Why I oppose sl*t-shaming: The real definition of sl*t/wh*re is not "woman who likes s*x" but "woman who CANNOT ESCAPE s*x". A wealthy daddy's girl who lost her virginity at 13 is not considered a sl*t, but a poor woman with a dead father who got raped is.

submitted by Kiera_Ramm from self.BlackPillFeminism

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Kiera_Ramm[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I get why people around here go racefem. There definitely are valid criticisms of White women, but some non-White BPF seem to have an irrational vendetta. I was a racefem once. It's another blackpill, White women are "valued" more than non-White women by y-chromot*rds, but non-White women turn on women instead of the rape apes who created this execrable dynamic. Racism by women is a total cope anyway. "The race of moid I have been around all my life suck, is [race of moid I am not familiar with] better and less misogynistic?" Now this is a thought that women of all races share. You want to believe that misogyny is more significant in one race of moid, and you can simply avoid it by joining another community. Stop bargaining. Stop denying the truth. They're all like that. I've been around White nyggers all my life. They don't care about women's reproductive rights, rape, professional and educational equity, or legal autonomy. They wouldn't mind Islam only for women. The only thing stopping them from joining Islam is that there are also autistic rules for moids.

I began resenting White women too, but because of the pandering to non-White moids. You claim you are fighting for the rights of non-White women when you squeal about racism, but I think you just have a pooskin boyfriend and maybe some pooskin sons.

[–]Kiera_Ramm[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And furthermore, it is understandable that the same women who gravitate towards BPF might also become entangled in some third-positionist/NRx-type/esoteric racist nonsense because of the aristocratic beliefs those philosophies necessitate. In a functional world there would be a ruling caste of divinely-cognizant female separatists overseeing their NPC pick-me servants while all traces of nyggers have been completely obliterated. I am a liberal at heart. It is only through understanding the status quo that I realize that aristocracy is morally necessary as long as certain types of people exist.

Liberalism, individualism, and associated belief systems are only possible in a world where there are only female separatists who always opposed androcentrism.

Actually, the real reason why no political ideology truly functions is because the vast majority of humanity are scum (= nyggers and pick-mes). Only gynofascists can successfully operate a communist, anarchist, or whatever society. A world where nyggers and pick-mes exist will always be destined for iniquity no matter what policies are instituted.

[–]Kiera_Ramm[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What would a female fascism look like? Definitely not what the average racefem wishes to implement. Fascism/Ur-fascism has historically not been based upon a coherent belief system. But can a solution to a political issue be rationally devised before the problem manifests? Resistance must be spontaneous in a continuously evolving political paradigm.

To be clear, I don't idealize the past and it's pretty obvious it sucked eggs. But there was a juncture in time when all the misery that ensued could have been averted. There was a moment in our evolutionary trajectory where it was not certain that xys had to exist. A female-only mammalian species could have evolved. 6ual reproduction doesn't even have to involve penetration so even if bussies were to exist, the continuation of our species could have been a less abominable process.

A fascism for women is not becoming some basement-dweller's broodmare. Historical forms of fascism promises a return to a halcyon past while glorifying the future.

I propose that gynofascism is the project of mending continuity between the past and the future. Androcentrism is our Dark Ages. It is our task to mend the trajectory of human evolution and cultural progress where it failed.

Paradigms like androcentrism and slavery are always inhibited from following the ideas that rule them to their logical conclusion (unlike genocide). You loathe a populace to the point where it would be ideologically coherent to exterminate them, but your existence cannot continue without their exploitation. You fabricate hatred as the reason why they must be exploited, but that hatred in itself will mutate into extermination if not curtailed. Like capitalism and any other system of subjugation, androcentrism also results in a plenitude of moral contradictions. There are inconsistencies to be capitalized upon. Gynofascist acceleration is possible.

There is no more synthesis under androcentrism, only stultification and degeneracy. It is simply a stale repetition of itself. Only gynofascism can advance our species, and that can only be done by picking up where evolution failed. The future can only be ours. All progress under androcentrism is false. "Nostalgia" is the emperor pretending to wear clothes. We are culturally stuck. Film, visual arts, fashion, etc. has not progressed at all during my lifetime. I am a 90s kid. Identified as a 90s kid, because subsequent decades consist of increasing cultural rot. Vaporwave is a more explicit product of our cultural inertia. (Now I remember some pseudo-intellectual telling me that they felt that "vaporwave is trying to say something ontologically but I don't know what". Of course they didn't.)

[–]Kiera_Ramm[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Let's see what Nick Land has to say in Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest (1988)!

To get to a world without nations would in itself guarantee the achievement of all immediately post-capitalist social and economic goals. [A bold claim to some.] It is this revolutionary requirement for a spontaneously homeless subversion that gives an urgency to certain possibilities of feminist politics, since the erasure of matrilineal genealogy within the patriarchal machine means that fascisizing valorizations of ancestry have no final purchase on the feminine 'subject'. [Exactly. We have no skin in the game, patriarchy gave us none.] The patronymic has irrecoverably divested all the women who fall under it of any recourse to an ethno-geographical identity; only the twin powers of father and husband suppress the nomadism of the anonymous female fluxes that patriarchy oppressively manipulates, violates, and psychiatrizes. By allowing women some access to wealth and social prestige the liberalization of patriarchy has sought to defuse the explosive force of this anonymity, just as capital has tended to reduce the voluptuous excess of exogamic conjugation to the stability of nationally segmented trading circuits. The increasingly incestual character of economic order—reaching its zenith in racist xenophobia—is easily masked as a series of 'feminist' reforms of patriarchy; as a de-commodification of woman, a diminution of the obliterating effects of the patronymic, and a return to the mother. This is the sentimental 'feminism' that Nietzsche despised, and whose petit-bourgeois nationalist implications he clearly saw. The only resolutely revolutionary politics is feminist in orientation, but only if the synthetic forces mobilized under patriarchy are extrapolated beyond the possibility of assimilation, rather than being criticized from the perspective of mutilated genealogies. Genealogy as the dissipation of recuperative origins (Nietzsche), not as sentimental nostalgia.

The women of the earth are segmented only by their fathers and husbands. Their praxial fusion is indistinguishable from the struggle against the micro-powers that suppress them most immediately. That is why the proto-fascism of nationality laws and immigration controls tends to have a sexist character as well as a racist one. It is because women are the historical realization of the potentially euphoric synthetic or communicative function which patriarchy both exploits and inhibits that they are invested with a revolutionary destiny, and it is only through their struggle that politics will be able to escape from all fatherlands. In her meticulous studies of patriarchy Luce Irigaray has amply demonstrated the peculiar urgency of the feminist question, although the political solutions she suggests are often feebly nostalgic, sentimental, and pacifistic. Perhaps only Monique Wittig has adequately grasped the inescapably military task faced by any serious revolutionary feminism, and it is difficult not to be dispirited by the enormous reluctance women have shown historically to prosecute their struggle with sufficient ruthlessness and aggression. The left tends to be evasive about the numbing violence intrinsic to revolutionary war, and feminism is often particularly fastidious in this respect, even reverting to absurd mystical and Ghandian ideologies. If feminist struggles have been constantly de-prioritized in theory and practice it is surely because of their idealistic recoil from the currency of violence, which is to say, from the only definitive 'matter' of politics.

The state apparatus of an advanced industrial society can certainly not be defeated without a willingness to escalate the cycle of violence without limit. It is a terrible fact that atrocity is not the perversion, but the very motor of such struggles: the language of inexorable political will. A revolutionary war against a modern metropolitan state can only be fought in hell. It is this harsh truth that has deflected Western politics into an increasingly servile reformism, whilst transforming nationalist struggles into the sole arena of vigorous contention against particular configurations of capital. But, as I hope I have demonstrated, such nationalist struggles are relevant only to the geographical modulation of capital, and not to the radical jeopardizing of neo-colonialism (inhibited synthesis) as such. Victorious Third World struggles, so long as they have been successfully localized, do not lead to realistic post-capitalist achievements, and certainly not to post-patriarchal ones, since the conservation of the form of the nation state is itself enough to guarantee the reinsertion of a society into the system of inhibited synthesis. For as long as the dynamic of guerilla war just leads to new men at the top—with all that this entails in terms of the communication between individuated sovereignties—history will continue to look bleak. For it is only when the pervasive historical bond between masculinity and war is broken by effective feminist violence that it will become possible to envisage the uprooting of the patriarchal endogamies that orchestrate the contemporary world order. With the abolition of the inhibition of synthesis—of Kantian thought—a sordid cowardice will be washed away, and cowardice is the engine of greed. But the only conceivable end of Kantianism is the end of modernity, and to reach this we must foster new Amazons in our midst.

https://ia802802.us.archive.org/31/items/1993landspiritandteeth/Nick%20Land%20-%20Papers/(1988)%20LAND%20--%20Kant,%20Capital,%20and%20the%20Prohibition%20of%20Incest.pdf

[–]Kiera_Ramm[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know whether females from developed or developing countries are more despicable. My female compatriots think nyggers are people because they are totally apathetic about history, politics, or foreign cultures. However, females from developing countries are aware of xy depravity yet elect to continue what they are doing, which is scrabble for madonna/wife (=bed wench/house wh*re) status while ostracizing women who fight the status quo.