaev is pretty mild compared to other Soviet films. Even thoughÂ Anka holdsÂ off the reactionary hordes, she runs out of ammo (seems to be a Russian thing) and gets saved by the male protagonist, Chapaev.
If you want the full monty, you have to watch Tsirk (1936). Â Tsirk “Circus” hits all the commies’ favorite talking points–feminism, miscegenation, multiculturalism–and rams them down your throat. It’s the story of Marion, an American actress who gets run out of the US for having aÂ child with aÂ black man. The scene of her expulsion is especiallyÂ piquant. A mob of rasiss Americans chases her out of town, shouting “lynch her” and “nigger lover.”Â So naturallyÂ she seeks refuge in the freedom-loving Soviet Union, where she joins the circus, irony not intended. She gets into a one-sided relationship with a beta-boy German showman, but she only has eyes for her Slavic-superman fellow performer Ivan. Ivan is happy to oblige. He must have gotten bored with nice, sane Russian girls.
The movie climaxes in aÂ multicultural lovefest. Marion’sÂ GermanÂ beta-boy ex exposes her for the miscegenetrix she is. The circus crowd is nonplussed at the revelation, and passes the adorableÂ mulatto around to prevent the German from getting a hold of him. He retreats in shame, and the audience passes the boy around some more, singing a lullaby, with solos by representatives of the USSR’s various minority groups. Â They wrap it up with some parading on red-square, featuring Marion side-by-side with her alpha-cuck boyfriend.
Then there’s Gladkov’sÂ Cement,Â almost a book version ofÂ Tsirk.Â The hero, Gleb Chumalov (more like Chumalot), returns from three years of fighting capitalists and monarchists only to find his wife is a cold,Â Communist new-woman.Â AndÂ she’s been shacking up with another man. To top it off, everyone blames him for her infidelity because he was away at war. A woman tells him, “You left Dasha to torture and death and now you cannot expect to get a hold of her.” I bet a lot of our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans can relate.Â I’m sure plenty more lunacy happens inÂ Cement, but I wouldn’t know, because I can never get through more than a page before I give up.
These are just three examples of Soviet lunacy. The message-films like Tsirk are largely forgotten. RussianÂ literature from the 1920s and 30s is virtually unreadable today. It has largely disappeared from Russian memory. Russians know the 19th century classics, they often know Pushkin poems by heart. But Socialist Realist works, despite decades in the official curriculum, are rightly neglected. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are timeless, Gladkov is absurd.
Throughout history, feminism and miscegenation have appeared from time to time, but are invariably subsumed. That should give us hope. We’ve tried this before, and it failed.