you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

yeah, this too, but that doesn't explain why I wouldn't have just left the feminist sphere entirely (which I didn't). the white-positive sphere really does have a problem with anti-female-ness. (and non-White male hangers-on often try to make it more about female-hatred than about pro-whiteness, I've seen it a few times now.).

this is true though. there was a phase I went through when I thought that a lot of this "progressive stack" stuff is just a sort of trans-white-male-ism. I just couldn't get on board with trans being forced on people, and then I started seeing how people were using the same style of arguments for the rest of the "stack".

People weren't asking for everyone to treat them the way everyone already treated Black men, or White women, or Black women. They were asking to be given the same treatment as White men, even though they weren't White men.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

the white-positive sphere really does have a problem with anti-female-ness. (and non-White male hangers-on often try to make it more about female-hatred than about pro-whiteness, I've seen it a few times now.).

You're not wrong about that. I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand the arguments against universal female suffrage. Women's nurturing instincts are easily subverted into the destruction of civilizations through emotionally driven support for mass immigration and entitlements. This statement is hard to argue against because there are dozens of historical examples. Women get equal voting rights or acquire power, and a civilization is dead within a few centuries. In general people making this argument still love women, they just don't want (most) women having a say in how the society is structured. There are inherit conflicts between female nature, and the cold rational decisions a government needs to make.

Those that are actively hateful towards women tend to be ostracized in most spaces. Many I think are just edgy incels that latched on to the movement to have a sense of brotherhood somewhere, since in modern society nobody wants omega males. This problem is not unique to WN movements and communities, but also plagues various feminist circles that inevitably fill with skeevy "nice guy" allies. The only WN space I can think of actively hostile to women is Dailystormer, perhaps some of TRS. Both are sites that have discredited themselves in every possible way over the years, including this one.

The only thing that unites these various communities are the 14 words, beyond that they are all over the place. That those words are offensive to anyone shows how far gone we are down the path of anti-White hatred. There is nothing morally wrong with the statement, "We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children." - unless you think the extinction of White people is a moral imperative.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It seems like it's pretty pervasive to me. Imo the "alt-right" and associated communities pretty much grew out of the PUA-culture manosphere communities as a reaction against feminism. Something genuinely pro-white seems to be evolving out of it, but I think it was primarily formed of anti-SJWs, by the groups attacked by SJWs (white, men, straight, christian) looking for entertainment.

There are several male alt-right leaders I used to follow.. they had such nice things to say. "The highest form of White activism is raising White children in a healthy environment to become good husbands and wives themselves". "Go free from white guilt, there's nothing wrong with you or your people". But then I check the next day for a morale boost and find comments denigrating women. Or claiming "the essence of manhood is being able to say fuck you I don't care what you think" to a woman. Most men in these movements seem kindof low-key anti-female.

There are inherit conflicts between female nature, and the cold rational decisions a government needs to make.

I mean if you've got a bunch of historical examples, I haven't researched this and I don't know that you're wrong. But it also seems like it's coming from anti-female-ism.

And it makes me feel insane and doubt my own cognitive process, instincts, etc, etc. "Am I just inherently unable to think, like they say?" Well, no, I don't think I am. And that's why it feels like the feminist spaces help, because everywhere else is saturated with stuff like this. I can see other women behaving intelligently and rationally. And then I spend less time thinking, "can I even trust my own thinking?" and go back to just getting on with whatever it is I'm thinking about.

And it seems like there are recurring problems with male-dominated societies. See /s/crime for some recently-posted examples of patterns of failure to protect women in societies under male authority.

Like, it just seems like radfems are right about a lot of things, in the way the alt-right is right about a lot of things about anti-Whiteness being a problem and pro-Whiteness being needed. It's like neither side gets it. They're always like "oh 13/50" or "oh 50/99" but neither discusses the other half. I was surprised to see a post in an alt-right space a little while ago mentioning radical feminism and a lot of guys there were like "yep, don't blame 'em, we're pretty violent, their viewpoint is pretty understandable."

There's also stuff in White history in particular that's set White men and White women against each other, that we may not have fully recovered from.

Silvia Federici documents clearly how the lower classes had their ways of making a living taken from them during the primative accumulation phase of capitalism, and in that process women were stripped of their economic activities and of everything else they had. The witch burnings were about breaking the will of women, their children, especially their daughters, and their communities. That guys went along with it, or over time just accepted the new order, is maybe the worst thing in western history because it bifurcated us. (comment link)

There are a few people in the pro-white sphere pushing back against the anti-women stuff, too. If you find them you might find their perspective interesting.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I mean if you've got a bunch of historical examples, I haven't researched this and I don't know that you're wrong. But it also seems like it's coming from anti-female-ism.

And it makes me feel insane and doubt my own cognitive process, instincts, etc, etc. "Am I just inherently unable to think, like they say?" Well, no, I don't think I am. And that's why it feels like the feminist spaces help, because everywhere else is saturated with stuff like this. I can see other women behaving intelligently and rationally. And then I spend less time thinking, "can I even trust my own thinking?" and go back to just getting on with whatever it is I'm thinking about.

Here is a starter point: https://www.bitchute.com/video/BIWnf2tqpa63/ | You can dive deep down the rabbit hole using this as a launch point. It's fair to say I don't believe in Universal Suffrage in general, other discussion within this thread on that topic. Many make the mistake of leaping from "the average of X group is Y" to broad sweeping statements that can not equitably be applied universally. I'd also recommend the book "Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control", by E Michael Jones - it's rough around the edges but haphazardly points in many other useful research directions.

Having said all that, an overarching approach to addressing any problem should be aimed at the average rather than the outlier. For instance, if I actually wanted to live in a multicultural society - I'd still wish to eliminate taboos related to race realism. I'd want a classroom full of Somalians to have a different curriculum and educational objectives than a classroom full of Japanese kids. Using the same approach for both is just setting up the Somalian kids for failure.


There's also stuff in White history in particular that's set White men and White women against each other, that we may not have fully recovered from.

Based on my admittedly limited exposure to Silvia Federici's claims, I'd call her a Marxist crackpot that interprets everything through her own Critical Theory lens. The accusations she levies within this work are not concordant with my own extensive research into European history.

There are a few people in the pro-white sphere pushing back against the anti-women stuff, too. If you find them you might find their perspective interesting.

Certainly, I'd appreciate links or names.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Certainly, I'd appreciate links or names.

I used to do that, but the content creators I linked got banned... so I don't do it anymore. I think if you're meant to find them you will.

There's also stuff in White history in particular that's set White men and White women against each other, that we may not have fully recovered from.

It's not just this author in particular (I don't know anything about her, I just thought that guys comment was pretty interesting). The witch burning stuff did happen, and many do theorize that it was about Semitic conquest. Women carry the culture both literally in their eggs and behaviorally through carrying the people's traditions. It's usually the womenfolk who like to decorate around holidays and stuff, yeah? Who teach the children about their heritage and where they come from? Who grow stuff, both plants and people. Women are stereotyped as being concerned with living things and nurturing and growing them.

So the idea is the witch burnings were part of the conquest to destroy the old cultural traditions as part of the conquest. They had to kill the tradition, and to do that you kill the women, turn people against the women who refuse to bow to the conquestors ideology (Christianity), etc. Yes there were men burned as well, but it was mostly women because of women's role.

Men were encouraged to view women in this horrible way, as horrible, dirty things. The medieval torture devices and stuff you see. Even today men are still excited about "burn the witch!" ... they don't realize that's their own people's women :( Some see echos of this in pornography with the way women are treated badly. ("porne" is derrived from a word for buy/sell and may have referred to sex slaves) Pornography is a continuation of the same tradition that is evident in sex trafficking problems of eastern european women in the middle east. Women look so degraded in pornography because that's literally what it is, it's viewing these women, our White women, as the spoils of war, as slaves, who it's ok to degrade. Perhaps as less than human if that's really the view of some middle eastern groups. Imo that's where "dumb blonde" may come from as well. If you look up depictions of White goddesses they have a very different aesthetic about them, but that's not how women are usually presented in pornography. Because it's less erotic? No, because it's less porn (slave)-ographic. That's also why pornography is so objectifying: slaves are in a sense seen as objects as compared to a Free(beloved) woman or man.

For another perspective, there is also the femanon who goes around 4chan talking about how all enduring societies are matriarchal. Jews survive because they are matriarchal, for example. A race or people is, in a very real sense, it's women: she hold the majority of the biological matter needed to propagate the species, she knows the culture, etc. And men are biologically less loyal. Males of many species also often tend to travel more in search of their mate than females do, creating more opportunity for disloyalty. She points out the greater racial infidelity rates among White men as compared to White women. I suppose the reality might be that the fate of the White race has always been in its women.


To go back to education and IQ, imo most male alt-righters have somehow too biologically fixed an idea of things. It's like they somehow don't recognize that things can be nurtured, that improvements can be made. Idk, I could be deluded about IQ but it seems like they're ignoring part of reality there. Habits of mind matter. IQ objectively changes throughout life, sometimes in response to environment. I saw a post in an alt-right space that recently women were measured to surpass men in IQ, perhaps as a result of changing roles. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a woman of Somalian origin, and ... well, she survived by protecting herself intelligently from those who would do her harm, and her friend Theo did not.

Overall your point about averages seems sound though. I don't think anyone would want to permanently be relegated to the "dumb class". But maybe the better way to do this is more individualized and self-paced learning, as the internet and interactive stuff is increasingly making easier. And which would also be possible through home-schooling. And which is perhaps more natural anyway, letting children just learn naturally through play and exploration rather than through being told "do it exactly the way this other person says to do it."


That was a bit of a jumbled reply, sorry. I think I got in most of what I had to say in response to your post though.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

To go back to education and IQ, imo most male alt-righters have somehow too biologically fixed an idea of things.

Unfortunately there is a reason many people are biologically fixated when discussing IQ. Enough "IQ Correlated" genes have been identified now that we can tell your IQ within a range of about 7 points without ever looking at you or having you take a test. We can just parse your DNA and say, "Yeah, X person will be 68 as an adult with bad childhood nutrition/education, or 75 with great nutrition/education.".

I specifically used Somalians as an example, because the average IQ is in Somalia is 68, lower than Koko the Gorilla.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Are you trying to "red pill" me? Is that why you responded only on one specific thing and not the rest of what I typed out? Were you uninterested in actually engaging?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Are you trying to "red pill" me? Is that why you responded only on one specific thing and not the rest of what I typed out? Were you uninterested in actually engaging?

Nah, I just read your post right before our evening walk and wanted to interject a quick thought before heading out the door.

It's not just this author in particular (I don't know anything about her, I just thought that guys comment was pretty interesting). The witch burning stuff did happen, and many do theorize that it was about Semitic conquest. Women carry the culture both literally in their eggs and behaviorally through carrying the people's traditions. It's usually the womenfolk who like to decorate around holidays and stuff, yeah? Who teach the children about their heritage and where they come from? Who grow stuff, both plants and people. Women are stereotyped as being concerned with living things and nurturing and growing them.

So the idea is the witch burnings were part of the conquest to destroy the old cultural traditions as part of the conquest. They had to kill the tradition, and to do that you kill the women, turn people against the women who refuse to bow to the conquestors ideology (Christianity), etc. Yes there were men burned as well, but it was mostly women because of women's role.

Men were encouraged to view women in this horrible way, as horrible, dirty things. The medieval torture devices and stuff you see. Even today men are still excited about "burn the witch!" ... they don't realize that's their own people's women :( Some see echos of this in pornography with the way women are treated badly. ("porne" is derrived from a word for buy/sell and may have referred to sex slaves) Pornography is a continuation of the same tradition that is evident in sex trafficking problems of eastern european women in the middle east. Women look so degraded in pornography because that's literally what it is, it's viewing these women, our White women, as the spoils of war, as slaves, who it's ok to degrade. Perhaps as less than human if that's really the view of some middle eastern groups. Imo that's where "dumb blonde" may come from as well. If you look up depictions of White goddesses they have a very different aesthetic about them, but that's not how women are usually presented in pornography. Because it's less erotic? No, because it's less porn (slave)-ographic. That's also why pornography is so objectifying: slaves are in a sense seen as objects as compared to a Free(beloved) woman or man.

These are all very astute observations, and I don't disagree with any of it. All of this was part of the (Semitic) Christian conquest of our native people. I think this conquest was a terrible thing. The fact that Semitic religions have vastly worse approaches to gender than our native ones is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately I have little hope of leading our people in a pagan reformation, so I've had to learn to live with the Christians that permeate the right. In spite of my personal distaste for Christianity I can't deny that has in the past and present produced some of our most impressive cultural works.

Recently completed Russian Orthodox Military Cathedral: https://files.catbox.moe/zmvklg.mp4

I have also arrived over the years at the opinion that religion is absolutely necessary to have a functional non-decadent society.

The "dumb blond" bit though I remember having read originated as anti-German propaganda. It's contrary to observable reality.

For another perspective, there is also the femanon who goes around 4chan talking about how all enduring societies are matriarchal. Jews survive because they are matriarchal, for example. A race or people is, in a very real sense, it's women: she hold the majority of the biological matter needed to propagate the species, she knows the culture, etc. And men are biologically less loyal. Males of many species also often tend to travel more in search of their mate than females do, creating more opportunity for disloyalty. She points out the greater racial infidelity rates among White men as compared to White women. I suppose the reality might be that the fate of the White race has always been in its women.

I think it's in both of our hands, and that's why some elements of the right piss me off. It is up to the men to defend and provide for the women, the women to defend our children and traditions, and all of us to defend our culture. Both genders have been derelict in their duties, and it's gonna take both of us to fix it.

Overall your point about averages seems sound though. I don't think anyone would want to permanently be relegated to the "dumb class". But maybe the better way to do this is more individualized and self-paced learning, as the internet and interactive stuff is increasingly making easier. And which would also be possible through home-schooling. And which is perhaps more natural anyway, letting children just learn naturally through play and exploration rather than through being told "do it exactly the way this other person says to do it."

Yeah, there are solid reasons to home school all of your children, and they aren't just to avoid subjecting our children to false history and shitty propaganda. Males and females don't even learn the same ways with equal efficiency. The same topic can be taught quicker and more effectively with teaching approaches geared towards the temperament / perception / mental differences between the sexes.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not at all, I just read your post right before our evening walk and wanted to interject a quick thought before heading out the door.

I see, hopefully it's understandable how I might have misunderstood. It still does seem to me like people make this IQ thing out to be more static than it is, but I already shared my thoughts on that.

Unfortunately I have little hope of leading our people in a pagan reformation, so - I've had to learn with the Christians that permeate the right.

There are a lot of "pagans" (I'm not sure if I prefer "pre-Christian traditions or some other name)... you just think it's not substantial enough a number?

Both of us have been derelict in our duties, and it's gonna take both of us to fix it.

Yeah.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see, hopefully it's understandable how I might have misunderstood.

For sure. I did clean up my post a bit while you were responding.

It still does seem to me like people make this IQ thing out to be more static than it is, but I already shared my thoughts on that.

I think it's observably not as plastic as I wish it was. The Minnesota trans-racial adoption studies provide some interesting insights here. In it, black children raised from birth by wealthy white parents ended up as adults having IQ's that correlated with their biological parents, not their adoptive ones.

There are a lot of "pagans" (I'm not sure if I prefer "pre-Christian traditions or some other name)... you just think it's not substantial enough a number?

Unfortunately not. I've flirted with the idea of attending a meeting or event of the Asatru folk assembly - I may yet do that. Usually though, people doing "woo woo" religious things makes me feel awkward and uncomfortable. I'm more comfortable attending things like militia and board room meetings. Personal flaw.

[–]taibo14 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I think a lot of women get their ego tied to suffrage. Democracy is a numbers game, so it's not about whether you personally are cogent and resistant to emotional manipulation, it's about the majority of women (or x group). If your response is that the same can be said about a lot of men then I'd agree.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If your response is that the same can be said about a lot of men then I'd agree.

It is, I don't think mob rule (democracy) is a good system of government. Republics wherein voting rights are earned rather than taken for granted have a far better track record. That the US started out that way and has undone it all with amendments doesn't give me much hope on that front either. The US founders were right about needing to tear the government down and start over again every 60 or so years.

The pathological altruism of Europeans has ever been our undoing. If we feel something is unjust we tend to make retarded decisions based on emotions that have dire long term consequence.

[–]ech[S] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

OP here. I, too, am skeptical of democracy, but edgelords who just pick on female suffrage specifically are usually lame misogynists. There's no principled basis in this day and age for granting universal suffrage to men and not women. You constantly see shitposters harp on the 19th Amendment and women's "nurturing instincts" or alleged incapacity for independent thought (males who say this are often, themselves, NPCs), but nobody mentions the antisocial, burn-it-down tendencies of unattached young males. Male voters got us the Immigration Act of 1965, and male voters are more likely to favor war than female voters. If you really want to limit suffrage, there are better schemes, such as:

  • Suffrage for families: A married man and woman with at least one child collectively get one vote.
  • Suffrage for taxpayers: Self explanatory.
  • Suffrage based on a test of cognitive ability and/or civic knowledge: self explanatory.
  • Suffrage based on national service: self explanatory.

All of these proposals seem less popular, in my experience, than just trashing women. Perhaps because the NEETs who populate these discussions don't have families, or pay very many taxes, or distinguish themselves in any way other than being male.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I agree on everything you've just said. I've always been fond of a "net contributor" twist on the taxpayer approach. If you pay more into the system then you take out - you have a say in how it's spent. It's fair, and to the point. My wife and I have talked at length about the first approach as well. It's decent because only people with "skin in the game" have a say.

However, any of the options you've listed are better by far than Universal Suffrage. Hell, all of those being ways to "earn the vote" simultaneously would even be fine. Then politicians would be forced to pander to those 4 groups, and that doesn't sound bad at all comparative to the pandering they do today...

[–]ech[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Exactly -- "skin in the game" is a big part of the appeal, ditto that you get to prune which audiences are pandered-to.

I basically agree with Peter Thiel that if I have to choose between liberty and democracy, I choose liberty. But, joke's on us, because soon we're going to have neither. LOL.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But, joke's on us, because soon we're going to have neither. LOL.

If we want to avoid that dystopia we'll have to fight for it - and not with words. You can't put Pandora back in the box without upending the board. I predict the next 6 years will be challenging and bloody. My advice to anyone I like is to get well stocked on the essentials. Long term food, lead, and precious metals. At the end of the day, violence is all that is left when words and reason have failed.

[–]ech[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's difficult to predict the future now but if I had to, I'd predict a slow slide into entropy and rot. Infrastructure gradually shittier. Societal trust gradually declining. Court system less reliable, families less functional, streets less clean. But no big explosive definitive boogaloo. This could be the worst case scenario, because at least if we dramatically imploded into a full-throttle war, there would be no pretense of enforcing the old rules and nobody could stick their heads in the sand anymore. This could be a long agonizing frog-boil situation instead.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's difficult to predict the future now but if I had to, I'd predict a slow slide into entropy and rot. Infrastructure gradually shittier. Societal trust gradually declining. Court system less reliable, families less functional, streets less clean. But no big explosive definitive boogaloo. This could be the worst case scenario, because at least if we dramatically imploded into a full-throttle war, there would be no pretense of enforcing the old rules and nobody could stick their heads in the sand anymore. This could be a long agonizing frog-boil situation instead.

You sound like me on my blackpill days. I know plenty of people and groups that won't stand for it, I just don't know if it'll be enough. :/

[–]Liinukkaloinen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Women's nurturing instincts are easily subverted into the destruction of civilizations through emotionally driven support for mass immigration and entitlements.

Such nurturing instincts are hard to distinguish from female socialization, i.e., the idea that girls are brought up to be subservient "handmaidens", whereas boys are brought up to act independently. In this sense, the alt-right and radfems both agree on existence of "pathological altruism", although disagree on the nature vs nurture axis. To me it seems that the rise of GC ideology proves that women are perfectly capable of loosing such shackles.

Furthermore, I doubt non-European women will soon be voting for mass immigration in their countries. Even if female nurturing instincts are real, they are still trumped by kin selection. The wholly unnatural process of manufacturing consent for ethnic self-dispossession takes decades of anti-nationalist gaslighting, as we've seen with Europeans.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Such nurturing instincts are hard to distinguish from female socialization, i.e., the idea that girls are brought up to be subservient "handmaidens", whereas boys are brought up to act independently. In this sense, the alt-right and radfems both agree on existence of "pathological altruism", although disagree on the nature vs nurture axis. To me it seems that the rise of GC ideology proves that women are perfectly capable of loosing such shackles.

I agree, and have had discussion elsewhere in this thread about my distaste for universal suffrage in general. The idea that all or even most members of society are qualified to make intelligent decisions about the direction of that society is absurd. A society should be governed by the best and brightest - not by the idiotic or largely apathetic masses that can be convinced of anything with adequate agitprop.

Furthermore, I doubt non-European women will soon be voting for mass immigration in their countries. Even if female nurturing instincts are real, they are still trumped by kin selection. The wholly unnatural process of manufacturing consent for ethnic self-dispossession takes decades of anti-nationalist gaslighting, as we've seen with Europeans.

I believe it'll only take a generation to undo. Returning people to their natural state is much easier than turning them into perfected useful idiots.

[–]BobQuixote 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is nothing morally wrong with the statement, "We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children." - unless you think the extinction of White people is a moral imperative.

I was just going to lurk in this conversation, but this looks like a good hook to ask a question (or a suite of questions, actually) that I don't usually have a context for.

Why does any particular skin pigmentation have a moral value? Why are the only two options "white good" and "white bad"? Why can we not simply secure a future for children?

I don't really care that I'm white, and I think that is the morally proper position. I get pissed off when people want to mistreat me for it, but that doesn't affect my ideas on ethics.

[–]ech[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We have had similar experiences.