1. Make sure women are unable to turn to any men outside of their clans for protection and resources when not already claimed. 2. Remove all impediments to killings of unapproved males by patriarchs and brothers. 3. Have a cut of the female population serve as prostitutes. Be sure to keep them as low in society as they can be.

I believe the main thing, after getting rid of foreigners, is eliminating each and every benefit in remaining single and childless. In order to do that, disincentive hiring females for most jobs, completely delete current rules about divorce, and especially make affordable for a family to live decently with only one breadwinner so that the mother can stay at home to raise the children. I see today that young couples who are not rich enough or do not have parents able to help them being unable to make ends meet if one of the parents does not have a job, and it's extremely difficult to raise a child while being both away to work and, of course, having to drop the child into a daycare costing lots of money as well. Birth control should also be very stingily distributed and eugenic policies implemented asap.

>>7933 >Birth control How could I forget this. I would ban it personally unless you’ve had at least two children

If the problem with premarital sex and adultery is not fixed, the family will never be repaired.

>>8076 Premarital sex as a habit spread thanks to the weakening influence of religion on society. Adultery is the result of specific law apparatus encouraging it because it does not consist in a felony or a moral offense any longer. Degeneracy is now directly promoted by the state with fucked up divorce laws that in no manner whatsoever protect the value of family and only work to protect women and bash on men, leaving the children as final victims of these perverted system. Generic lax morals caused the degeneracy we are witnessing. If a woman will not feel threatened by any consequences for her indulging in degeneracy, and even worse she is encouraged in doing so, her herd mentality will make her go along with what society suggests as "the correct thing to do". The (((feminist))) war on slut shaming was waged for this exact reason.

>>8089 >Premarital sex as a habit spread thanks to the weakening influence of religion on society. That, and just generally the dissolution of the family thanks to feminism and economic conditions. Today most people think that opposing premarital sex is just some sort of irrational religious holdover, and not a reasoned position that one holds in light of things like the number of partners that one has and pair-bonding and from preventing children from being born outside of wedlock. The latter is especially dire. Something like 40% of children today in the US are born to unmarried women, and a large percentage of those are single moms. As anyone redpilled knows, single mothers are horrible for society and for their children, who are more likely to be welfare dependent, commit crimes, go to prison and do drugs. Any sane society would prevent this through a bit of self-control on the part of the unmarried, and would attempt to as much as possible leave sexual activity in marriage. Luckily at this stage adultery is still viewed as immoral by a larger percentage of the population than opposition to fornicators, but we all know that there is a push to erode marriage even further through media and sociological propaganda. They want us to be completely atomized economic units who never form family bonds, and the state will raise all of the children. Just like what disgusting "free love" Communist feminists like Alexandra Kollontai wrote about. >Generic lax morals caused the degeneracy we are witnessing. If a woman will not feel threatened by any consequences for her indulging in degeneracy, and even worse she is encouraged in doing so, her herd mentality will make her go along with what society suggests as "the correct thing to do". This. Women are the epitomal lemmings. Though, men becoming weaklings has played a bigger role than one can imagine as well.

by empowering men, creating a society the fosters healthy masculine values and understands proper natural roles of men and women. the rest should follow naturally.

>>8135 I feel like this is true with a lot that we stand for. Simply remove what is against nature and bent on destroying our people, and many things will spontaneously reconstitute themselves in accordance with nature.

>>8137 The fastest way to achieve this, sadly, is to fall into a state of war, and I mean proper war, not the low intensity 4th generation warfare we are currently in. The moment the System falls and everything will be back to mere survival of the self and the tribe, all the kike induced superfluities will simply melt away.

>>8144 I've come to the same conclusion regarding a war, sadly. It was actually one of the first redpills that I came to on my own accord after I started to contemplate the rise in faggotry, weakness and effeminate males in our societies. An overabundance of luxuries and frivolous entertainment is creating weak men. The cycle will go on.

>>8147 I remember when I was young studying at school and struggling to understand why throughout history there were people actually cheering for war. Even if I am 100% certain i would die pretty much fucking instantly, or suffer terribly if I survived, at least now I understand that feeling.

>>8157 That type of thinking helped me understand it better as well, along with coming to realize that in the not-so-distant past people were still more or less embedded into their community and somewhat connected with their people at large. I'm generalizing, of course, but it really does come to make more sense with this in mind. Eternal peace results in decadence and it is necessary every once and while to revitalize and regenerate the nation. I know it makes me sound like a bit of a LARPer but getting blown to pieces on a battlefield has greater aesthetic appeal to it too than wagecucking for 40 years in a soulless world. Maybe I just read too much Mishima though and my aesthetics have turned morbid.

>>8164 >>8157 >>8147 Could a state of war like kinds that you are advocating for be a sort of form natural selection? Does this mean that wars like WW1 will repeat themselves?

>>8165 >be a sort of form natural selection? Maybe in a sense, but not as much as you'd think. If you think of modern warfare, there is not much "survival of the fittest" going on at the level of the individual soldier. For example, when one side is peppering their enemy of shells, the casualties are fairly random. Both the stronger and the weaker alike are blown to bits. There have been people who have argued against this idea of a more individualistic idea of "survival of the fittest" or natural selection for one that is more group-oriented, and that is what I personally believe. This struggle does occur at the level of individuals to an extent, but the main unit of struggle for humans is the group, and more well-organized, self-sacrificing altruistic groups will overpower those who lack these traits and are less well-coordinated. This is one reason why Fascism advocates for the reconciliation of different groups / classes within the nation into a harmonious whole. Just imagine that we have an army which lands in an unfamiliar area and allows soldiers just to drink water from rivers and ponds as they please without checking the quality of the water. The weak die off without care, only those soldiers remain who did not die. Theoretically the strongest individuals are the only ones left, and the army has become stronger when looked at at the level of each individual but the decrease in the number of soldiers is so extreme that they will not be able to hold up in battle against a group that has ensured the safety of each and every man, therefore having larger numbers of soldiers and more power even though there may be more "weak" people within the enemy force on average. Weird example, but it shows how the fitness of the individual is not everything, even though it is to an extent important (otherwise we wouldn't care about eugenics or anything) If anything, I don't want just endless war for the sake of war, but war for the highest interests of our people. On one hand, a martial spirit in the people prevents them from being effeminate, cowardly and coddled, and ensures that they will be healthy and strong, something that is good both for the group and for the individual.

>>8144 As a LARPer and a person who wishes for peace but realises that we're living in a time of push-and-get rock buffet of limited resources, you're right. I don't like to be in a war, but we're too "liberalised".

>>8168 Sooooo kill off the weak to shield the strong? I mean how are you going to get the weak to join the army then? Their parents would think twice but I digress.

>>8185 >Sooooo kill off the weak to shield the strong? I’m the same guy, just too lazy to be on Tor so I’m phonefagging No, not to just shield the strong. I’m not proposing anything radically different from how we’ve done war in the past. The post is attempting to point out that modern warfare levels the playing-field on an individual level between the “weak” and the “strong” and that the primary unit of struggle is the group *as a unit* rather than the individual. This necessarily involves having those who are weaker in relative terms among your ranks because in an aggregate sense it *does* benefit the entire group. Quality is important but numbers matter too, along with technological prowess. It’s also important to remember that in this hypotethical military situation we’re dealing with people who were judged fit enough to even serve in the first place so there’s not too big of a difference between people here, let’s be real. The only spot where I advocate for culling the weak is with eugenics — and here I’m talking about literal drooling retards and the like or sterilizing those with certain (potentially) heritable illnesses.

To me, premarital sex is acceptable if the man and the woman really love each other. I dislike one night stands and hookups. Sex is a pleasing experience that you should give to the one you love. That way, the experience is sort of a bond. Sure, you find a chick at a party and she's hot and all, but would you still want to be with her after the party is over? Then why bang her? I don't understand the thought. After the marriage (for Whites), women should be doing things like being a housewife. If they want a job, they should be in the caregiver sector like nurses etc. I don't believe that you need to abuse/beat the wife like achmeds do but you will need to show some domination. As for non-White marriage, not sure. >>8187 What about a guy who's only good at basic studies and is a NEET in a way? As in, he's not good at military stuff at all.

>>8168 >If you think of modern warfare, there is not much "survival of the fittest" going on at the level of the individual soldier On a somewhat related note, current western armies are under profound reformation aimed at purging "conservative" and "right wing" elements and replacing them with women and individuals with immigrant background. This is currently happening in US army (I found an official paper explaining it) and some Europeans armies as well. ZOG is doing this because they are still developing AI and robotics that will one day replace humans, but in the meantime they still need soldiers but also need to purge White males. I can find the paper with the research and post it if you want. However, the point is that with such armies I see countries like China - with their one party and ethnically homogeneous army - holding a big advantage over the decadent West.

>>8191 >What about a guy who's only good at basic studies and is a NEET in a way? As in, he's not good at military stuff at all. If someone was truly "not good at military stuff" they'd probably be placed in a non-combat role or in some sort of position where he would be most useful according to his nature. This is the best part about having an organicist conception of groups and the state. Just as cells are differentiated into various kinds with different roles in the human body, so are humans within complex societies. >To me, premarital sex is acceptable if the man and the woman really love each other I get where you are coming from, but at a societal level it may be more beneficial to restrict sexual activity as much as possible to marriage and to shame premarital sex. The consequences of premarital sex are overwhelmingly negative, some of which I touched on in an earlier post above >>8097. The result, even even in spite of all of the contraceptive measures we have today, is an explosion in single parent households, bad conditions for children, and atrophied pair-bonding abilities the more partners one has had. This needs to be prevented. Our future generations need the best possible environment, and this is, to no one's surprise the nuclear family at minimum [spoiler]and the more extended members the better too[/spoilers]. Just because there may be some who could get in a car without being licensed and drive more or less okay, we have made licenses obligatory for a reason, as the consequences outweigh the benefits of not having them. Same with marriage and sex. A degree of self-control for all benefits society in the long run. Unfortunately, seemingly controlled and intelligent people like yourself are a minority, and for every person who thinks like you there are hundreds who just fuck with abandon, think that they are "really in love" after only a short time of knowing each other, etc. I support both men and women getting married earlier though, so I don't see these restrictions as trying as asking some man to remain absolutely celibate until he was like 25 or something though. >I don't believe that you need to abuse/beat the wife like achmeds do but you will need to show some domination. Literal beatings and giving them black eyes is nigger-tier, I agree. I do support a level of domestic discipline though - spankings, etc. The family is a small state, and there has to be authority.

>>8193 It's no surprise that they want to purge Whites from the military more and more. It's definitely not to their benefit, though. Diversity is weakness. Homogeneous one-party countries will always have an advantage

>>8241 >Homogeneous one-party countries will always have an advantage true

>>8675 >It should be apparent that living traditionally is no easy task. It’s not a matter of a woman wearing a dress and doing a photo shoot in a wheat field, and it’s not simply a man being the bread winner. kek, reminded me of this

>>8690 That's actually some of the users on nein. And honestly we need to reflect on ourselves too. We cannot expect to act like we need to treat future wives as total slaves and treat them as if we're niggers. Yes, women and men aren't equal and women should not be seeking high priority Jobs in workplaces but that doesn't mean you should "use" them. >inb4 feminist

>>8691 Realizing that I was basically pic related and didn't offer anything of value to women was a real redpill and knocked me out of the incel mindset pretty quickly

>>8692 Classic normalfag. Yes, be shamed by an image into changing your behavior. Shame on you for all you do. Conform and be dominated, slave.

>>8692 what value men offer to women is subjective, its mostly cash value, which inherently reveals how much women are in debt to free market economics. women are naturally capitalistic and consumerist without state intervention into their affairs.

>>8748 >be shamed by an image You've misread, that image didn't do anything for me, I'm talking about having lived like the guy in that pic for periods and then through self-contemplation realizing that it was obvious why I did not have a girlfriend or wife.

>>8748 So what if an image changed him? He's no longer an incel, isn't that more important?

>>8835 I think all of you could use a critical reading of "Whatever" by MIchel Holluebecq for real

Ingest these two chapters, Sex and Women and Man and Woman for an eye opening understanding of the tension between both sexes and the reality of the situation according to eternal laws. archive.org/details/DavidLane-CollectionOfWorks/page/n229/mode/2up archive.org/details/JuliusEvolaRevoltAgainstTheModernWorldInnerTraditions1995/page/n195/mode/2up B. Klassen also provides guidelines to what women should aim for in general, as a defense for the traditional wife model.

>>9113 Great reads, thank you for posting, anon. David Lane was definitely right about what he said about that woman flirting with a nigger. Feel sadness for her, she's been programmed into being like this, and most lemmings are extremely plastic when it comes to what they believe. To respond to feminism with incel-tier rage is exactly what our enemies want us to do. Divide and conquer, that is what our enemies work by. Men compete over women, women compete for male attention, men and women in relationships compete among each other to an extent, this is natural, but the Jews want to destroy any and all harmony. I will have to find what Klassen said, everything I've read from him has been very good so far.

>>9121 Yeah, these reads are really powerful on their own. Lane breaks the mold of lies in such shameless ways, pure matter of fact. Literally a bible on girls in the great race war. Priceless. Evola destroys feminism decades before this poison even became a thing. Insane. Imagine what he'd think today! The Klassen stuff is spread here and here throughout his excellent writings, it would require more work to compile them into the "woman" topic. I may do this at a later time, keywords would be woman, women, spouse, wife and anything relating to marriage. Also, I guess we could sprinkle them with a generous amount of Chesterton pills too. He would have been a lord of shitposting on the chans.

>>9159 Everything I've read by Lane has been excellent, the 88 Precepts being the cream of the crop. It's honestly no surprise that he associated with other great men like Robert Jay Mathews. Speaking of the Precepts, I might as well quote the section on women for anyone who has not seen them. If they haven't, they need to get reading the whole thing right away! - >34. The instinct for sexual union is part of Nature's perfect mechanism for species preservation. It begins early in life and often continues until late in life. It must not be repressed; it's purpose, reproduction, must not be thwarted either. Understand that for thousands of years our females bore children at an early age. Now, in an attempt to conform to and compete in an alien culture, they deny their Nature- ordained instincts and duties. Teach responsibility, but, also, have understanding. The life of a race springs from the wombs of its women. He who would judge must first understand the difference between what is good and what is right. >35. Homosexuality is a crime against Nature. All Nature declares the purpose of the instinct for sexual union is reproduction and thus, preservation of the species. The overpowering male sex drive must be channeled toward possession of females, as well as elements such as territory and power, which are necessary to keep them. >36. Sexual pornography degrades the Nature of all who are involved. A beautiful nude woman is art; a camera between her knees to explore her private parts is pornography. >37. That race whose males will not fight to death to keep and mate with their females will perish. Any White man with healthy instincts feels disgust and revulsion when he sees a woman of his race with a man of another race. Those, who today control the media and affairs of the Western World, teach that this is wrong and shameful. They label it "racism." As any "ism," for instance the word "nationalism," means to promote one's own nation; "racism" merely means to promote and protect the life of one's own race. It is, perhaps, the proudest word in existence. Any man who disobeys these instincts is anti-Nature. https://archive.org/stream/88Precepts_937/88Precepts_djvu.txt Another classic: http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html