Feminism is a term that is exclusively associated with left-wing activism and generally associated with the more radical elements of the culture war. Modern feminists are the emotionally disturbed old maids in the human resource department, stalking about, looking for unapproved words and thoughts. These are the people purging social media of anything funny or interesting. While true, it disguises the fact that feminism is as much a part of the conventional Right as it is the Left.
At its core, feminism is the product of egalitarianism. If all men are created equal, in the moral sense, then surely all women are equal. Further, if all men are equal and all women are equal, in a moral sense, then men and women must also be equal and should therefore be treated as equals. It is this sense of moral equality that drove first wave feminism to demand equal contract, marriage, parenting, and property rights for women. Morally equal people should be legally equal.
From there, of course, feminism was transformed into a weapon to undermine the mores of white society. Second wave feminism focused on destroying family life through the promotion of divorce and sexual degeneracy. Third wave feminism focused on destroying the very notion of womanhood with the promotion of bizarre sexual fetishes and homosexuality. Fourth wave feminism focuses on the promotion of emotionally unstable women making a nuisance of themselves on-line.
The lurch into what amounts to the promotion of female psychosis obscures the fact that feminism in a stock part of conventional conservatism. It is not at the point of pushing weird sexual practices and physical mutilation, but so-called conservatism fully embraces the egalitarianism of first wave feminism and the moral license of second wave feminism. You see that in social media characters targeting conservative women, like this one that has 165,000 followers on twitter.
Note that her act is a blend of pinup girl bimbo, outrageous gun advocacy and, of course, lots of red, white and blue. That is the core of conservative feminism. It is a blend of mostly male habits like shooting guns and riding motorcycles, frosted with the vulgar sex appeal of Hollywood and over-the-top patriotism. Go through that twitter feed and it is basically just 1990’s Conservative Inc. packaged for what the people behind it assume is the target audience, people they generally detest.
That is the important part of it. The people behind these accounts are often nothing like the marketing. The Reagan Battalion, for example, were left-wing Orthodox Jews, buddies of Ben Shapiro, by the way. One guy was Benny Polatseck, public relations consultant, and the other was Yossi Gestetner, a marketing guy. They were also tied to the NeverTrump operation. The point being is that Mindy Robinson probably looks more like Harvey Weinstein than the pictures on that twitter account.
Even so, what is sold to conservative women is really just feminism with lots of conventional conservative decorations. The “strong conservative women” is independent, patriotic, shoots guns and so on. The idealized conservative woman is now 1970’s Clint Eastwood with a vagina and some tasteful nudes on her social media profile. Conservative women are supposed to display all of the aggressive male attributes one used to associate with action heroes.
More important, it is every bit as socially destructive as the left-wing variant of feminism, because it denies the very essence of the sexes. Men and women are complementary not just biologically, but socially. What makes settled society possible is a division of labor that goes beyond the physical. What distinguishes West from East is that in the West, this division of labor maximizes the utility of both sexes. Women are not just baby makers, but the glue that holds together local community.
The promotion of women and men as equal in all things has had the devastating effect of destroying the traditional role of women. With it has gone the social capital that made western societies so resilient. Promoting right-wing women with guns is every bit as damaging as portraying them as a butch lesbian playing the traditional male roles in television and film. It is a discrediting of the tradition in favor of the novel, which is useless and unwanted.
You will note that fertility rates on the Left in America collapsed before they did on the right side of the political spectrum. Into the 1980’s, conservatives were getting married and having families. This was often mocked by the Left as being backward. As right-wing feminism began to take hold, the same drop in fertility has happened in the more conservative parts of society. The fact is, even assuming Mindy Robinson looks anything like her pictures, no man would want to put up with that.
The promotion of right-wing feminism has not just perverted the females. It has warped the minds of males now too. That cartoon version of a woman you see pushed by the so-called conservatives is not a complement to a normal male. That is the sort of girl you drink with at the pub. If you are in a dry spell, well, maybe you take her for a spin, but you will not be taking her home to mom. The adventuress has crowded out the market for the sorts of female roles that make society possible.
An authentic alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy will have to redefine the female role in society as something useful and appealing. The response to Mindy Robinson posing with a gun should be demand she pose with a sandwich or ironing a shirt. A bimbo on a Harley must first be treated as grotesque before there can be room for an authentic alternative to right-wing feminism. Of course, women have to be the lead in such efforts, as wherever women go, men must follow.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
Complement.
Thanks.
All thots find their “inner traditionalist” once they hit the wall and can no longer coax men into buying them stuff.
Z, great article. But this stuff appeals to boomer cons. The millinenial and zoomers right wing is even worse when it comes to women. Large portions of anti sjw Reddit and twitter go to trannys for conservative or anti sjw commentary. I think the big reddit community kotakuinaction outsources all their work to some werid tranny named Sophia Nitwitz on Twitter. Another one appears on YouTube live streams for the alt lite or blood sports channels. There are actually quite a group of anti sjw or trump maga tranny’s worshipped by thirsty zoomer right.
So while cons get gun truck flag wamens, we are getting out female takes and validation from persons that aren’t even really women!
I recommend this video on why sex inversion. That of women becoming masculine and men becoming feminine is happening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouH5DQJvT1A
Masculine women is just as abominable as effeminate men.
Its like a hyena with a fake penis.
I just don’t understand the fixation on women with guns. I don’t shoot, and never did, with the exception of target shooting as a kid, even when I voted Dem (partly because my husband was not a gun user, partly because we generally lived in safe communities, and now, because I’m physically weaker).
Yes, in the absence of male protectors, women probably SHOULD be armed. But, for those of us with a man in the house, it’s not only not necessary, but detracts from our essential female nature.
Women have traditionally placed a high value on nurturing and sustaining life, through:
-Pregnancy, child-bearing, and raising those children. In pre-antibiotic times, this required substantial expertise.
– Occupations, such as teacher, nurse, and cook, whether that work was in-house, or for outside pay.
– Gardening and small animal tending, which, even in a farming economy, produced a substantial contribution to the family’s food.
– Providing an assist to family finances, through careful use of resources, inventory, household budgeting, and avoidance of incurring debt.
– Instilling cultural values in children; working in the community to support other families; attendance at services and support of church functions.
This insistence of part and parcel of the sex inversion. Of men becoming feminine and women becoming masculine.
To insist on women acting like men is to accept cross-dressing on a behavioral sense. Which is equivalent in allowing men to wear dresses and act like women.
This phenomenon started in the 80’s with the marketing of cowboy-redneck culture, I doubt most people under 55 take it seriously.
Wait, so Daisy Duke was a plot? I’m shocked, shocked! I did some digging on the creator and he doesn’t seem be pozzed, but perhaps just used by the industry?
I thought G. Gordon Liddy started the bikini chicks with big, umm, weapons calenders.
Not with a sandwich or ironing a shirt, but with a husband and kids.
How about making a sandwich or ironing a shirt with the husband and kids in the background?
I first exposed to this woman a few weeks ago. She seemed to have come out of nowhere. What stuck me as odd and was revolting about her is the gun fetish. Back when I was a young man there were VHS tapes going around with names like Sexy Girls, Sexy Guns. featuring bikini clad women shooting large guns. It’s all very perverted.
Now this bimbo and women like her are paraded around as the ultimate in womanhood. It combines the right wing gun fetish with feminism that is somehow supposed to make the degeneracy all OK because real women carry an AK.
I like looking at pictures of scantily clad women.
And I like watching Youtube videos of guns getting shot. Forgotten Weapons is a weekly visit for me.
I like peanut butter. And I like chocolate. But I hate Reeses.
Same effect goes for chicks in bikinis – shooting guns. I just don’t get the allure of the whole thing. I just find the whole combination sort of unappealing.
Just think of all the places hot brass could get to.
Hollywood, CA. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same folks behind her are the folks behind Benny Shapiro (as Z intimated above).
Masculinizing women by implication even when unintended.
Pingback: Single mothers are the untouchables of Western society. – Adam Piggott
Just read your blog post on this. Solid.
I’m not much of a fan of Gavin McInness, but he’s right about women having very short shelf lives in the healthy childbearing years department. He’s attacked feminism like this for a long time. I’m not sure if this woman has kids or not, never heard of her. The hot flashes may already be starting. It’s the same old cliche’ about not buying the cow when you can get the milk for free. The whole point about a woman’s sex appeal is that she’s supposed to put out the goods, then snap it back until a ring is on the finger. Women have become terrible in the “snapping it back” part of this. Also, no tattoo has ever been feminine, ever.
This is what happens when you do away with nuns, the butches and tomboys break free into society and corrupt the rest.
Mary Queen of Heaven became Elizabeth the sterile Iron Queen (or Margie the Iron Lady, or Marianne the butch French republican libertine), and from there on came Mary Sue the nagging Prot vicaress/pastoress, who then taught all the Prot women were equal to their Prot husband in every way, unlike those miserable Catholic women.
Then the increasing amounts of unsatisfied haughty Prot women who could not find a man “equal” to them could not stop nagging. Mary Sue thus proceeded to go suffragette, then secular working woman, then working woman that is also hot and shoots guns (like Mindy), then abortionist (like Tomi Lahren), then atheist agender nonmonog unshaven beast.
Of course, throughout the whole process Mary Sue became more and more departed from the Catholic faith, that which had taught her not to kiss cousins and balance desire and children and family; while still obeying the pater familias, whether husband or father, and veiling in church.
obviously this is not a straight slippery slope, but as good genes and environmental advantages grow lesser with each generation.
Of course, women have to be the lead in such efforts, as wherever women go, men must follow.
No, that is getting it backwards. There is no such thing as ‘strong women’, there is only weak men. The dying off of the West is not the fault of women, they are responding to an increasingly devalued environment. The disease of the West resides in us (assuming most Z readers are male). Butch women, hysterical gina people, swamping immigrants from all corners of the compass, that’s what happens when ‘daddy’ isn’t sure he isn’t really ‘mommy II’. Give me authentically masculine men, I could find the women for them. It’s the first part that’s hard.
I think few would call the veterans of the Second World War, “unmasculine”. But it was these men that allowed feminism to gain ascendency. And it was these men who raised the Baby Boomer generation.
You can’t out-alpha the state, and most men cannot be alphas. Beta men must exercise collective self-defense.
The real game-changer was the pill. Without it, career women would have been severely hindered in their attempts to have it all. Our future society will have to treat the pill the same way Singapore deals with drugs.
That is a supercomplicated issue b/c in a way there is a paradox, the Boomers, the children of ‘the Greatest’, turned out to be the first decadent trash generation in the descent of the West.
I think it has to do with the economic boom after the war, the Boomers grew up in the most sunny period of the West, and they sure ODed on the decadence John Glubb and others argued is the vice, if not curse, that accompanies excessive affluence. And their parents, the ‘Greatest’, probably spoiled them too much. They presumably didn’t want their children to know the hells they had to go through, the depression and then the Second World War. Sadly, sheltering the Boomers made them decadent conceits, not appreciative characters.
It would be my guess that the causality is something like this. But it is an interesting topic that I am not entirely sure how to put together.
I absolutely agree that you can’t out-alpha the state. It is the equivalent of out-alphaing the king, the origin of the state (visibly seen in places like the UK where the monarch is still called ‘the sovereign’). The problem is that the state invaded sex roles and relationships and the family. And this was reenforced with the female suffrage. Men and women have instincts, honed over millions of years in scarce resource, violent environments. Women’s is for safety and stability and nurturing (giving and receiving). So, they pushed for the state to change from barracks to nursery/school/welfare etc. In a masculine culture men would have said ‘no, (martial) safety first’. We lost the balance between the feminine and masculine impulses. Masculine impulses, necessary for survival in a harsh environment, tend to be ‘annoying’, ‘offensive’, ‘oppressive’ and ‘arrogant’, in overabundant settings. At the end of the day it is (human) biology.
Be careful what you wish for.
We all want to be successful, wealthy, comfortable. But we must never get too close. Life needs to be a struggle. The boomers came too close and became indolent, decadent, languorous, hedonists.
Hormesis. Wine, exercise, lithium. The poison is the dose.
The generation of the “roaring twenties” could be considered fairly degenerate. Perhaps there’s a component of urbanization destroying the small community?
You’re right about the 20s, they were degenerate. Hadnt thought about that.
Maybe there’s a double whammy dynamic here: “War, decadent relief, depression, war, decadent relief” Maybe that whole roller-coaster ride between extremes opened cracks in the West’s psychology?
The Conservathot “Mindy” replied to this post, so expect some incoming CivNattery.
“Someone did a “hit piece” on me…and it’s the greatest thing ever.”
https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1206378267684425729
Note how, like all women tend to do, she makes the post about herself, even if she was simply a small example in a much larger point.
I’m surprised they let her link here, could be dangerous for her handlers.
My guess is her fans would be too dim to follow the link.
That level of thirst, pathetic.
Too bad Heartiste isn’t still active – he could run a whole series on “the thirst” off this . Pretty sure once it was all properly linked the types who used to populate the comment section on Heartiste would drive Mindy off the edge.
Mindy Robinson is hot and proof that real men love strong women..
Except you’re a faggot who stalks e-whores on twitter.
Mindy has Photoshop =! Mindy is hot. You been suckered, fool.
Stupid article. Theres nothing wrong with Mindy. She chooses to be who she is. Screw you if you don’t like it.
“It is a blend of mostly male habits like shooting guns and riding motorcycles….”
Those who like that sort of thing in a partner might as well shack up with a guy.
You can’t be serious Z! No one but a perv would give a second thought to ‘Mindy’s’ porn advert. Beats the hell out of me how you extract conservative feminism out of this example.
Men and women are not equal. To say otherwise is as much a denial of HBD and reality itself as to deny the existence of races. Women instinctively find men they can dominate unattractive.
What’s more, b/c men dominate women in any and all societies without a strong state (take your pick of examples, from Afghanistan to the Yanomami to street gangs), the effect of the modern state is often to suppress masculine behaviors and traits. Otherwise women will not be ‘equal.’ Feminine traits, in men or women, make you ‘domesticated’. Masculine traits make you ‘unruly’, independent, etc.
Several years of experimenting with this stuff, to great enjoyment I may add, leads me to conclude that there is no middle ground between being the cuck and the ‘bad boy’. And what women say they want is not what they respond to. And red pilling on the genders tends to be the hardest hurdle for many, who have negotiated the realities of race, immigration and islam, to cross. Talk to them about women and many become mushy beta cucks.
Feminism = Marxism with tits.
I feel quite bad for the young people now who are growing up in the Science-Fiction Wave of feminism, flat out denying any and all tangible relationship to life on planet earth, where reality is no longer real and human beings are indistinguishable from fast food products, gardening tools, or negroes.
Back in the Stone Age (I’m roughly of Z’s vintage, age-wise), in spite of all the politics, it used to still be understood by young/sane people in the Dating Zone that men and women still were identifiably distinct creatures, with noticeably different preferences about a variety of things, including knowing what their sexual desires were and are. If I recall, William Blake had something memorable to say about “the lineaments of Gratified Desire.”
At that time I found myself in an odd situation, because I was a gruff working-class type who for some strange reason had been teleported into the avant-garde Art circles of Most Prestigious University: the dating population for me consisted entirely of semi-strident feminist activist left-wing chicks, the type who thankfully did not dye their hair blue or green like now, but probably would have if it had been normative.
But I found out something interestingly weird: once I began going steady with one of these gals, they invariably discovered a new-found love of knitting, baking, fixing up the living room, making elaborate dinners, serving me breakfast in bed, thinking up names for children, all sorts of delightful nesting behaviors. When they weren’t planning rallies for human rights in Burma or something, they were visibly interested in making me happy. They took genuine feminine pleasure — a sort of feminine professional esprit-de-corps — at their feminine skill in making a noticeably masculine entity happy. I didn’t demand this of them, they just did it naturally. Of course they did this because I was an authority figure who had taken the extensive trouble to make myself into a sort of kingpin in a complicated, rather public, hierarchy.
To the young fellas in our thing, who are having trouble getting laid, I’d say this: chicks dig prowess. Not subjective, weepy, “I’m-a-poet-and-nobody-understands-me” prowess, but objective, public, observable prowess. Girls want to f!ck John Lennon and Kurt Cobain, not Elliot Smith. Stake out some form of territory, whether it’s conceptual, artistic, political, whatever, and make yourself the king of it. Cute girls will not only want to date you, they will knit you mittens. I have more pairs of mittens than I know what to do with.
I came across this girl band recently, The Regrettes. They broke out about two years ago when their lead singer was only about 16-17, and while their tunes are catchy, it’s obvious that a lot of the band’s appeal is her wholesome girl-next-door good looks.
What I find hilarious about them is that they are part of this “riot girl” girl power female empowerment movement and a lot of their songs are overtly feminist and political, but their problem is … they already won.
Thy are singing their “I’m a woman! Take me seriously!” lyrics, but to find opposition targets, they have to go back to the ’50s or earlier. Their video for Seashore features images from the suffragette movement and a witch trial scene. The video for Hey Now is presented as one those cheesy ’50s dance shows with a lecherous White male host who won’t let the negroes in.
They live in a world where the power and esteem of young girls is boosted and encouraged incessantly. They have no actual villains so they have to go to the past and stage mock battles.
This is why so much leftist and feminist politics seems increasingly insane. They have to invent opponents out of increasingly more ludicrously innocuous events and statements. They won, now they are like the dog who caught the car he was chasing; they don’t know what to do with it. It turns out that getting everything they said they wanted didn’t make them happy. They have to either admit they were wrong or invent new enemies. It is obvious what they chose.
I also think this is part of the appeal of Trump as a villain. Despite being a social liberal, he serves as a stand-in for the White male villain they need for feminists’ “edgy” politics to not feel ridiculous.
Well, women are only getting less happy with their lives. I can understand why most of them don’t want to recognize that virtually everything society told them is a lie. It is far easier to create new villains. Plus it plays to the nature of most women for the need of drama.
Trump is the most socially liberal President in the history of the USA. (Obama was not an open social liberal in 2008).
There are 2 issues that makes one Literally Hitler:
1. Opposing Zionism, Forever Wars, MIC, Jewish influence (all kind of wrapped into one).
2. Stopping or reducing anti-white demographic shifts.
Those two “things” are at the heart of the beast… that’s why Trump is Literally Hitler, because he opposed both 1) and 2), either directly or indirectly.
Great essay. More flotsam from the co-religions of economism and egalitarianism.
This is one of those topics that demands not just intelligent discourse but aggressive action. About 25 years ago I happened upon the realization that mass culture wanted to feminize my boys. I’m a slow learner, so it was about 20 years ago it finally hit me what mass culture wanted from my daughters … they want to rob them of the joy of refined feminine beauty.
If you have children of both genders it’s a two-front war. Masculinity and femininity are probably the two most important hills worth dying on. There’s no sense in talking about community-building unless we get this part right.
Swimming against the cultural tide on this issue requires guts and a willingness to be castigated by normies. But when you know you’re right, and especially once your children are grown and you see the beautiful vista from those conquered hills, it gets easier and easier to say “screw ’em.”
I’m with you Brother…
Well said, Capt.
Very well said, and absolutely spot on. Parents’ most important roles is teaching both their sons to be men and their daughters to be women. How many times at church I watched a teenage girl go up for communion wearing clothes that would have violated the public school dress code, and exposing her tramp stamp, and her proud mother boasted about how her daughter was ‘active’ in the church’s youth group.
Hear, hear!
A few connected observations below.
1. The kickass girl in tight leather with handguns is a male fantasy, aimed at men with domineering mothers and weak or absent fathers. They basically want a man’s brain in the body of a woman.
2. If you want to make the above fantasy appeal to modern women, you make the female character perfect, just being naturally good at everything, and rather dumpy or plain average. See the last couple of Star Wars movies.
3. Feminism benefits our enemies and especially our enemies who are in the top tier of men or otherwise alpha. We need to replace them with elites who give a damn.
4. The change does not start with women. It starts with men. Weak, foolish, and evil men are necessary to give feminism traction.
5. Standing alone against enemy alphas, feminist women, and their hordes of thirsty lower tier males will result in us being broken like sticks. However, together we are unbreakable. If only there was a symbol to express that truth and a poltical philosophy based on it. I bet its answers would be fascinating.
“you make the female character perfect, just being naturally good at everything, and rather dumpy or plain average. See the last couple of Star Wars movies.”
OMG, that “Why should I learn anything?
I’m already better at everything” in Star Woke drove me nuts!
Sure, Princess.
In a competent military, the purple haired officer chick would be considered an incompetent leader who refused to pass on vital information instead of a martyr. Actually, a competent military would not have officer chicks with purple hair leading fighting men.
The women you are talking about will be hard to find for advertising as they are homeschooling kids, cleaning houses, and volunteering in church.
They are too busy for instagram.
One area where conservative feminism runs rampant is women in the military. Just go onto any site and mention the immorality of having women in any military role except possibly support and watch them come out of the woodwork. Half of them will talk about how their little precious is in the military and does a great job.
Yup. When my son was overseas I decided to do my part and went to volunteer at the local branch. Helped put together care packages, write notes, etc. Except I found myself having to put together packages for women – with women’s hygiene products and magazines. And I started wondering just why I was volunteering. And then I listened to some of the other volunteer women discussing their daughters or granddaughters ‘serving’ – and I walked away and haven’t gone back.
3g4me,
I was the recipient of some of those care packages. They had oftentimes been picked through by the largely black-staffed supply units, but when they eventually made it down to us in the combat units… at least the blacks in supply hadn’t rifled through the used books and I got some good reads to kill time.
We did receive a gigantic box of sanitary napkins and tampons in my 135 MAN unit. After the relevant jokes were beaten into the dust someone said they might make good blood stoppers for wounds (still don’t know if that’s true) so a lot of us threw them into our rucks just in case. (Plus, being young men they were great to have on hand to offer a soldier who was whining excessively). So not a total waste.
In the future, if you ever do something like that again (and since there doesn’t seem to be a diminished thirst in this country for fighting Israel’s wars), it’s more useful to find a combat soldier you know and send it to him direct. Every package a member of my squad received was dutifully and willingly shared out with his brothers.
You’re right. Back in the day (and I’m only talking early 80s here) the military still had very active (and incredibly helpful) WIVES CLUBS. The things they did for on-base and deployed sailors, soldiers, airmen & Marines were wonderful. This was the place where my wife learned her crucial role as the officer’s wife. When I went to sea with a few hundred sailors it was no big deal … I was with the men and she had a robust support network.
As the military feminized there were then the “spouses club.” And of course within a couple of years this tradition was just gone – poof – evaporated. Now every Base has a handsomely financed “family services” office that pales in comparison to what the old Wives Club used to do as volunteer work.
Hard to believe how so many warrior traditions built up over centuries of American conflict completely vanished over the last 30 years.
Bad money drives out good.
The effect you’re referring to is pretty much the exact same thing that happened way back in the 1930’s when the FDR administration instituted all sorts of Federally funded welfare schemes.
Once the government setup office in town and started handing out money – it was just a matter of time before all of the private charity institutions withered away and died. And like those warrior traditions built up over centuries that you referred to – private charity and the extent of it in America – was something that extended back a long time. Toqueville talked about it when he wrote about America after touring the country.
Why the heck would a man want his daughter to be in the military?? I can’t even understand the logic. Is it the same reason some men shove their poor daughters into sports (aside from the feminine ‘sports’ like gymnastics)? They didn’t have a son so they raise their daughter like one?
Bad;
The whole point of the agitation for ‘women in combat’ was that nobody could reach flag rank because serving in combat units was a prerequisite for higher promotion. So countless blue-collar women were degraded and exposed to danger just so some elite females could ascend. And this travesty of all justice, common sense and tradition continues to this day.
I understand the larger scope – but I can’t understand the attitude of that some *fathers* have where they essentially treat their daughter like a son. I had an uncle that did this to his girls – he made them live and breathe softball, a sport that, in my mind, has no purpose aside from being a poor reflection of baseball. What drives a man to push his daughter into masculine activities? My 4 year old girl loves dolls, and she loves toy cars too. But the way she plays with the toy cars is the same way she plays with the dolls – the little toy cars have conversations and feelings. Seeing a 4 year old boy play with cars is quite different. I could never see myself pushing her to act like a boy with these, let alone tell her she should take up arms like a boy…
“The fact is, even assuming Mindy Robinson looks anything like her pictures, no man would want to put up with that.”
She doesn’t, I watched about 30 seconds of one of her videos and she looks like a 50 year old worn out whore, just rough looking. Those pictures she posts online for thirsty, lonely divorced “conservative” Boomers are so touched up that they might as well be anime.
The other issue is that it is rare for a conservative to say anything even mildly negative about women dumping their kids in daycare so they can work. They are terrified of the backlash. This is even true in much of the more conservative wings of Christian churches.
In traditional society, grandparents and other relatives often performed much of what has been outsourced to daycare. Some empirical evidence indicates that the presence of a grandmother increases the number of children her daughter (or daughter in law?) has.
Middle class living in the developed world largely requires two incomes, even if daycare (often immigrant staffed) consumes much of the second income. Most women would prefer to either work part time, from home, or not.
Extended clan-style families are critically-important to Our Thing. something I’d emphasize no matter where you live, city or sticks. I grew up in a dual-income house, both parents not making much, but had the good fortune to have many aunts, uncles and cousins in my adopted fam. The amount of stress that takes off a family is enormous, financially, emotionally etc… You can’t tell me that leaving your child with strangers every day is good for a parent’s psyche, particularly the mothers of young children.
Disagree. Women claim to prefer part-time work or not to work at all, but if you believe that you’ll believe them when they piously claim to just want a ‘nice’ guy. Most of them love the attention and perceived status from work -who’s around to appreciate them when they’re home all day? And as far as taking care of hearth and home, husband and children, they (and they includes the vast majority who call themselves Christian) would argue that’s a waste of their intelligence and talents. Even here, most men send their daughters off to college without a qualm, after having raised them to believe they can kick a** and run the world. It starts in the home – and it must start with the men taking back control.
So if homemaking could be high status, you believe most women would prefer it?
Line – good question. Answer – I’m not sure. Whether they would prefer it or not, it’s what they ought to be doing and it’s what they were designed for. Another thing my husband mentioned is that work is a huge social club for women – gossiping with their work friends, doing lunch, etc. while claiming it’s all part of work. Of course, various voluntary community organizations and volunteer jobs used to provide that social and energetic outlet . . . until men allowed women to run them and ruin them.
3g;
Class makes all the difference, IMHO. Prior to X-wave feminism, maintaining an *elite* home was high status work for elite women. And it was serious work, just less visible.
I have seen that up-close and been part of elite family life in several communities. It’s definitely the women who are the “deciders” of who gets to join the club: country club; art museum women’s board; debutante cotillion-sponsoring organization board; status hospital women’s board; college alumni groups. Even thought there are men-only clubs, a well-placed tidbit of gossip supplied by a wife, can have a guy black-balled and he’ll never know why. These are all volunteer groups, but the husband’s work value is raised by their wives’ participation in these activities, ergo he gets paid more for having a Super Wife as the boss notices all the contacts/connections made through her volunteer effort.
I myself became wary when there was an influx of women lawyers, accountants and such into the firms starting in the 1980s. It can be upsetting to the status-quo to have attractive, intelligent single women around your husbands at work all the long days, weekends, too, during the “busy season.” Elite wives know this and do not trust these women until they at least get married and have to deal with their very own husbands! Double Income-No Kids was the phrase back then, but the married non-working women still ruled the social roost.
The nice guy thing is limited to them. They want a guy who is nice to THEM and a dick to everyone else. It feeds the “I’m special” thing. And “nice” is not to be interpreted colloquially. She wants to be treated as the man’s inner circle when she is with him.
Men should operate on the circle of influence plane. Innermost circle is God and man. Next circle is wife. Then children, extended family… eventually everyone else.
The everyone else gets jerk (not necessarily, but it should be different from inner circle) treatment. That’s what draws her in cuz she wants inner circle status. One inner circle status is achieved, she wants to be cherished and protected like no one else is.
That’s why nice guys are schmucks – they white knight everyone, so what makes HER special?
Another standing O for Stina.
Stop, people, my hands are starting to hurt.
More actual commonsense quality in one day than 3 years of “Game”.
A mate is one thing, but what to do with all the other women in our clan?
I’m finding out here at Chez Z.
Middle class living in the developed world largely requires two incomes…
It wouldn’t have too if we didn’t have the “tax” Z mentions every once in a while…
Good post, as usual, by the Z-man. Feminism is perhaps even more pernicious and deep rooted than race denialism. I think that only a new religion, or the recasting or Christianity, is going to rectify the situation, and restore patriarchy. Michael Houellebeq in his novel Soumission, saw mass conversion to Islam as a possible solution, and I wouldn’t be too surprised to see something like that take place.
The two biggest changes that will have to be made are restricting female contraception and ending female economic independence. Without a new relition I don’t think that either is even conceivable at this stage.
Be an incel:
>Option 1, be an incel for life while upper SES whites laugh in your face
>Option 2, convert to Islam and get a woman that matches your SES, who is happy to please you and submissive.
I know which one I’d pick. I’ve been blessed with decent looks but the bottom 20% of white men are absolutely screwed. For the remaining 80% it’s not as bad as some of you guys say it is, though.
The phenomenon of women being economically dependent on their husbands is a product of the industrial revolution, urbanization and affluence. In Colonial America, men were as economically dependent on their wives as women were on their husbands. The family was a unit of economic production and most people were self-employed: farmers, craftspeople, merchants, professional men. Husbands and wives, parents and children, other family members and employees worked together on/in the family farm or business. People made/grew/raised most of what they ate, drank or used in the course of a day. Men also played a huge role teaching their sons what they needed to know about making things, building things and running a farm or business.
Voting by household made sense because the household was a common business enterprise, but the household included adult sons still living at home and hired men. They didn’t have the right to vote, either.
Industrialization, affluence and urbanization took men out of the house first and then women. Most employees nowadays don’t own the fruit of their own labor. People buy, they don’t make, grow or raise. The family is a unit of economic consumption, not of production.
Men brought the meat, but women brought the rest. So overlooked.
At one time, African women could/can eke out a bare living for themselves and their children on their labor alone in the thin soil and year-round warm weather of Africa. African men did little to help support their wives and kids and women had no obligation to remain faithful. Hence the chronic instability of the African family.
The situation has changed due to modernization, Islam and Christianity, but if people have evolved a certain way for thousands of years, they’re not going to evolved a different way in a few years.
Correct. Most of what ails us is a function of our current environment in which real hardship has become extinct. Existential threat is mitigated by government-supplied everything. If you want men and women to form tight bonds, then put them in an environment in which their very survival depends upon efficient cooperation.
Mass conversion to Islam – would just be another ratchet down the shitpipe.
I’ve had the Christians’ back this week but I’m going to underbus them on this one.
The mid-80’s saw an upsurge in Christian Wahmensim and guess who the ladies brought with them?
***
In 1986 EWC passed a resolution by a two-to-one margin stating:
Whereas homosexual people are children of God, and because of the biblical mandate of Jesus Christ that we are all created equal in God’s sight, and in recognition of the presence of the lesbian minority in EWCI [Evangelical Women’s Caucus International], EWCI takes a firm stand in favor of civil rights protection for homosexual persons.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_and_Ecumenical_Women%27s_Caucus
***
Sissy-lis & Con-her-ea were a “social disease” two-fer.
In hindsight (cough), we should have seen this coming. I’ve lost count of how many wahmens have told me they don’t trust other wahmens, but every damned one of them had a ghey BFF or ten.
Wahmanism is a big-ass purse, big enough to smuggle WGTOW single mommyhood, carousels careers, cats, lesbians & butt-stuff into our churches and into the society at large, with trannies riding in the attached make-up bag.
I suggest that every Christian man and woman here read the excellent “Dalrock” blog for details on the Amazon Wrong March through the Christian institutions. He’s been calling BS on the fake Cucktian leadership, male & female, for many years now.
Z regularly Shoah’s the Church Ladies, praise be unto him. The wise 3g4me recently said that until we get our women back in line this will only get worse.
Agree & amplify.
Starve a thot, quench the fever. Learn to code me a sandwich, Lysistratas.
Unless we MGTOW we will never MAGA.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/
Thing is men can be married and still go their own way as long as they keep their woman in line and in their place…
You mean play around?
Meaning my husband doesn’t have to check with me or complete a chore list before he makes plans with friends. It means I don’t always come along when he goes to the range, or visits his buddies. It means he and I still have our own interests and identities while both working towards maintaining a strong marriage and home. Why the automatic female assumption that a man not under a woman’s thumb is in seek of sex on the side?
I agree with what you wrote.
Clearly, some men in the Dissident Right want their womenfolk under their thumb. Not the mild patriarchy of 1950s America or even the 1850s, but a society much more restrictive of women. I wonder if this would include tolerance of male infidelity. It does in many cultures such as the Moslem world.
Exactly 3g4me Well Spoken…
No don’t mean that at all…I meant you can still be your own man and do the things you like while having a wife that knows her role in marriage…
Thanks for responding. I apologize for taking your remark the wrong way.
It’s a good idea for a man to have his own activities and go out with his friends. A couple that spends to much time with each other might really start getting on each others nerves. I’ve been told by older women that their husbands didn’t know what to do with themselves after retirement and it drove them nuts.
I belong to a gun club and run a women’s shooting group and urge members to bring their women family members and friends to shoot with us at least once. It’s an educational experience for the women, if nothing else. Still a largely male hobby.
Thanks again.
👍😉
Exile;
‘The Theology of Nice’ that you describe (but don’t name – I’m open to alternatives) actually began in Mainline Protestant churches in the 1920s in elite Seminaries where faculty wanted to be respected and accepted by their Proggie ‘colleagues’. The Gheystapo eventually noticed and began serious penetration ((certainly true in the Alynski (?) sense)) efforts into these denominations’ hierarchies post WWII.
Being ‘nice’ (not making people uncomfortable about their life choices or at least accepting those choices in order to have female allies) is apparently hardwired into many females. The utility of having female allies is obvious in a pre-modern setting of dangerous childbirth and high-casualty child-rearing.
But, thanks to ‘higher criticism’, post enlightenment attacks plus modern elite academic feminism raised ‘niceness’ into the highest Christian virtue in the ’60s and thereafter, maybe mostly because feelz. So the Mainline Protestant (and so hierarchal) Denominations had thereby made themselves defenseless against the ghey ratchet from within. The results you illustrate.
Bottom Line: Dalrock is mostly right, implication being that a non-denominational Evangelical Church is the way to go, but check first. The signs of rot are obvious: Feelz, feminism and pozz from the pulpit. Once pozzed, independent congregations are gone in relatively short order due to no denominational support to keep the pozz going. I have no good advice for my Catholic allies in this fight.
The e-thottery of this Mindy, and her Asian sidekick Kathy Zhu; is easily compared with the traditionalist leaning but marginally partisan “Mrs Midwest”
The Right is a sausage-fest, and plenty of undersexed beta males are easily taken in by these female grifters. For collective self-defense, Fuentes’ rule of “No E girls, never” should be applied whenever possible.
A lot of beta guys have to reconcile themselves to probably never getting married in this feminist environment. The only women who “need” them are single mothers and/or those seeking green cards.
I think you’re right DBD. She’s just playing to a market the same way someone like Vox Day appeals to the unemployed cellar dwelling/comic book reading teenager. They pose as intellectuals or ideologues but in reality… they’re just performance artists.
I think they are part of the transformation process. When I left The Hive I saw many such people. It’s like a desert out there; you wander around from one mirage to the next until you stumble across an oasis like this one… and they in turn will point you on to others.
I suppose we are just a market too, and our esteemed blog host performs for us the same way they do for theirs? If so… I can at least take pride in being an upscale customer in an upscale market. 🙂
Lifetime incel is a hard sell. An adventurer could do worse than promising overthrow of the system and the pick of women as their followers sex slaves. This was the Mohammed approach. See the panic over the Joker movie inspiring incel violence.
Some adventurer at some point will make this move.
Volcel
It looks like you spend too much time on-line and not enough in the real world…
It’s not -THAT- bad IRL lol. Young men are still dating and getting laid. Just maybe not as much as in previous generations.
We have to compete with those filthy sugar daddies and other perv Gen X who couldn’t make their marriages last so they’re chasing after younger girls. Boomers didn’t have this problem. Sugar daddies take the top 5% of girls off the dating market right off the bat.
Beta or not doesn’t much matter. Any father with some sense will explain the dangers of marriage to his son. It’s simply a one sided deal. Men do not get money, or status, or respect from it. They will just impregnate their girlfriends because that’s a better deal than marriage.
Men are simply not going to maintain and defend the castle walls to a society that does not benefit them. There’s a reason there are no matriarchies.
DB – there’s a less black-pilled way to look at it.
Guys should look at marriage the way our ancestors did. Men expecting to marry for love is part of the problem, a symptom of overly-feminized (((Progressive))) culture.
Look at marriage as hiring for the position of mother for your children – love is a bonus, like having an employee who really loves their job vs. just being good at it.
I’ll credit Vox and Heartiste (PBUH) both for helping beta guys adjust their frame and improve their outlook in this regard. With a better, more masculine mindset, a guy with beta bux can marry a woman on his own terms. Divorce law is nasty but it can be tamed with pre-nups. Most importantly, the shrew herself can be tamed by a strong hand, unless she’s utterly feral.
The expectation of true love forever, I would die for you, etc… is a music and movie industry trope that’s making men miserable. A guy isn’t a failure because they “can’t find a woman who loves them ” They just have unrealistic expectations foisted on them by the feminized culture.
The biggest downside I see for sub-alpha guys in the next couple of gens is that they have to look abroad for a broad, and this will promote race-mixing on the fringes. Keep that in check and we can ride this out, Plenty of E. Euro wahmens out there, (W. Euros, for that matter – lotta soyboys over here, lotta gheys). Happa Asians or Castizos if necessary, although that’s pushing my personal boundaries.
These days – If a man is fully de-cucked and black pilled and is viewing a union with a woman from the viewpoint of the best mother to his children – there are other ways to go about that. They are probably not the best way overall – but they are there and men who are dealing with the destruction of society (and women) wrought by feminism – should be aware of them.
Given the nature of divorce law and ferality of many women – and what that can potentially cost you, these options are likely to be a cost saving alternative as well.
It is possible to have a child – YOUR child – thru an egg donor – and then thru what is called a gestational carrier. This means you find a suitable woman who donates an egg – then you enlist another woman who carries that embryo to term. Properly done with all legal protections in place – this is basically a business transaction – and it means that the child is YOURS – and NO WOMAN has any legal right to the child. I have to stress the “proper legal protections” thing though – because in the US the laws vary state by state – with many states still taking the legal position that if a baby comes out of certain woman’s uterus – then that woman is the “mother” of that child, with all of the legal entitlements that being the legal mother of the child comes with.
I know this goes against the return to something resembling traditional morals that many on the right are striving for – but I bring it up because I have seen far too many men try to go down that road – only to be eviscerated by feminist corrupted females – combined with the legal system. All things being equal – taking into account a semi-worst case scenario – the solution above is one way to completely avoid all of that – while still having a child that is YOURS.
This doesn’t solve the issue of taking care of that child – while you the man go to work – which was what reliable non corrupted women of days-gone-by did as wives, but many rich families don’t raise their own kids anyway – that’s what nannies are for.
For a man of sufficient financial wealth – the means ARE there to tell the whole feminist enterprise to go screw itself. I will buy a quality egg, I will rent a womb to carry it to term, and I will pay women to take care of that child. And not a single one of them will be able to use that child against me in a court of law to rape me of my wealth – as EVERY woman involved will be either supplying raw material – or supply a service which they are paid a market rate for.
Women had better watch themselves – or they may well reduce themselves to surviving thru nothing else but pure economic transactions. And once that value is exhausted – they’ll be gotten rid of just like any other economic unit that has exhausted it’s value.
Sad isn’t it, what they have stolen from us…
We need to back up and start at square one. We need to see where we’ve come from to intelligently decide where we want to go. Anything that is bad for one gender ultimately hurts them both. If you want to talk about psychosis, you can check out the trailer trash at Jim’s Blog or the scarred woman haters at Dalrock’s. Those guys want to go back to the 7th century with Sharia law for women. Those idiots are convinced that women are incapable of rising above their worse natures and it’s BS. They absolutely can, same as us guys. In fact, in the before times… most of them did. I was there and I saw it.
First wave feminism arose because electricity and new modern machines eliminated what was traditionally women’s work. Vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, and laundry alone accounted for the loss of half their work. Other gizmos came along… and our women found themselves at home, with nothing to do, and no real value to the family. Of COURSE they went nuts! We would too!
Getting a leash on the hags and harpies and harridans is only half the battle fellas. Once you cage those pole cats… what are you gonna do with them? Until we answer that, our families, communities and ultimately our nation will continue to degrade.
Ok Boomer, your generation saw it, and you stood by and let the cancer happen, or you encouraged it and enjoyed the short term benefits. You sound like a feminist whining about misogyny and hysterically invoking the specter of The Handmaid’s Tale.
With that in mind, why should we take advice from you about what is or is not a valid solution?
LOL. Back up, youngster! Hold your fire! 🙂
First – I’m not whining, or trying to tell anyone what to do. Second – I am not complicit in this, and have never enabled it or tolerated it. In point of fact I left my family when shitty liberal women destroyed it, and somehow my traditional marriage survived and is better now than it ever was before. I’ve done better than many men afflicted with feral women in the home I suppose. My views on feminism is the same now as it has always been: it’s an attack on women. Guys like me warned of all this stuff happening 40 years ago and got the same treatment you younger ones get today when you notice that it actually came to pass.
I listen to idiots like Jim that tell their fanboys to beat women like rented mules. I see fags like Vox Day lecturer about the finer virtues of manhood and ascribe Greek letters to their personality types… and then act like a petulant children themselves. I view their acts with the same contempt I view feminism. But they have their markets, it’s a free country, and if you want to buy their brand of fertilizer… fill your boots.
If you’re here, and you’re young…you don’t need some fake intellectual poseur to tell you how to unfcuk yourself. My question is this: how do we unfcuk the women, and what are we going to do with them once it’s done?
Vox gets a lot of crap around here, but to his credit, he is one the few people on our side building alternatives to the clown world culture we live in. His views on the socio-sexual hierarchy are worth looking at as well.
As for your question, the answer is simple. After unfucking them, fuck them frequently, good and hard and encourage them to be involved in the community. No time to be feminist when you have 8 kids to raise and lots of bake sales to attend. Let your woman know who is in charge.
You are wrong when you claim that feminism is bad for both men and women. It may be bad for the bottom tier men, but their theoretical world would benefit both women and the top tier alphas. The only cost would be the collapse of civilization.
vox Has built an enclave for the more marginal young men that live in their parents’ cellar and read comic books well into middle age. That demographic is part of the tragic fallout of feminism and the dissidents are not addressing it at all. He plays well to children and derelicts and there is value and merit in that.
Based on preliminary info though, I think that the smarter and more self assured young men might be better served by guys like our esteemed blog host here, and possibly young men like Nick Fuentes. (I note with some amusement that Fuentes declined a public debate with Vox and dismissed him as irrelevant. That boy bears watching and is an excellent judge of character for a man his age).
Fuentes had a good moment when his followers disrupted Charlie Kirk and the TPUSA. If you think we should be looking up to him, you have another think coming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D1qSWJqyq8
I would put my money on Vox wrecking him in a debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16-hyrQQpxY
JS – I’m on record as no fanboi of Vox but this characterization of him and his readers is straight outta HuffPo.
You sound like the scolds at NRO who keep telling young guys to “man up” every time Big Mommy doubles down on her demands.
No wonder you can’t stand Dalrock or Vox. They’re talking about the man in the mirror. Work on that guy, not on us.
If you think we can do anything without participating in youthful things like comic-books, you are sadly mistaken. This is why our enemies have done everything in their power to own education and children’s media (books, TV, home video you name it) Getting the foot into something like comics, especially if Alt*Hero can help finance getting into comics aimed at younger audiences can be a major step into recapturing the youth. You teach young people that racism is the most evil thing in the world, they will be completely unable to undo that programming later in life. We desperately need more in the way of capturing youth.
Whatever shortcomings VD may have, Alt*Hero ain’t one of them (I am not a fan or reader of comics). Also, his core audience is not comic readers. Most of the guys you are referring to are the comics gate guys who are all cucks and centrists who near universally disavow VD and anyone else associated with dissident right politics.
Literally once ran across a dating profile of a stay at home mom with more than 4 children. Looking for an affair. She wasn’t the only one. Just because they stay at home and raise kids doesn’t mean shit
Accidental double post.
Call me a First-Wave feminist. Acknowledging that men and women have different natures, strengths and weaknesses doesn’t necessarily translate to the view that women should be reduced to the level of children or property.
It’s been suggested that one of the reasons for the revival of the feminist movement in the 1960s was that being a housewife just didn’t require the time and skill that it once had, thanks to a plethora of labor-saving devices. “Man works from sun-to-sun, women’s work is never done.” In a pre-industrial society, a woman’s role typically involved endless chores, but she enjoyed great self-respect and the respect of others for her accomplishments. By the 1950s, how many housewives were complimented for their dusting technique or vacuuming savvy? Only cooking and the most important job of all, childrearing, required skill and time.
It’s also been suggested that another reason for the feminist movement was the natural female outrage over being treated as sex objects (that was a concern in the 1970s) and rape being treated as a joke.
Ironically enough, a century ago, progressives thought that getting women out of dirty, dangerous jobs or working long hours was a step forward for women’s rights and dignity.
Women are no different than men in that they need meaningful work that engages them and gives them a sense of worth and accomplishment. The reason we are getting the raging hags in HR and the psychotic wahmen in the workplace is because they aren’t getting any of that in the workplace. Most will take that unhappiness home with them after work too.
Sure, there are many traditionally male jobs they can do without resorting to affirmative action… but what is the net result? You’re putting a woman into a man’s job where she probably won’t be happy, and you’re putting a man out of work and that will definitely make him unhappy. Additionally, putting all these women into the labour market will naturally drive wages down. There is no upside to feminism even if you ignore the carnage they’ve inflicted on their families at home.
This problem is far more complex than bitch slapping the women back into the kitchen.
John Smith and Ris_E, standing ovation.
Excellent.
Could not’ve said it better, Mr. Smith.
I remember Mom talking about Monday’s clotheslines. All the women eyed each other’s sheets to see who had the whitest whites.
Remember when women starched and ironed because they wanted the other women to know, “that I take care of my man.”
Thanks.
Imagine a Colonial-era wearing clothes ultimately made from the sheep he raised. He sheared the raw wool from the sheep and handed it over to the women in the family to card, spin, dye, weave, cut and handsew into garments. Their skill, or lack in doing so, would be obvious. Talk about taking care of their man!
The average person saw little money in his life because he didn’t need it. The family was largely self-sufficient. A man was as economically dependent on his wife as she was on him.
JS – the problem is indeed more complex than merely “slapping women” (which is apparently your cucked definition of re-establishing traditional sex roles).
We also need to slap their white-knighting NAWALT enablers who put women on pedestals and incel-mom-basement-hate-shame every guy who calls BS on the chivalry myth.
I see these self proclaimed alpha male cretins posing and posturing as dominators of men and women as they strut around and accuse each other of being “white knights”, NAWALTs, “gammas”… you could get lost in that crowd. None of them would know how to treat a real woman, or how to handle a proper classical marriage.
Classical marriage arose the way it did because it’s a good deal for men AND women. You pool resources and divide labour and accomplish more as a team than you would individually. Marriage is not a contract or a power game; it is a partnership witnessed by God. If some idiot thinks that makes me a cuck… I suppose there is no real harm in it.
But… When you mess with that, the result is unhappy cat ladies, obese lesbians with face tackle and bad haircuts, xirl scientists and other mayhem. The flip side of those, or the male equivalent… are the angry men that hang out with Dalrock or Jim, discussing ways to game and dominate those types of women and they devolve into circle jerks as they scheme and plot about how to use women’s weaknesses and character flaws against them.
You can run along and thought police someone else, and I will continue with my happy 35 year marriage as I see fit. 🙂
What did Lucy Ricardo of I Love Lucy do before Little Ricky came along? How much housework could she do in a one-bedroom apartment? How about Alice Kramden of The Honeymooners in her cramped apartment? If for no other reason boredom might drive them into the workforce.
Catholic intellectuals in the 19th Century developed an idea called “the family wage” which was the principle that a man should be able to support his wife and kids on his salary alone. This involved lessening job competition by getting married woman and children out of the paid workforce. The idea was widely accepted and only in 1966 did it become illegal to pay a head of household more for his work.
The massive influx of women into the paid workforce, immigration and the sheer size of the baby boomer cohort have created an employer’s market.
A late comment on bored women: and those pent up ladies beat the living shit out of their toddlers, I mean every day, twice a day, and as hard as they can.
Stupid people are easily bored; frustrated women with no direction are easily stupid.
Got lots of stories, far, far too many on the spiteful cruelty of women.
Re: the suggestion that the feminist revivial of the 60s was due to the plethora of labor saving devices then available to women.
I think that is probably a vast oversimplification of what happened.
https://i2.wp.com/www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/us-fertility-figure1.gif
Birthrates are affected by a number of things – with one of them being bad economic circumstances. The chart above shows the birth rate plummeted during the Great Depression, climbed all the way thru the 50’s , peaked at the beginning of the 60s – and then plummeted and stayed down ever since.
Does higher efficiency in achieving household tasks explain the plummeting birthrate? I don’t think so. Raising kids is hard work – as I found out a year ago when my son was born – and as women have been saying since forever. So why would labor saving devices automatically equal a plummeting birthrate? That doesn’t really make much sense to me. And I say this from the perspective as a person who has built their own house , pretty much by myself. All of the labor saving tools not available to carpenters from say 100 years ago – were available to me. Electric saws, cordless drills, portable table saws, aluminum ladders – etc. All of these things made the job MUCH easier (and that’s something I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about) – especially when compared to times gone by when men didn’t have these tools available.
All things being equal – tools to make the job easier – should INCREASE production – not decrease it. Women should have been having MORE kids – not less , if the “production” of those kids and maintaining the household they lived in was made easier.
And a lot of those labor saving devices you referred to – were available to women starting as far back as the 30’s. After WW2 was over – and the US economy was doing very well – the saturation of those time saving devices increased dramatically – and the birthrate seems to have followed.
So we get to the 60’s – and birthrate plummets, at the same time “feminism” rises. Also at the same time that the hang over effect of US prosperity from WW2 devastation starts to mitigate. Also coincidentally – as the US swamp deep state starts to grow, as does the Welfare State.
Somebody has to pay for all of that shit. So we got to get the white women out there working too.
Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex in his farewell speech in 1961. Right at the apex of US birth rates.
I think these two things have far more of a connection to each other – than the spread of labor saving devices to the masses of housewives.
Repeat for emphasis: labor saving devices will almost always = more productivity. For women a vacuum and a refrigerator should = more time to take care of another child, in the same manner that a Skilsaw and a Dewalt cordless drill enable me to do work that would have required two or three men to do 75 years ago.
All other things being equal.
What you need to concentrate on is : which other things were NOT equal any more once the 60’s came around
Jim’s blog… judas priest.
JS: Calling Dalrock a “woman hater” is a Boomercuck tell. You cant rail against feminism while white-knighting like this. Choose one.
Blaming household appliances for feminism is another white-knighting cope. Women bought into feminism because it was a massive wealth and influence transfer that’s now making them the dominant sex. It’s a selfish project and most of them know damned well what they are doing and why.
The chivalrous myth of the “fairer sex” is a big part of what got us here, and Dalrock’s justified railing against that pretty little lie is probably what hurt your feelz about him.
White-knights are part of the problem. Stop making excuses for daddy’s little princess and see her as a grown-up with agency and an agenda, eyes wide open.
Listening to you is like listening to the latest episode of Xirl Science. You can’t even begin to make intelligent commentary because you can’t ask intelligent questions. The Xirl Scientists prattle about ‘intersectionality’ and morons like Jim prattle about ‘hypergamy’ and ‘white knights and beta males.’. If you listen to them, E, you will end up pumping and dumping the same tire biters in the same trailer park that Jim lives in. It will serve you right, too.
Dalrock levels some fair critique at the church and the people pozzing it. But he throws the baby out with the bathwater when he councils young men to disregard the clergymen exhorting their young men to be better men.
You’ve grown up and matured in a climate where women are encouraged to make war in their men. As has Jim, Dalrock, and others. They’ve been hurt by feral women as have their countless fan boys. You all deserve better. I get that.
But there are still good women around. They aren’t going to be seduced by a ‘chad’ like Jim or gamed by a fag like Vox Day. They sure as hell won’t take crap off a dirty packie like Roosh. Pickings for good women looking for good men are slim too.
If you want a better woman, you will have to be a better man. The way towards that is down at your non-pozzed church where they advocate for solid classical marriages. The virtues you will need for that are in your bible – and you can probably pick one of those up for free.
But… whadda I know. Happily married for 35 years, in a time when 50% of marriages go on the rocks… it has to be because I’m a cuck, right? 🙂 I couldn’t POSSIBLY know a thing about women.
I’m a boomer!
John Smith: we are, all of us, fallen. Read Genesis (again, no doubt). Women are as base and fallen as men are. We are dichotomous in our fallen natures, but there are no more angels amongst women as there are amongst men. Anyone who tells you otherwise speaks something other than the Lord’s truth.
This is not meant disparagingly but this is actually a really good example of someone who redpilled on immigration, race and the other stuff (I presume, don’t remember enough of your comments to be sure) and then crashes and burns on the red pill gender hill.
Having getting laid and fooling around as a sort of hobby may be decadent as hell but it teaches you a lot about human nature. Jim, of Jim’s Blog fame, is coarse but essentially right about what happens to women that ‘are set free’, ie go feral, as he likes to put it. You, OTOH, are fundamentally wrong about this, and there is one of two possible reasons; you ve been so lucky that you have only really interacted with women who enjoyed the benefits of good, benevolent frames around their lives. Or, you are simply in denial about this, in much the same way liberals and leftists are in denial about race, despite all the evidence.
The course of feminism is headed to new grounds when the Millennials start reaching their 40s. Large numbers of cat ladies will remain permanently uncoupled, leaving them with an existential crisis not seen before in the industrial era. Their earlier priorities of promiscuity and subsidiezed contraception will be passe. Careerism and credentialism are their Janus. Rather, I predict that this wave of cat ladies will make an eventual abrupt turn to the political right. Angry at both feminism and at men, for denying them the social status of a married women, and the existential security of biological children.
It begins. A toxic brew of estrogen. The new conservatives of 2028?
https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/
Seems to follow the general acknowledgement that women have a heightened opinion of themselves wrt to whom they want to date. The 80/20 rule commonly discussed in MGTOW groups—and supported by some research on dating site swiping behavior. Yep, there will be quite a bit of disappointed women in these generational cohorts.
The negative effect IMO is not just on women. Men in the desirable category learn to use women with little concern for long term relationship, while beta males—who would make successful husbands—go without, or are left with broken women who have lost the ability to adequately pair bond with any male. Desperation is a poor aphrodisiac.
The concerns that alpha men treat women as “disposable”, is present. But it is not the focus of my work. It is impossible for women to control these men, and beta men can only do so via politics. The Trumps of the world will “grab em” unless they decide to live a more Romney-type lifestyle.
More important, and more numerous, is that beta males are prone to consuming porn, camgirls, online thirst, catcalling, obesity, nihilism; and in the absence of distractions: sexual assault and rape. Beta men have to police their own, and each other’s thirst; if they want to regain some power.
Well put.
Legalize women-run cathouses again.
Ya want boys and girls, or our current progress to Gay Amazonia?
In 1904, a brothel inspector in Kansas City wore a badge, took the payoffs, and made sure the girls weren’t ripped off or abused.
Well, that was a fascinating rabbit hole and glimpse into the hamster.
They want a “High Value Man” whose behavior is hardcore beta male (fancy dinner dates, pays for everything, waits months to get physical)? Seems like an unlikely combo.
Their idealized archetype of man is someone like the singer John Legend. A “Woke Alpha Male”. They also like Keanu Reeves.
They are an interesting lot. They dislike porn, polyamory, bisexual men and trans. Nor do they like the manosphere, and arguably most men for that matter. Lesbianism is idealized. They have an abject hatred for older men pursuing younger women.
Most unusually for a feminist movement, they put a lot of importance on marriage. They also really want to police male behavior so men are steered into being “high value” and marriage minded.
I saw a bunch of them admit that they keep FWB’s on the side while they search for their future husband. This isn’t odd in and of itself — I would say that is a pretty standard dating model that many women follow in this day and age, keep an alpha FWB on the side while searching for a beta — but when you combine it with their zealous insistence that the beta Won’t Be Getting Any…
Definitely no talk of what they’re doing to improve themselves to make themselves into the type of woman a true “high value man” might want to marry.
In the sense that Vox refers to “beta”, yes. But I dislike his epicycles and prefer a simpler alpha/beta dichotomy. There idea of a HVM is inconsistent with the beta male who tends to be seen as a “NiceGuy” or a LVM.
There was a woman who claimed to spend 10K/year on cosmetics. lol at that. Many display a lot of anger that men have video games as a hobby. Women are considered “high value” often just for going to university.
Also, they are unironic supporters of eugenics. A position that the left hasn’t held in nearly a century.
There’s also been threads where white men that date outside of their race are condemned as a “fetish”.
It’s really strange considering that the admin claims to be a middle aged black women. A lot of their jargon originates from black culture.
Darn tootin’, Albino.
The rich guy buys drinks all night so she can take the broke biker home.
Girls don’t know where to go either.
They don’t want to live at Cheers.
We simply have got to make smaller places where people can rub elbows and hang around.
We don’t bump into each other anymore.
Seem pretty angry and masculine to me. Bitter misandrous feminists trying to adapt.
I notice that many white women over the age of 40 or 50 get what I call crazy eyes. And a crazy personality. It is generally, but not always, single women without children.
For some reason I wonder if there is a connection with abortion. Maybe women who had abortions get these crazy traits? Abortion likely fucks up the woman’s body much more severely than we are told. It could also be the lack of a husband whom she respects to put her in her place. I don’t know.
My heart breaks for women who have been lied to into thinking they want a career instead of children. Right now they are annoying leftist feminists, but I feel sympathy anyways. Maybe I’m too soft hearted. Men can live without children – it’s certainly not ideal but single men over 40 just play more golf, make more rambling comments on UNZ, buy more cars, whatever. Women seem to go absolutely nuts.
🙁
UFO: my understanding is that women who do not go through the adaptations and changes intendant with childbirth are like males that don’t go through puberty; there are funadamental phsyiological and hormonal changes that are supposed to happen, and in their absence, psychosis and emotional disturbance are likely if not inevitable.
Our political opponents deliberately target women because they’re more soft-minded.
Another example of their sociopathy.
But it’s nevertheless a real problem for us.
These gross bikini Rambos with implants and army guns deserve the criticism they get, but the fact remains that we’ve got to come up with ways to protect regular women from both left-wing and “conservative” propaganda and rot.
The solution is simple and elegant.
Cancel your cable
Delete social media
Correct. Further, join your closest non-pozzed church and take part in the community.
Too late, De Beers, that’s like throwing down your gun and running away to win a war.
Er, maybe not. I don’t have cable or sm, but then, I don’t have a life either.
Er, maybe not. I don’t have cable or sm, but then, I don’t have a life either.
Only you can change that😉 Better get crackin’
Regular women need to be led out of the clown world. This requires strong men. Unmarried, feral women are not regular; they are varying degrees of busted. They are not “ours”. The are independent like their daddies taught them to be.
That said, the only women I have seriously dated over the past many years have had zero social media.
They have also been able to enjoy an entire glass of wine with nothing but my engaging company on a date – with their phones in their purse or car the entire time. Not on the table.
How modern males put up with these drones on their phones and instagram whoring and tinder rutting is beyond me.
Men need to refuse to reward shit behavior of women with their time, let alone the entirety of the ‘boyfriend experience’ or whatever passes for courtship on the way to the husband stockyard.
Meanwhile, proud fathers everywhere are buying their strong independent daughters iphones for Christmas or whatever.
And as the millennial women approach the wall, they still have no idea what a man finds attractive and what he wants in a wife and how those things may not always align.
Modern men need to grow spines and start incentivizing the behaviors they value even if that means risking some easy slice of poon. That would be a good start.
The leftist movie about Roger Ailes at Fox is indicative. Fox News has promoted women on the basis of looks, and for the leering eye of its executives. Boomer conservative men were titillated, but how well has this been appreciated by women? The answer, not at all. Take a look over at MSDNC, Mme. Maddow certainly wasn’t promoted on looks, but on her actual abilities.
Women don’t view thottery in conservative drag as empowering. Of course the ethnic angle is obvious, but is left as the proverbial elephant in the room.
What, other than making me gag, are Maddow’s “actual abilities?”. He/ she/it has the IQ of a tree stump.
Maddow is far more intelligent than Megyn Kelly is, and she’s very good at using snark with an aura of moral superiority.
Yes, a frog is a bit smarter than a bottle fly.
Yes, and her audience confuses “snark” for intelligent argument.
Not sure about the exact timing of the phases of feminism: Women got the vote over 100 years ago, after all. But I saw the rise of ’60s feminism first hand. There was nothing high-minded about it except for the rhetoric. It began with elite white females wanting the privileges of their mothers without being willing to assume any of their mothers’ obligations. As the exemplar, think of Hillary’s scornful 1992 reply about her not going to stay at home and bake cookies if Bill got elected.
Elite females up through the early ’60s didn’t work but were expected to maintain an elite home, and promote their husband’s career (or at least not harm it), hold elite networking dinner parties, etc. In addition, they ran the local social welfare network, or at least the fundraising for it.
Blue collar women in the ’60s, OTOH, did what they’d always done, namely keep house and, after their kids were in school, work at low status jobs elsewhere, i.e. office or factory. This is true to this day for intact families.
Some blue collar females prior to the ’60s did rebel but pre-third wave feminism, this came at a high price, often involving sexual exploitation. Removing that disability was the only good impulse driving third wave feminism, IMHO. Didn’t work as intended, as usual.
The blue collar female roles of the ’60s ought to be the model for us today, the problem being its low status.
Nothing to do with your topic, per se, but I came across a Myth20C episode with Ethnarc where they discussed speculative fiction, AKA science fiction.
Galaxy’s Edge, man, what a fun series. Blatantly rips on the better aspects of Star Wars in some areas, but you’ve got loads and loads of testosterone-fueled fascist storm troopers shooting running around mowing down aliens with lots of machismo. Long series, but the books are all fast, badass reads; if you need a break it won’t take too much time out the big brained literature.
Plug for myth20c, too. Those guys are (largely) pretty cool. They’ve got a recovering ex-libertarian named Hank, who, like your typical millennial, can’t go go four words without spitting out “like”, but he’s getting better. Only annoying part, really.
Ethnarch, love that guy, criminally underused by TRS.
Plug for Adam’s book https://myth20c.wordpress.com/books/
Problem with GE is that the book that is suppose to explain the beginning of it all, (The Best of US) was written by a woman.
And the end result?
It has nothing in common with the know history of GE and is full of feelings and strong women.
Always. Larry Correa supposedly co-wrote the last book in his Monster Hunter Series with Sara Hoyt, but I hated the book – it came across about 80% Hoyt and was full of feelings and self reflection and meeeeeee.
I saw Hoyt’s name as co-author on that book and I just knew it was going to be ruined. I’ve been afraid to read it, and I loved the earlier books in the series. Why would Correia do that?
They’re both of Portuguese extraction? Pity? Whatever the reason, the outcome was not pretty.
I didn’t know about that one in the GE universe. It sounds horrible. I’m trying to figure out why they approved it.
I have no idea what the hell was going through Nick Cole’s mind when he okayed that mess.
The female writer also wrote books on HALO that were a hot mess too.
I could use that. Starshiptroopers left me wanting more.
Typically insightful article today.
Planned Parenthood is to feminism what Al Sharpton is to Black America. It is all about total power and begins with wanting a few basic rights, like aborting a fetus early in pregnancy, or basic voting rights, and then it becomes a giant, hungry beast wanting to consume anyone that does not follow a much broader agenda.
Also MADD—which turned into a Prohibition redux. Heck, for that matter, don’t they all morf into such extremes. Greenpeace is another.
I remember the first Earth Day. It was about cleaning up the trash and quit tossing it into the environment. Hell, we celebrated it on campus with an Indian drum circle and chants. Voila—we have Climate Change! Ironically, they now call for us to live in teepees (or their equivalent)—good for the environment you know. 😉
No social cause ever says “enough” or “we’re done.” March of dimes was all about stopping polio. Well, I don’t believe they even give polio vaccines in the West anymore (altho’ that will surely change with all the sludge pouring in) but March of Dimes is still around begging for shekels.
Speaking of planned parenthood, there have been 50,000,000 abortions in the USA since Roe v. Wade. That must have affected demographics pretty profoundly.
Well, yes it did. Blacks are restricted to 13% or so of the population—with the worse culled over the years. What capital punishment failed to do, abortion on demand and drugs filled in the gap—and then some.
Agree. I was going to point out to Lorenzo that the black population for many, many decades was around 12% but is now only about 13%.
Certainly the rate among blacks was high, but was that the only factor that kept their population fraction nearly constant. From the graph it seems that more whites are aborted than other groups, because of the much larger absolute number of whites.
I see what you are saying about “more” since the population of whites is still greater than the other groups. As a percentage, the rate is higher for the other groups. Notice the statistics for Asians? Neither do I.
All of this time, I have been blaming it on contraception, which is (?) the abortifacient preference among whites. Whites don’t like it when I put this out there, and someone here will counter with some fact that might disprove what I just typed, but for now I am going to blame The Pill and being mislead 50 years ago from Malthus to Erlich, but my best source is Steven Mosher at http://www.pop.org. Turkey’s president is paying his people to have 5 kids per family.
Hey, did women in the workplace raise costs across the board and at the same time ruined our demographic destiny?
Years ago, Stephen Mosher was doing population research in China. The Chinese kicked him out because he pointed out that Chinese were selectively aborting girls because of the one child policy. He was also kicked out of a Stanford PhD program for noticing yhings.
Of course the shortage of women in China now makes it obvious that he was right.
And yes, the put women in cubicles movement was certainly a cultural loss, and probably a net financial loss for families.
In times past, there was widespread infanticide of baby girls, which was outlawed by the Communists. Now they just abort them.
And he *was* an atheist when he noticed these “things.” It troubled him so much that he converted from atheism.
even assuming Mindy Robinson looks anything like her pictures
LOL
https://twitter.com/Pullman__/status/1205554437432868865
https://imgur.com/aPNf2Px
Freight train – Dirt road.
Hoo boy, the Wall is more reliable than a Honda.
Next step is the vanity in-vitro child with autism. Expect Mindy to be on the anti-vaccine bandwagon in a couple of years.
The Denny’s waitress Tiger Woods nailed looked more juicy. Third-tier strip-club material already.
More like “starting shift in the middle of the workweek” third-tier strip club. I’ve seen used tires at the junkyard with fewer miles on ’em.
This is a great topic not often discussed in /ourthing/. But it really needs to be more often. If you’d like the ‘gold standard’ set of documentation on the feminism of the right among so called conservative (and particularly Christian) peoples, you needn’t go farther than here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/
That is the analog to Chateau Heartiste (PBUH) but for the married Christian man who knows that even -those- women are more or less out of control at this point. There is so much cuckery in almost all Churchian denominations it is truly sad. The basic b1tch husbands capitulating to the every whim of the wife is not a huge leap of logic from the left’s str0nk empowered wahmen, is it?
This is why you see many people on the right (like moi) who will never just get behind Christianity in its current incarnation. Rubber stamping watered down Christianity which imports foreign invaders by the truckload, allows women to run roughshod and wild because reasons, and the Catholic Church in particular with a pope who is a globalist and socialist at best and something far more sinister at worst, is a VERY bad idea.
I’ve said it before, Christianity in it’s Richard the Lionheart era form of very muscular masculine incarnation is a great thing. If we can get a ‘return to form’ I’m all for it. But even here on this forum which I consider to be some of the most based / plugged in people anyone critical of Christianity will get automatic downvotes. That is very leftist herd behavior and it needs to be broken. Christianity built much of Western Civilization but that -version- of it hasn’t been a thing at least since Vatican II. We need to get back to that very patriarchal ‘Father Knows Best’ type style sooner rather than later. Otherwise this grrl power conservative feminism is basically just Leftist Feminism Lite, a slower trip down the drain.
Apex Predator I agree completely and I consider myself a Christian. I grew up Catholic and then left for the modernist version of Protestantism. I recently returned to attending a Catholic Church. I think some local Catholic Churches are great but the problem is some of my money supports this pope and supports things I greatly oppose.
I think on the protestant side some independent churches are not yet cucked or Zionists. The churches of Christ come to mind.
Having said that you are correct the majority of Christianity in America since say around 1965 has done as much harm as good.
Left wing and right wing feminism is just a result of the collapse of traditional morality partly due to the collapse of the traditional Christianity in a Christian nation.
Un cucked Christianity can be a tremendous force to fight modernism and the influence of the usual suspects on our society but getting from here to there under our current conditions is a tough row.
It will probably take something major happening, financial, war….and a reset of the current order.
Pretty much my story, although I left our mainline Protestant church when we hired a gay minister.
Under current legal arrangements, a man has no power within marriage, and can only exercise power at behest of the wife. Therefore, there is nothing that beta guys can do to keep their wife in line, at least by themselves. Appealing to extended family, the father-in-law, pastor and church elders is one way to do things. But in many cases there’s a “Believe women” that checks you here. It goes without saying that men also need to behave better.
“Therefore, there is nothing that beta guys can do to keep their wife in line, at least by themselves.”
You’ve lost the battle before a shot was even fired. You are afraid of the government? Don’t get married or be VERY smart about who you marry. Problem solved. I’m afraid of the government too BTW, I have every right to be having been nearly killed by them for almost nothing. But you know what? I made a promise to myself after that incident that if anyone was ever so careless with my life, well being, or freedom to summon jackboots and enforcers onto me again I would return the favor greatly amplified. And I will, I refuse to live on my knees.
Your wife is threatening you with false domestic violence claims, divorce raping you crushing your livelihood for decades, or attempting to falsely imprison you? Return the favor amplified. That is the only way this ends. Remember I’ll repeat it again: Pain & Fear.
These people have none right now, which is why all this BS continues w/o end. Yes you can call the police on a whim and make up a lie to have me imprisoned on a false DV charge. It will also be the last phone call you ever make. I’ll even dial it for you, here you go…
Amen, amen, amen, Apex.
Gotta talk to that hamster hindbrain.
Can you imagine “working girls” calling on their pimp? They don’t want to, anyways.
D’s getting his due praise around here today, good to see. Being a based Xtian man is a lonely gig nowadays.
Bumped into a lady I used to know well from the church we attended for years. We hadn’t seen each other or exchanged a word in probably a decade. When I explained that one of the reasons we had left was when they started pushing “priestesses” (i.e. women priests) she was shocked – she was all for it. And she’s older than I am. Women have ruined Christianity just like they destroy everything else they take control of.
I don’t want to argue the guy’s religion, I want to share tools to help him with his marriage.
Cucked Christian marriage counselors have ruined more marriages than Ghengis Khan.
No, she doesn’t want some crying nancy on his knees. “Filling your love tanks,” or whatever stupid sh*t some grifter is selling.
Men- most men, now- literally didn’t know what to do. I was one.
I’ve met so many.
The depressing thing is when you start to realize that all of these figures presented to us as “influencers” or “thought leaders” are astroturfed.
It’s all so tiresome.
And real voices of the right, like the Zman, are often hard to find–people you find near the end of your journey, when you’re already on the home stretch anyway. Normies trapped in Overton/Astroturf/Controlled-op world desperately need just a few grains of redpill powder.
Perhaps the reality is that most folks don’t change their perceptions after an initial period of development? Get them while they are young as they say.
The current generation in control will be gone in a couple of decades. Their replacement generations grew up in different circumstances and their perceptions of reality will no doubt reflect that. We did not get into our present predicament in one generation, can’t see how we will get out of it in one—or even two or three—generations.
Barring a Black Swan event, most of us here will not live to see the end of the struggle. We must be content in planting trees that others will sit under.
But that’s partly my point. Right now, we’re not getting them young (with them getting these astroturfers instead), and we need to start getting them young.
Agreed, my thinking is that the perceptions of older generations such as mine were formed in a time of good economy and racial homogeneity such that the particular Leftist lies (e.g., diversity is our strength) were easier to accept. Later generations will not have that environment. I believe they will be more easily persuaded (red pilled )—regardless of age and Leftist propaganda. But such is made more difficult obviously when the high ground is occupied by the Left.
Right and we see this with younger people today like America First or whatever they call themselves.
That movement may not be huge, but it’s damn sure a lot bigger than those politics were when I grew up.
Compsci, they won’t be red-pilled.
They’ll dig us back up just so they can hang us.
The people already on this side of the line are the canary in the coal mine.
Those private thoughts and concerns we had before stepping over that line are going on in many many many white people. Most will probably never step over that line but, like us, many will.
This is a link to a speech G Johnson gave in Sweden. He cites a lot of very interesting numbers:
https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/10/counter-currents-radio-podcast-no-251-uppity-white-folks-how-to-reach-them/
One of the books he cites breaks down the rise of white nationalism into 4 driving forces:
1. The rise of distrust for our ruling class.
2. The destruction of the cohesion of our societies because of immigration.
3. The deprivation and decay of the quality of life, especially for the working and middle class.
4.De-alignment of our politics form center – left/right into a growing left vs. right extreme.
(sounds like a typical day on the Zblog)
Because of this whites are as a group are beginning to consider and identify with long term white interests:
White Identity as being extremely important: 22%
” ” ” very important: 22 + 26 = 48%
” ” ” moderately important: 48 + 25 = 73%
So 3/4th of our tribe see white identity as being at least moderately important. This was from a study carried out by anti-liberal leftists.
—–
White Privilege or Anti-White discrimination in Business and Academia:
Whites who affirm white privilege and deny discrimination against whites: Extreme to Mod: 14% – 25%
Whites who deny white privilege and affirm discrimination against whites:
Extreme to Mod: 75% – 86%
——
Collectivizing to protect white interests : unnecessary or necessary:
Whites who believe this to be unnecessary Extreme to Mod: 16% – 23%
Whites who believe this to be necessary Extreme to Mod: 77% – 84%
As long as the system keeps pushing them our way they will continue to slowly but surely come our way. Most of these people have no clue that we even exist. Nature is driving them in our direction. Let’s make sure we have our act together when they get here.
The most successful right wing women’s movement in history was Mustache Guy’s. His election as Chancellor was due to a significant proportion of women voting for him in 1933. How he was able to appeal to conservative women to aspire to a different role and ethos, that of mother and wife rather than the cringe worthy “redneck grrrl power” we see today is something that no one has done a scholarly study of, because of course Mustache Guy’s party appealing to women is literally inconceivable to academia.
Not to confuse understanding with approval, I’m not a Mustache Guy fan, but he did succeed where Conservative Inc (Weimar version) failed, so studying the methods ought to be instructive.
Pickle. Indeed, every other combatant nation fielded their women, to a greater or lesser extent, in WWII—but not Germany. Such was the conservative nature of the government.
That’s a partial reason- the other one being that the wartime industry’s manpower requirements were met by slave labor from the East, so mobilizing women was not a necessity as it was in the other combatant nations. But the point is taken.
Mustache Guy’s idea was structuring society in accordance with human nature. “National Socialism is the application of the Laws of Nature to human affairs.” “Only through a reintegration of humanity into the whole of Nature can our folk be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age.”
He championed mothers, while allowing unusual women like Leni Riefenstahl and Hanna Reitsch to pursue their talents.
I’d rather a society where they can, than one where they have to.
What could a person in the 3rd Re1ch not do? What were they forced to do?
Women are fascists and socialists by nature.
I wonder. Is fascism the only real viable defense against socialism? Conservative Inc doesn’t seem to be holding up well…
I think “fascism” as some unique movement is sort of silly. Since the French Revolution materialism, egalitarianism, and individualism were rampant. People saw the results and wanted nationalism, culture, and community back.
The values of fascists were not unique throughout history. The national values that occurred under the monarchy of Britain and France were nearly identical.
The only real difference between fascists and a hundred other governments were that the movement occurred under a democracy as that was the latest trend.
But yes I believe fascism is the antidote, not just to socialism but all forms of materialism like libertarianism.
“The promotion of women and men as equal in all things has had the devastating effect of destroying the traditional role of women.”
Z-man, seems to me the exact same comment can be said of modern men—and is often said on this blog in comments. If women are becoming more “manly” it is because the men allow them. But the point you make is well taken. Until we establish once again a respect for a women’s place in her traditional role in home, hearth, and community we continue the downward spiral. Unfortunately we’ve screwed the economy up such that the majority of households can not survive without their women in the workplace, which pretty much assures this pathology.
That’s why I push for Community so that can be reestablished Brother…That is why I push for our guys to join the trades also because that lets the woman stay home in the traditional roles…
Any time you turn on the television (yeah, I know, but the normies are bombarded with it on a daily basis) you see strong women of all races owning the stupid white male. This conditions people to buy into the fallacy of “woman as the head of the household and guide for the stupid white male” narrative.
This sickness has been going on for decades in the entertainment industry. When it first got started I used to point it out and complain loudly to my wife or anyone in earshot about it and also about the miscegenation prevalent in the commercials which came out of the advertising centers in New York City and other “enlightened” centers of depravity. People would either try to ignore me or else look at me as if I were slightly deranged.
This trash is so in your face now that even those people who once thought I was overreacting now see it. They try to ignore it and hope that sanity will somehow magically return, but they see it nonetheless.
Better harden the F up and be ready for what is coming your way. It’s coming whether you like it or not. Or whether you are ready or not.
Broadly speaking, our stories are our religion, and people who hate us control the stories.
That’s one reason why, if we can’t get control of mainstream TV/movies back, we just have to get more people to tune out.
Making relentless war on their religo-tainment is an important part of our thing.
It’s called memetic infection and indoctrination, and it’s intentional, not accidental. The power players in our society are deliberately (and with malice aforethought) engaging in this subliminal corruption of the human spirit for the sole purpose of weakening the most robust cohort of our population. It’s warfare conducted in the shadows. Best not to wake the sleeping victims.
If you still watch the tube, watch these commercials closely. The message wrt diversity and such is quite subliminal in nature. You literally see scenes that flash the message of miscegenation in an instant and then it changes to another instance of such. The mixture of races is always shown and balanced to represent just about every mixture—except Whites (unless mixed). How else could you squeeze so many Asians in unless you reduced Whites. ;-(
Some commercials could care less. In those, you will see longer takes, or even entire commercials showing White, Black, or Hispanic intact family groupings. These are not insulting, just perhaps not realistic. But what commercials are? They do however contrast starkly with those commercials that attempt to indoctrinate and make such indoctrination attempts laughably apparent.
Have you perchance read ‘Shadow Men’ by Anthony Napoleon TomA? Its a must read and deals in exactly this. He claims to have been hired[check his credentials, legal expert witness in Phil Spector case] by you know who for various PSYOPs but didn’t realise until he claims older ‘Shadow Men’ approached basically saying their younger successors have completely lost their minds and are inflicting heinous damage. Says THEY have spent around a Trillion assaulting European peoples from every angle imaginable and said Trumps election put them on notice. He wrote a paper called ‘Federal Grand Jury Transcript’ that dealt with the deliberate and planned ‘genocide’ of European peoples and claims to have passed to colleagues across Eastern Europe that helped them decide to shut the borders down. Document was taken down from his online store and his twitter followers were being fked with. Anyhoo its notable Jack Posobiec had a book signed by him, him having Naval intelligence background. Would just love to know for sure what the deal is, though we can discern having seen the effects.
I’m gonna have to get a copy of that book – thanks for that……
The great fallacy of early stage feminism was that men are warmongers who ship our sons off to be killed, but we also knew that a woman president was more prone to irrational action by her very nature. Hysterical is rooted in the part of a woman’s anatomy. Look it up. In fact, men are prone to weigh and measure the consequences of fighting before they submit to it. Todays so called men who disprove this statement are not masculine, and therefore prove the point further. As always, there are exceptions, but in general men and women knew about the differences between the sexes.
Early feminists were strong supporters of the Civil War, and British suffragettes were supporters of the “White Feather” campaign to attack men that didn’t enlist as cowardly. The first women in the UK Parliament was from the Conservative Party.
The Syrian false flag gas attack under Hillary as President would probably mean a ground attack on Syria. We would probably already have attacked Iran under Hillary.
Trump has been wise enough not to go full Monty in foreign wars.
An emotional woman like Hillary or a goofus weak man like Bush?
Easily manipulated.
War anyone?
Women and weak men in charge also mean they can more easily be manipulated .
nothing in the middle east or Asia is worth our son’s lives
I think men intuitively understand provocation leads to violence. For women it does not. A man that goes around being bitchy will find himself short on teeth, a woman will not. Because of this women may not be suited to negotiate at political levels. They will not get punched, their country will.
An interesting hypothesis I’ve heard is that the “strong women” story is a by product of children (who are now adults) who were raised in single parent families. The girls grow up wanting to emulate mom, while the estrogen soaked boys grow up with fetishes about her.
It would explain guys like our pink-socked prime minister, Turdo La Doo…
Case in point: How many white men do you know who have any interest in black women , never mind as marriage material and as mothers to their children.?
Yet advertising is absolutely full of white male / black woman couples with little mystery meat children. It used to be white woman / black man , but they seem to have toned that one down over the last year or so in favor of the white male / black female dynamic.
None……or I suppose some but I don’t get it. I also don’t get the Christmas ads with the black dad (wearing a Christmas hat) driving in the snow, and rolling up to a snow covered rural colonial home with the black mom and little cookie crunchers running to meet him. This also never happens. I have seen 3-4 versions of this bs. Who thinks this is real?
I remember one such couple in a famous Ohio suburb years’ ago. He was an attorney with a big firm downtown and the wife was a professional in some capacity, too. Both Ivy League grads., kids following them at private schools. Local society patted itself on the back for being so accommodating to this family. They were just the “same” as everyone else, but dipped in dark chocolate. I am sorry I didn’t pay attention to the final outcome of this story; not sure the local politically-powerful blacks fully accepted/trusted them. Kind of sad, really.
Please, please don’t call children “mystery meat”. It’s a disgusting, filthy-minded slur that invites justifiable outrage. These are children with souls; regardless of your beliefs about interracial marriage you should be ashamed to use such revolting imagery to characterize a human being, a creature of God.
X-Men in their forties and fifties who put off getting married and having a family because reasons should know that a lot of ladies in their twenties are attracted to them because reasons having to do with getting married and having a family.
I think I almost understood this but even if I did, can you expand because I see no evidence of what you are saying which seems to be: Millennial women are attracted to single Gen Xer guys who are established for the purpose of having families? It sounds good in theory, do you have even a shred of evidence to back this claim?
Because with the turbo b1tch feminism of today if you are older than whatever her hamster brain target age has set you are automatically ‘creepy’ or some other sh1tlib type of insult. Where are you coming up with this theory from? I see no overwhelming evidence of it from the Chateau Heartiste era as well as other ‘manosphere’ websites that there is some odd attraction between millennial females and Xer males.
West Europe culture has predominantly followed a certain pattern of later marriage in the mid 20s, to someone of a low age gap. This is known as the Hajnal line. Age gaps historically were more common before the 20th century due to a large number of widows remarrying.
Personally, I’m not hostile to these gaps. But I am opposed politically. One of the worst ideas of the manosphere is this “older men revenge fantasy” that pretends it is easy for middle age men to pursue younger women. This only works if you are wealthy and in good physical shape.
There’s also the issue of older men producing sperm that leads to higher numbers of genetic mutations, most of which are benign, but a minority of which are debilitating. Politically, a “Male Wall” at 30-32 is needed to support the “Female Wall” of 27-30. Ideally we would want marriage at 22-25, but credentialism in the upper middle class prevents this outside of the LDS.
Among the local Amish it is quite rare for men and women of the same age to get married, the men are almost always 6-8 years older. A 27 year old guy marrying a 20 year old girl is more the norm, the man gets established in a vocation, saves up some money and then takes a wife who is young enough to bear and care for his large brood of kids.
There is also the effect of differential “maturity” rates. I’d say a women of early 20’s is more psychologically matured than the average late 20’s male. Of course, this may have changed radically since I was growing up. Women playing the field until they “hit the wall” is not a good example of maturity.
My preferred age limit was 2-6 years older. Husband is 3.5 years older. We married at 25/28 and had our first that year.
If pregnancy hadn’t been such a difficult affair, I would have wanted more than three. As it is, we were done at 31/34.
DBD: You nailed the problem with credentialism. Men are wasting 10 of their best years in college. A serious educational system could get the job done in half the daily hours by age 14 and guys could join the workforce at the age my fecund and based grandfathers did. A 25 year-old man would have the wealth and social status a 40-year old does now.
That said, achieving a 35-year outer limit for both sexes or any other responsible reproductive policy is a project for post-victory planning.
We’re a couple of generations short of that and in order to get there, we can use all of the based kids we can afford to raise in safer spaces. If I find a fertile unicorn in this post-feminist Mad Max social hellscape, molon labe.
In the case of certain professional schools, its not uncommon to see married male students. The burden of pregnancy falls on women, which dissuades them from either marriage or pregnancy here. But were mostly taking about an elite minority here, the overwhelming majority will never go beyond undergrad.
Women who are inclined to academics or the professions should simply have the kids first, do college later. There’s no “Wall” for learning, and I’d rather have 50 year-old doctoress than a 30 year-old doctoress. I’m not against educated women so long as they have their priorities in order, but this should be an outlier option and Z’s 101% right about applying social pressure, status and rewards to incentivize motherhood as the sole career for the vast majority.
In order to be a doctor, it is 4 years of medical school and then 3 to possibly 5 years of residency. This is AFTER you get a bachelors degree, which for me was completely useless. It was simply a 4 year tryout to make sure I met the medical school’s credentials. Applying and staring medical school immediately after high school or at worst after 2 years of college would be infinitely better.
It all depends on how well you look or what kind of money your making but it is a thing…
When was the last time you went to church?
I can provide peer review studies that show the most desired age is 22 for women and 42 for men.
Men want beauty and fertility. Women want resources.
Can confirm. There’s going to be a huge social price to pay for the women of my generation as well as the Y’s approaching The Wall. Buy stock in box wine, Xanax, cable news & euthanasia centers.
Millennial men and Zoomers are competing with guys my age for 35-and-unders, so feminism gets that one-two-punch in on society as well.
For those of us geezers still on the hunt, remember the old jokes about daddy issues and give her a good rabies check before you let her in the house.
Yeah, at 50 years of age , marry a 20 year old woman and start a family. A 65 year old man keeping a 35 year old wife happy while dealing with a 15 year old son should be no end of fun.
More fun than fapping alone at 35.
You always remind us how there’s nothing wrong with being dominated by (((high IQ socially and financially successful))) people.
The market has spoken, what’s not to love, goy?
In a traditional ethnic community this used to not be a problem.
In the pre-industrial world it wasn’t uncommon f0r women to die in childbirth. Men with families usually had to marry a widow or younger woman to care for the kids already in existence. New unions usually resulted in more kids with older fathers…and large families.
The geezer dad problem was ameliorated by younger uncles, older brothers and other community resources. No one thought of this as a problem.
There was still a bit of this going on in the 60s. My mother was the oldest of 8 (21 year gap). Her baby brother, my uncle, was 2 years younger than me.
For a kid growing up in the 60s with grandparents who’d been born in the 1890s…having an aunt or uncle around your age was a lot more common than having around a good looking 25 – 35 year old woman who was unmarried and childless.
Yves! My mother, my sister, and my sister-in-law were pregnant at the same time. I went to high school with my nieces and nephews.
The kid is a lock on the older guy’s assets.
She’s not planning on getting older with him.
Not ‘bad’. Just realistic.
Women are not men, I’d like to stop trying to make them men.
Lol, then live in paranoia and be filled with self doubt every time a strapping young service guy comes around the house.
I don’t think women should have the vote but the only other woman I know of that thinks that is Ann barnhardt. Most conservative or Christian women would consider having the vote above the Eucharist on the sacred scale. I like Ed dutton’s take on it. Right or left feminism is really just a bunch of maladaptive witches.
Whitney, my wife is what—by any definition—would be considered a “modern”, successful women. Three college degrees, business owner, two children—college educated, home owner, money in the bank, one husband—well, that may not be much of a plus, but the kids didn’t have to put up with a “modern family” structure.
So what does she remark in her declining years—“I should have had more children, should have stayed home with them more, etc”. Family, nothing else matters. A lesson learned too late.
Yup, we also lament the fact that we should have had more children. Our kids are 29 now and doing very well. There is nothing better than the connection between family!
My father had 8 brothers and sisters. So he married and had one, me. One generation and the siblings were not even replacing themselves. Such is the effect of prosperity in the West.
Absolutely correct here! compsci. Amen and amen.
I did (mostly) stay home with my kids, enjoyed them to the fullest and I still regret not having more- thinking I could give them a better life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGMwEAgx48Y
Comment Section Spoiler: REEEEE!!!!!
She clearly was joking about it but the comments are why I have never said it aloud to anyone. It’s really just beyond people’s comprehension. Though I have said before that I don’t think childless people over 50 should be allowed to vote since they’re not part of the future. That has never gone over well but it amuses me to watch people’s reaction
Generational skin-in-the-game should definitely be a qualifier to vote for both sexes. The lifestyle of a single guy over 40 without kids doesn’t have to be “kid-dult” but it definitely isn’t the kind of perspective you want in a voter. I supported a vast amount of libertard frippery with that mindset for many years.
This is just silly.
well when there was established celibacy for betas, aka confessional united Christendom, there was no voting for government. that said, people did form into guilds and elected representatives thus. so it would be similar.
at any rate, the childless have it good enough that they are maintained around.
She was not joking. We’ve seen females who comment here come to the same conclusion. American democracy worked best when many male citizens were ineligible. Universal male suffrage brought an end to the old republic by 1865. The assertion that franchised women are ruinous to what traditional values which are left (that you support) leave two choices–that this is a caution about women, or of democracy. Madison, via Adam Smith, figured that since the greatest virtues of men were often found in their vices he would organize a government around competing vices. When the unique and essential virtues of women are introduced into this strange brew it turns toxic. Before telling ourselves what we are going to make democracy do, we might want to better consider what it is.
You can add one to this list.
You can give a thousand righteous and moral reasons for women to vote, but how people feel about it doesn’t much matter.
There’s likely to be a civil war in several European countries in the next 30 years due to open borders that would not exist without women. Whatever the result of these wars, Muslims or Europeans you can be sure the winners will not be asking women what they think anymore.
I 100% think that.
It’s worse. A woman’s self-image is tied directly to the state of her mental health (hence the focus on cosmetics and fashionable clothes). In addition, women need to be routinely complimented on their looks, but feminist PC has banned that form of flirting.
Like all of affluent societies, people are getting fatter and an obese woman is devoid of positive self-image. That is a ticking time bomb.
To quote Peter Frost, “Male shyness is not a pathology”.
Women only appreciate flirting by attractive men, which amount to around 20%. Flirting by an unattractive men is viewed as a genetic threat, and in Ice Age society was liable to end with violence. That’s why most men in Western society are reluctant to approach.
Men have to think about this in a collective manner, not look for individualist snake oil solutions.
How did we ever—as a Western civilization—move away from arranged marriages? Being in a department with a lot of Indian nationals, it was common for students to announce their pending marriage to the girl back home—the one that they had met briefly when a youngster and had rarely seen again, that is until the appropriate age had been reached. I was even invited to such weddings, but obviously could not attend due to expense of travel. Seemed to eliminate a lot of the problems we are currently discussing.
The concept of dating originated in the 20th century with the advent of the automobile. In prior times there were “chaperones” for “courtship”. But there was also “eloping” and “abandonment”. Marriages were “arranged” in the main sense for the nobility, as they married for political alliance. There was also “common law marriage”, as certain couples couldn’t afford the cost of weddings. Male sexuality was controlled more by monasticism and the army, than it was by sex segregation.
I’ve been thinking of a kind of alternative to both of these arranged marriage and modern dating with something I’m going to call gate-keeping.
I was thinking parents would be more in touch with their daughter’s preferences for a mate, having discussions about the practical qualities of a mate. This way, the daughter has input in the selection process, parents can point out blind spots, and there is open communication.
Then any man wishing to pursue a serious relationship with the daughter must go through the parents. Anyone who gets past parents meets the practical criteria and the daughter can be simply concerned with the chemistry and romance (which she was gonna do anyway and end up married to someone completely wrong for her).
It could also be done with both sets of parents, as well.
I think men and women have different ideas of “good looking”.
I’m not sure though. From personal taste, broad shouldered and in physical shape was more important than specific facial features. The idea was feeling safe and protected by a capable and confident man. When I think of the guys I avoided, they came across as boys or incapable of keeping me safe.
I think this is why female fantasies are typically faceless (I think that’s the origin of the “rape” fantasy).
“Morally equal people should be legally equal.”
This was also the fallacy that led to the so-called “Civil Rights Revolution”. This does not follow, as long as “equal” is meant to mean “identical”.
Correct. When I taught Algebra I had to unlearn students who believed that equal means “the same as.”