Public-Private Propaganda

Propaganda works on the assumption that most people yield to the authority of the state and most people yield to the opinions of their fellow subjects. Propaganda does not have to convince everyone or even a majority of everyone. It just has to work on that third that are ready and willing to believe. That group will be enthusiastic enough to convince the third that tends to follow the strong horse, even when in doubt. The third prone to skepticism is then outnumbered and less inclined to speak up.

In the modern age, liberal democracies are not going to have ministries of truth or official propagandists. That was the flaw of various forms of communism. They eliminated the private sphere entirely, so even the official religion of communism could not circulate freely among the people. The commies could not rely on the “right” position to spring forth on its own and circulate among the people, because the mechanisms for birthing it and spreading it were destroyed, along with the rest of the private property.

Joseph de Maistre observed that “false opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doing.” The best propaganda is therefore struck by the believers in the private realm and circulated by honest people, who have their desire for truth perverted into a vehicle for spreading falsehoods. This story from last fall in the Daily Mail is a great example of how propaganda spreads in a liberal democracy.

The claim, for those uninterested in reading the story, is that women are becoming less faithful in their relationships. The story is based on a book by someone calling herself Wednesday Martin. Her claim, based on her qualitative research into the subject, is that modern women are more adulterous than in the past. For those unfamiliar with Xirl science, that’s a nice way of saying she sat around local coffee shops, talking to hens about their sex lives. There is no data in the book or the story.

Given the demographic of the people featured in the story, this book is a bodice ripper of sorts for the middle-aged white women. The standard model for the romance novel is the dashing stranger with money, they always have money and status, ravishing the heroine, in some exotic location or time period. The new model is to have “real life” women talk about their fantasies. In this case, it is middle-aged hens talking about their steamy affair with Roger from accounting, while her husband was on a business trip.

Of course, a good chunk of females want to believe this stuff. Those romance novels don’t fly off the shelves by accident. The soft-core porn book Fifty Shades of Grey sold 125 million copies and spawned a series of movies. It has been known since the ancients that women fall for the steamy romance, because women like to be flattered. The romance novel allows the reader to think she too could be caught up in a great adventure, the object of the desire, fought over by exciting high status males.

In our age, where the people in charge want women to work in the fields and refuse to have children with white men, promoting the idea of female adultery is useful. It’s not that they want women to be adulterous. It’s that they like the idea to gain currency, because it confirms the themes of feminism. It also anathematizes the sensibilities of normal women who are happy to be wives and mothers. The fact that it sells books and movies is a bonus, as it encourages even more of it from other corners.

Now, the fact is there is no data suggesting women are more adulterous today than at any time in history. In fact, the data we have reveals that women were less adulterous in the past than previously believed. Science can now use DNA to figure out if famous person X was in fact the child of his famous father. It’s one of the unexpected byproducts of ancient DNA studies. Similarly, what’s being revealed by the proliferation of ancestry services is that the number of birth outside of the marriage is quite low.

The natural counter to this observation is that modern birth control is probably obscuring this alleged growth in female infidelity. That argument is from another bit of propaganda used to peddle birth control. In the West, the promotion of birth control was based on the argument that ignorance results in unwanted pregnancy, so the solution is to put this into the children’s school curriculum. The claim is absurd. People have always known how babies are made and how to avoid making them. Look up Silphium, if you’re curious.

Regardless, this story about the alleged rise in female infidelity shows how the privatization of propaganda is vastly more effective than what you see from authoritarian regimes. The people in charge merely have to favor certain information over others and the media bullhorns magnify these preferences. For example, on Amazon you can buy The Unabomber’s Manifesto, but you cannot buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto. The people in charge are indifferent to the former, but not the latter.

The volunteer army of box wine aunties that stalks social media looking for blasphemers is another example. You’ll note that the overwhelming majority of left-wing agitators on-line are unattached females looking for attention. The propaganda machine has weaponized unattached females, turning them into enforcers of the orthodoxy. Once again, the heavy lifting is not done at the agency or propaganda. It is done in corporate boardrooms. The Soviets never had such an effective and dedicated army of spies.

This system that rewards the counterfeiters of truth and punishes the skeptics is not something created by design. It is a natural byproduct of liberal democracy. When the only authority is the general will, the fifty percent plus one, controlling public opinion became the point of everything. Once one ideological camp gains an edge, they leverage that by supporting their fellow ideologues and punishing their opponents. It’s why institutions move from a normal status into a deranged one, like we see with the Boy Scouts.

It’s also why the ratio of lies to truth in the public sphere seems to be increasing geometrically. The quantity of truth in the world is always fixed. The math of existence is the denominator of life. The numerator, however, is the falsehoods. Systems like communism and liberal democracy require greater amounts of propaganda in order to survive, so before long the numerator dwarfs the denominator. It’s why we live in a sea of fake news and nonsense studies about human behavior, written by morons.

80 thoughts on “Public-Private Propaganda

  1. (UK) has the White Nationalist Manifesto in paperback for U.S. $12 and change.

  2. Z: “There is no data in the book or the story… Now, the fact is there is no data suggesting women are more adulterous today than at any time in history. In fact, the data we have reveals that women were less adulterous in the past than previously believed. ”

    Martin: “Women are now 40 per cent more likely to cheat on their husbands than in 1990.” (The same sentence in both header and body of article.)

    I guess that’s not exactly “data”, but it appears to be a data-based claim. Z doesn’t link to his source, either. I don’t anyway believe that women aren’t more adulterous today than in most or all other eras. Opportunity has indeed increased and perceived costs are probably less as well.

    Not that I think the article is generally insightful. But on this particular claim my bet is against Z.

    • from the article: “Many experts suggest that in reality the figures are likely much higher, because there is still a stigma associated with women who admit to infidelity.”

      “still”? What wonderous age approacheth in which this will have changed?

  3. I must admit I never foresaw the day when private enterprise would serve as the brownshirts for our Progressive masters. I guess Antonio Gramsci laid out the plan, and once the schools were captured, it was all over.

    By the way, once EEOC regulations became so onerous, firms adopted huge HR departments to deal with them, who eventually took over much of the inner workings of the firm. We know what type of person goes into HR, and that’s had a big effect, too.

    Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America. He essentially let loose all these sleeper agents in our institutions to do just that.

  4. Hey Zman, this little snippet (and the comments thereon) has an interesting little smell of conspiracy about it. Looks like Clintonian practices are alive and well.

    The driver was one Omar Awan.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s congressional district is right next door.

    Any connection here?

  5. It may be silly propaganda, but it does endorse the evopsych argument for alpha-fux-beta-bux:

    “For early humans, female promiscuity was, under certain circumstances, a smart reproductive and social strategy. A way to increase the likelihood of getting high-quality sperm and maximizing the chance that numerous males might be willing to support her during pregnancy and protect and feed her and her offspring.”

    • “There’s also a theory that the unpredictable nature of a woman’s orgasm, the female capacity for multiple orgasm, and the need for cumulative stimulation to have an orgasm (‘build up’) was biology’s way of encouraging us to have sex with a variety of men in rapid succession.”

      What are the “circumstances” in which the guys getting sloppy seconds are all that invested in her or her offspring?

  6. So in a reactionary paradise, where certain ‘hard truths’ are the desired product of propaganda – the promotion of family, kids first then career, mothers higher status than career women, no vote for the ladies, degeneracy looked down on, importance of hierarchy etc – can this type of ‘ultimate distributed propaganda system’ ever be made to work, or does our traditional paradise have to fall back on ‘top heavy’ state sanctioned propaganda promotion?

  7. Think of the Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man” and what the aliens did to us before being found out. They brought them peace and plenty. it kept them docile.

    That’s the role of propaganda(and entertainment) in our society today.

    Then ask yourself look at what makes the ruling class really, really freak out about? Well that would be Whites getting organized. OMG that cannot be tolerated. Conservative Inc goes nuts and joins forces with the SPLC and curb stomps any hint of it. Any group of whites has to be squashed, Proud Boys, RAM, etc.

    Then when you look at the current narrative in MSM and papers – whites are bad and need to be dealt with, their country needs to be crushed, etc. It all leads to Rhodesia 3.0 and our rulers want to surprise us with it.

  8. A lot of this is on point, although you’re missing or avoiding a central concept and it’s hurting the coherency of your position. Specifically: the Church, or Priesthood.

    Propaganda has always been essentially private, as it has always been essentially the domain of the Church. Communists were militantly atheist and tried to do propaganda without a Church; they tried to reinvent the square wheel and that’s always doomed to fail. On the other hand, executive oversight of the Church is absolutely necessary to prevent out-of-control holiness spiraling. That is why the Church in medieval/renaissance Europe was subordinated to the King, with a few middle-managers thrown in for efficiency.

    State ownership of the megaphone isn’t bad. The Saudi system works well for the Sauds. But it seems to work best with an “arms-length” arrangement. You need the Church.

    The degenerate American moral-policing system IS a byproduct of liberal democracy, AND it is by design. It is by design because Progressives designed a secular religion that could sneak past the defenses of the First Amendment, and that religion quickly outcompeted all others. It is a byproduct of liberal democracy because liberal democracy forbids any executive oversight; hence, out-of-control holiness spiraling by box wine aunties.

    Some will contemplate this, and long for a return to Christianity. I don’t believe that’s possible; we might be stuck with Progressivism as the dominant religion for a long time. But we CAN force executive oversight, like the ancients did with Christianity. Our biggest impediment to that is not actually Progressives – it’s the “conservatives” and “civic nationalists” who obsess over muh Constitution.

    • This is one of those comments with a net downvote tally that I suspect has a decent message if rewritten in a different way.

  9. The truth will win in the end, but the further we are away from it the more dramatic the snap back is going to be.

  10. “You’ll note that the overwhelming majority of left-wing agitators on-line are unattached females looking for attention. The propaganda machine has weaponized unattached females, turning them into enforcers of the orthodoxy.”

    Well, a federal court has ruled that it’s unconstitutional to exempt women from registering for the draft.

    All we need is a good war and we can just draft all those “enforcers of the orthodoxy” into the army and send them to the Russian Front. God bless equality.

      • “I want to die with a commie cunt”
        Unlikely to happen, the Russians don’t pay for sex reassignments like the US does,

        You’ll have to settle for having an American one.

        • LOL.

          So, let me ask you: given the choice, would you rather make love to an exiled Russian tranny who had sex reassignment surgery in France or Stacey Abrams?

          • Do you really not know the difference between a “vagina” that has to be regularly dilated to be kept open to less than thumb width, and is not self lubricating, possibly augmented with colon, and a real one? It’s why practically all tranny sex is homo-rectal.

            The surgeons that go into that kind of work also tend to be guys that wouldn’t be able to make it in legitimate endeavors. And they go in, make some money, and get out as fast as they can. How many times have you read of some tranny complaining that they can’t schedule a follow up visit?

  11. Just to riff off our discussion yesterday because the timing is PERFECT. If you had any doubt that a book with the word White Nationalist in the title would be memory holed you haven’t been paying attention.

    I’m sure it is a phenomenal piece of work and hear good things about it but as I said he committed self-induced abortion in the womb using that phrase. Had he used “Nationalist Manifesto” would it have invalidated or sullied any of the facts presented in the book? Would it have changed a single iota of anything other than the title?

    This is my constant point about why we are ten steps behind at all times. I can’t fathom after the shitshow that was Charlotsville how anyone can use ‘white nationalist’ who isn’t a total fucking retard or a purposeful opposition plant. The same way those guys with the newly minted nazi flags fresh out of the wrapping paper just ‘happened’ to appear at C’Ville.

    The phrase has a disgusting stink about it that makes me want to shower because WN 1.0 was such a loser movement in the past few decades. No idea about how to herd cattle and rope dimwits with effective rhetoric. It took 4chan and the dailystormer to make people understand that you have to mercilessly and ruthlessly mock your enemy and make them seem lame, uptight, and boring. This is how you win a psyop war. Not using phrases that have been purposefully poisoned by both the enemy and controlled opposition alike.

    • Just because Amazon banned another book doesn’t prove your opinion. And what kind of apex predator says “The phrase has a disgusting stink about it that makes me want to shower.”

  12. Promoting female infidelity also increases male skepticism toward marriage/reproduction. Everything seems designed to lower white fertility.

  13. Wednesday Martin? I have two rules in life: I never play poker with a guy named after a city, and I never trust anything from a Xirl named after a day of the week.

  14. Huge topic. Patriarchy has existed all over the planet for a very long time for the simple reason that it “worked” in the evolutionary sense. Feminism is a disease, not an enlightenment. Women hate making indiscriminate bad decisions because no one will reign in their insanity. They want a strong man to lead them, hence the romance fantasies. It makes for better offspring. Fat, arch-feminists will be a chancre on society until this is fixed. Muslims fight to the death over this imperative.

  15. Democracy carries with it it’s on moral legitimacy in the simple majority. That 50.1% of the population, being the larger of the fraction, is always right just by being more numerous. It’s the most absurd of all the lies, yet, if you dare challenge it you may as well be a baby Hitler or a Stalin, or Maduro. Everyone just believes that every vote should count the same, because we’re all “equal.” Tear down the notion of equality, and democracy is thrown upon the rocks. People think the bible has verses about “equality.” Nope. Fair treatment yes, but equality is not there.

    This is why the most explosive information will eventually come from DNA labs, showing, no, Shanequa isn’t equal intellectually “equal” to any random Japanese man, etc., “The Bell Curve” was brilliant in this respect. No one brings up that book, which came out when I was a Freshman in college. I asked a professor during class what he thought of the book, and the class turned on me like jackals for asking that simple question. Political correctness isn’t new and has been embedded in Universities for quite some time.

    Our current society isn’t equipped to cope with superior intelligence written into certain genes. It will render all kinds of prose and texts about “equality” to be moot. When people read “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” they’ll say, “because it’s stupid.”

    • JR, your point is well taken. This is why I harp on the concept of universal suffrage as opposed to “earned” suffrage. Folks are obviously not all equal—even for blank slater’s assuming such condition at birth. By the time it comes to vote as a full fledged member of a functioning democracy, most folk are clueless. Heretofore, they were not a major voting block, but today they are and are subject to all sorts of political grifters promising them a free lunch (details to be worked out at a later time). 🙁

      As an aside, when I was at University studying statistics, and research and measurement, such a question wrt IQ differences was posed to my major professor in class. Even then PC was taking root, but no one could imagine such at the time. His answer was as follows: “Some people are blessed to drive Porsche and Ferrari and can speed through life’s highway at breathtaking speed, others—like myself—drive a Ford. However remember, whether driving a Ford or a Porsche, it’s a 55 mph world!”

      That statement was of course made before the tech revolution took hold, globalism was in it’s infancy, and there were unionized industrial jobs available in abundance for us Ford owners. How could we imagine in that particular year we would be at the beginning of a 40 year bifurcation of the society and would witness the end of the American Dream in our lifetime?

      • One day the entire modern notion of “equality” will be shattered. I don’t know how or when, but anything that flies in the face of human nature is eventually destined for the ash heap.

        I agree, it’s the speed of the decline that amazes me, picking up every year. Democracy is about the lowest common denominator. It inverts the lowest liars among us into supposedly esteemed roles. Hereditary monarchy has its own problems and is just as messed up, see the nit-wits in England. It appears that the most robust system is an oligarchy of smart gangsters. A Republic just gives itself away by expending the franchise to everyone ,turning it into the common democracy we have today.

        • Modern English monarchs are professional jesters who exist to make a mockery of the concept, but the irony is that they do their job so well it makes one wonder if they could take it seriously if allowed to.

  16. Putting the propaganda aspect aside I am reminded of my disdain for working in mixed groups. I have always preferred to work with men. I like women and they definitely have their place. Especially the good looking ones. I actively seek to objectify them and I believe every free white man should own one. If nothing else those comments should ruffle a few feathers in the henhouse.I love those jokes. I love women. I just don’t like working with them. I never have.

    • Enjoyed your post! I’ll bet you ruffled fewer feathers then you think.
      In the present and after the revolution you can work with whom you wish. A good thing. As for me, I gave up working predominantly with women due to the constant chatter like a flock of starlings, the back biting, the pecking order ad nauseum. Enjoy a few women friends in small numbers. I enjoyed working with men in a male environment with the few women that enjoyed men. Let me tell you I heard some of the best guy talk, jokes and stories at the water treatment plant by sitting quietly managing the SCADA system while the operators, electricians, instrument techs and engineers would plan a project and slip in the design for the perfect woman, or the advice to never attempt to crew a sail boat of three woman because 3 descend into a cat fight, tears, tantrums, and you’ll either throw them all overboard or have a nervous breakdown. Cautionary story…Should you decide to own one, own two not three and let the first wife have status over the younger or you’ll be in for it! I have good memories of working with guys in water treatment and dam operations, and have great jokes and stories! Viva la difference in the new country!

      • Reminds me of guidance I got from an old hand when I took over an organization stocked with women …. a dysfunctional organization that was enmired in spiteful, interpersonal conflict. He said to break up the women …. his statement to me: If you have one woman working in an office with men, she can be the queen bee; two women working in one office, they can be best friends; three women, and when one leaves the room the other two will always talk about her. Hate and discord ensue. Simple observation, but, I learned, accurate. Break them up, he said. I did, and it worked for nearly ten years. Women, I learned, can’t work together if they don’t like each other. I some ways, men can (see the locker room scene between maverick and Ice Man in Top Gun).

  17. People talk about what we as little folk can do. I think one thing we could do is adopt the old feminist trope about making the personal political and using it in whatever tiny cul de sac of power available to us. Like banning certain lefties from family get togethers that we are the primary sponsors for. They have to know that there are consequences to the evil political stands that they take. This crap about accepting defeat like gentlemen is designed for us to end up losing.

    • I’ve come around to thinking we spend too much time going after the wrong enemy. As vile as the anti whites are they are not our most immediate problem. Give family slack. They’ll be to your right in a few years. Tell them that.

      Conservative, Inc. is the immediate problem.

      Proggies are pursuing their own group interests. Conservative, Inc are mercenaries and traitors. We should spend the next election hounding them and berating them for treason against their base and for the betrayal and undermining of the Trump presidency. They still have power which is why we don’t. Deal with them first. It will then make dealing with the anti whites that much more effective.

      We should lay off the Dems this next election. Don’t give them a reason to unify. The rise of vibrancy in the Dem party us of great benefit to our side. Our coming out of the catacombs will be greatly assisted by their stupidity and overreach.

      • This is exactly right. Don’t ostracize or alienate family, even the Lefties. Denying access is a women’s tactic. Invading enemy territory is the masculine tactic – and the enemy here is Conservatism Inc. They continue to betray us.

        We must attempt to complete the takeover of the GOP, so that the Paul Ryan’s and their Goldberg-Williamson apologists fear backlash and lack of funding. (To the point where they have to subsist only on Google dollars and Soros shekels).

        As far as the left goes, let them destroy each other. Stay out the way of their self-immolation. Trump will go after their eventual nominee HARD, no need for us to do anything but support him in that effort when the time comes. In the meantime, save your ammo for the naive CivNats and the Wormtongue backup-county people who make our side weaker (either through quaint notions of fair play, or more devious tribal instincts)..

        Let the left continue to go after ossified Feinstein with their childish ideas promoted by actual children. Let Ocasio-Firecracker keen “I’m the boss” to her spicy heart’s content. Let Kamasutra Harris continue to upset her Jamaican father, tell us to “move past” private heath insurance, and dismiss the importance of thinking about the costs of her proposals. Let Pocahontas send as many smoke-signals as she ca re reparations and wealth confiscation. Let them all tear at each other for being not Woke Enough.

        • Abax, you are dead wrong on one point. Denying access is a tactic. If it works, use it. Please note that they are using denial of access (to public platforms, banks, jobs, the courts) to amazing effect against us. The morality of a tactic is measured by its efficacy in obtaining the purpose for which it is put to use, not whether it is a “woman’s tactic.”
          You are, in effect, telling us we should avoid effective tactics and just “lose with dignity.” Losing with dignity” is an absurd lie, even if you couch it in terms of masculinity.

          • I’m not saying lose with dignity. Perhaps I was unclear. I meant it more in the sense of don’t turn your back on your family. (Don’t deny them access to you or your holiday meals, etc.)

            Of course we should deny access to outsiders (I.e, The Wall).

            I mainly mean that the idea of “your not welcome home for Christmas”, said to family members, is kind of a bitch move. Something a matriarch would do. A man, a patriarch, wouldn’t do that. He might come to blows with whoever the family is upset with, at a minimum he’d verbally confront the person. Bit saying “your’re not welcome” to a family member for a short visit is a bitch move.

            The circle of trust/empathy cannot get down to 1. We are a social species and must at least stick by relatives. At least for a meal and a visit. The circle can’t expand outward indefinitely either, else you have pathological altruism, open borders, post-nationhood, etc.

            We are not open border tree-huggers, but neither are we libertarian atoms floating around a marketplace.

            Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. You’re correct principles cannot come before victory. But we’re not solitary animals like tigers.

          • Having someone sit at meals in my house and then go out and tell his friends and neighbors that I am a Nazi racist etc. is not acceptable. How many of those doxed lately have had that done to them by the facility of a family member? No. The other dude is right. You are a cuck, lose like a gentleman type. Go back to National Review.

      • Yves has it. Your dissident culture is dissident precisely because of the soft/cuckold right, which has no culture of its own and simply rear-guards liberal progress cult. What I will say; however, is that you cannot condone anti-white behavior in anyone. It must be named without using the language of the left (racism, antisemitism, sexism, bigotry, intolerance, etc) early and often to seed the ground.

        Taking the soft right to task and combating anti-whiteness are indeed, one in the same. And Z, for g-d’s sake, lay off the neoreactionary hobby-horse of democracy bashing. It isn’t wrong, it’s simply irrelevant. The demos having opinions and expressing them doesn’t impact policy in any appreciable way. This has been a very long and well understood phenomenon by the, ironically, Public Choice brains.

        Those propagating these ideas, in your society, are part of an aristocracy that fashions itself a vanguard of nominal democracy.

        • Disagree about the “hobby horse.” Many false idols have been put before us, all with the purpose of guiding the West to cheerlead their self-immolation. “Muh democracy” is one of those false idols. Look at the results of pedastalizing “democracy” (a worship of form over results – “I don’t care if you murder me, just follow the right procedure”): Thousands of our young men dead and maimed in irrelevant dirt world cesspools, trillions to fund our special-people enemies via MMT. Apportionment of voting on headcount has led to immivasion and our currently trending demographic destiny. The people who can’t praise democracy enough happen to be killing our boys and immiserating our nation; they also happen to have forked tongues.

          For many and myriad reasons, some of them covered by our honorable host, democracy is a con job, and they got you fooled. Stop worshipping the idols of our enemies.

          • Democracy isn’t a false idol, it is just false. Nobody, not even dumb as dogshit boomers, believe 50%+1 creates a moral good. How effective it is relative to another nominal form of government is just another “own them with facts and logic,” waste of your time. It is absolutely true that good oligarchs make better choices than dumb proles, but in a world in which your oligarchs and proles are either dumb or evil, you don’t waste a moment regaling people with the wisdom of the class that currently wants you dead.

      • Conservatism Inc will murder us all if given the chance. There is no difference between them and the Democrats except in terms of PR efforts.

        They hate us as much as the Left does. Look at Wall Street and Silicon Valley they led the charge to destroy the country as we know by off-shoring entire industries, destroying communities in the process. Importing foreign workers. Who do you think devastated the Rust Belt? Wall Street. Who turned Silicon Valley into a foreign run concern? A bunch of white and Jewish billionaires.

        I remember when Perot ran for president. The business elite turned on the man like you wouldn’t believe. Why? Because he cared about the country and it’s people. That is anathema to them.

        Right now Conservative Inc and Trump is trying to soothe us while they prepare the slaughterhouse for us. Notice how talk about the border has vanished from all major news sites including Breitbart? It’s no coincidence.

    • The Boomercons that quit watching the NFL because of Kapernick came back when Goodell greased enough palms to make the protests stop.

      It says magnitudes about our weakness. Kapernick humiliated us.

  18. Speaking of modes of propaganda/propagation, I believe I’ve made the first-ever Gab “Dissenter” comment on the Zman’s main page address. Suitably laudatory! You can see if you can find it or get the system to work.

    It’s actually not hard to set up, but you’ve got to follow 4 or 5 steps on their little tutorial. Takes maybe 3 minutes. But I’m afraid Normie and Moronsky might not even have the patience or wherewithal for that.

        • Interesting. I went into the Dissenter main page and see stuff people commented upon using the extension, but I don’t see the comments.

          It’s funny, but this reminds me of a similar attempt someone created when NRO shut down their comments. It worked, but you have to a registered user of that comment platform.

          • I don’t think NRO ever “shut down their comments”. They shifted from Disqus to Facebook and then to subscribers-only. Qwiket enabled continued use of Disqus to comment on NRO articles (and, now, on many other sites). Is that what you meant?

  19. The volunteer army of box wine aunties that stalks social media looking for blasphemers…

    I remember reading some 19th and 20th century books that said when we had democracy and plenty for all, it would unleash our creativity and dignity.

    Instead it unleashed our shittiness, LOL. We’re a grotesque parody of what we were supposed to be.

    • As to the women thing specifically, recently I accidentally wandered into a couple of comment sections and message boards of just women discussing politics.

      It’s the most godawful thing you could imagine: mushy-brained word stews, passive-aggressive bitchiness, combined with a pleading need for approval. It’s actually very blackpilling in its own way.

      • The Babe, true. I used to frequent a forum that had more women than men. About a third of the threads devolved into “that was hurtful” / “but that’s not what I meant” / “that IS what you meant” / (4 pages of arguing over what each REALLY meant, and showing they’re the good one) / “well, if I hurt you I apologize” / “apology accepted”. One thing that struck me is how much emphasis was put on what’s good or what’s bad. This was done subconsciously through manner, or speaking directly on topic. Strong need to show oneself to be good (or by proxy, on the right side of things.) And tremendous sensitivity to being seen as not good. It’s hard for women to be independent-minded because the disapproval fo other women really shakes up their world.

        • That’s why with women it’s a good skill to be able to pick out something they said – and respond with “no – you’re NOT a good person” in response to their argument.

          And have an example to back it up.

    • Folks, it all comes down to one thing—universal Suffrage. Age, and diminishingly citizenship, are not the essential elements in wise choices at the ballot box. Nor is the ultimate solution to revert back to an authoritarian dictatorship. Our forefathers tried to strike a balance, but ultimately failed.

    • I’m around a lot of younger people and occasionally they bring up the whole voting at 16 years old thing. If asked, I usually reply that we should limiting – not expanding – who can vote (I don’t say “suffrage”, because then I have to explain to most of them what that means). If that doesn’t send them off with a confused look and they ask who should be allowed to vote, I state what I think I heard the Z Man succinctly list as voter qualifications – married with children native born white men over 35 who own property or run a business – this usually raises eyebrows and drops jaws, which is really fun.

      • The problem with the voter qualification conundrum is we are always trying to use correllaries (eg, skin in the game) to approximate the true measure of a desirable citizen: a correct cultural identity and ideas/philosophy. It would be better to go to the source. Once we succeed in our struggles, we need some sort of inquisitorial process with assurances (sponsors, bonds, etc) to ensure anyone granted citizenship meets our cultural, philosophical, etc requirements. Those who would be citizens should prove their case to the Senate by their words, deeds, and sponsors.

  20. Taking women out of the home and parish community has been one of our larger failing.

    But it is still and has always been a man’s world. What we allow to happen will happen.

    I’ve noticed in recent years that more and more normie women are the one’s who publicly resist the poz.

    As an example, there’s a video floating around of a middle aged woman holding a small American flag at a podium reciting the pledge. It had recently been deemed racist by the town council. The town council was heckling her. She began to shake and her voice began to crack as emotion overwhelmed her.

    Why was it an older woman doing this and not a man? The voice of the hecklers included that of men. Why are their heads not on pikes?

    So many young men entering the workforce seem much to soft around the edges. Older men don’t want to risk their positions. How long can we go down this path: noticing, acknowledging but taking no action?

    The people on this blog and other alt right cul-de-sacs are not the problem it’s the 1/3rd who are ready but fragmented and the 1/3rd who follow the herd.

    The 2020 election season is going to give us ample opportunity to break out of our ghetto. We can’t keep doing what we’ve been doing. We need to engage in the public sphere.

    We need to act like men.

    • Re: the Daily Mail article
      1. Clare doesn’t look very happy, lol.
      2. Propaganda for polyamory or just click bait?
      Women speaking out against the poz always come off as scolds/prudes. Oh well, it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it.

      • Clare, looks quite unhappy indeed. I’ve had my share of chances for affairs with “unhappily married” wives and, with one fortunately uncatastrophic exception, my view has been “she’s already made herself and at least one man unhappy, why let the cancer spread to ME?”

        I’m always amused how easy it is to trigger people who just accept the latest propaganda by just saying something brief to the effect of “that sounds like bullshit to me”, or, more triggering, “I wonder who might benefit from us believing this?”. Sometimes, simple amused skepticism disturbs the gullible more than an impassioned argument.

    • Am striding up to the third rail of the male/female realm. Is it a man’s world? Yes in some ways. Separate but equal facilities. Without a doubt, women set the standards–At home and in the social sphere. And men are waiting to look up to us just for that! Part of why we are adrift is that women have forfeited that responsibility. It is clearly hardwired in the male brain to want to know what he leaves behind is going to be his offspring, not one of the other 10 fellers. Just watch your old Nova animal specials from barn cats to bears. If she keeps her legs shut, takes time to get to know Him, then only avails herself to him and actively demonstrates loyalty and support, and isn’t a harpie, he will bring her home to Mama for approval, lay food at her feet and be the father of her children. Ha! Or just bring her to a home. A woman’s creativity can be channeled into family, also her physical space and her community “space.” May I walk in Beauty. I am surrounded by Beauty ( Navajo Way Blessing Ceremony).

      Women set the standards at home and in society. When women emulate male sexuality, men are more than happy to enjoy the fruits offered, hump and dump, then wander on to the next gullible girl. Why should a man lay down his cloak and life for her and be a leader in his world! Then the collage Zirls get their hearts broken, rage against the machine, fill up the collage counseling office, are told to fix it, they can be like men and get out there to rut like a mink again, then go so painfully deranged the Zirls end up dikes and trannies cutting off body parts all turning into screwed-up angry shrews. The men have no inspiration to grow up, can live in parents’ basement through middle age, and feed at the trough at will, with no women in their lives to inspire, “I am worth something and compelling. Fight for me.”
      Women drank the feminist koolaid that we can do it all. WE CANNOT! We have only so much time and energy, and eggs get stale and even Peter Pan will grow old. Now the machine has sweet-talked women into being trapped permanently in the workplace. And that does not make women happy. That workplace will NOT hold your hand when you are on your death bed.
      Yes, you need to act like men. Women need to set the standards….to inspire you….and themselves. “In old age wandering on a trail of beauty, living again, may I walk. My words will be beautiful…”

      • Why I am having a hard time finding chick groups in which to nest.
        “The knitting community is reckoning with racism”
        My world had gone bat shit crazy squared! These nags and harridans are ruining it for all of us. Wish I could find an Old Girls Club and exclude the neurotics like a Brit mens club where one can drink fine cognac, invite in a few men to smoke pipes with a great smelling pipe tobacco and I’ll sleep in a chair with the daily paper tented over my face. Just for a minute.
        My women groups have all gone crazy!
        Where’s Lord Peter Whimsey when I need him. Ill take that cognac now. It’s happy hour somewhere in the world.

        • Recently attended a meeting, was listening and quietly knitting. The gentleman seated next to me leaned toward me and said gently, “A women knitting is like having a purring cat contentedly curled next to me.” Then he looked horrified at having said that to me, expecting the worse. I just smiled.

      • One of the skills that I cherish most in women is their ability to make a home beautiful and comfortable. She will put a picture, or a strand of lights, that improve the home so much. I can see how nice is it after she does it, but it never occurred to me to do it before that. Eyes get misty…

  21. There are perhaps certain corporate reasons for favoring divorce. Each divorce creates two households, leading to higher durable goods spending. The primary social reason for divorce is to legitimize remarriage, which of course means even more consumerism.

    On the other hand, men that don’t get married are less likely to be high earners. Wives tend to be the primary spenders in the household. This conundrum can’t be solved without brute force. The system needs to reward its loyal feminists with lucre, but lacks a reliable way to do this without diminishing male incentive, at least until mass automation.

Comments are closed.