you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Once folks start questioning a component of Critical Theory, why not question the whole thing? After all, they all spring from the same source.

If you do question Critical Theory as it pertains to sex, is it wrong about gender? How about race? Capitalism? Eventually chasing the truth long enough will either set you free, or make you a paranoid blackpilled person. That one is still up for debate.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 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 -  (2 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.

[–]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.