The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Kevin MacDonald Archive
Ideas on Maintaining Relationships with the Less Committed in a Dark Age
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Antifa Protesting Outside Home of Tucker Carlson

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Many of us are forced to deal with personal issues because of our political-cultural beliefs. A typical situation might be a wife or girlfriend—the great majority of activists on the dissident right are male—who is terrified of it becoming known that she is associated with someone who is shunned and socially ostracized. But of course, it may also be other family members or friends—a particularly painful experience.

Let’s assume that doxing would only result in social opprobrium, not loss of livelihood—admittedly a much easier case. And let’s also assume that your significant other is not a committed social justice warrior. Such people are completely intolerant of opinions that conflict with their dogmas and they are fueled by hatred toward people like you. Such people are impossible to reason with. They prefer spewing hatred, typically accompanied with ungrounded assertions of moral and intellectual superiority. They do this within their echo chambers of like-minded people, ignoring data they don’t like and never encountering a dissenting voice. Trust me, you can’t talk to them.

Since we still have a functioning First Amendment, the establishment uses informal means of punishing dissenters, and pressure on employers is the first option. While Marxists rail at the evils of capitalism, the fact is that all the major corporations are completely on board with the official ideology on race and gender, and are all too willing to fire those who dissent. It is completely understandable for people threatened by loss of livelihood to maintain a low profile, especially if they have a family to support.

But there are many who risk only social opprobrium—retired people, the self-employed, or the financially secure. Of course, being ostracized from polite society doesn’t bother the activists personally. They may suffer psychologically, but they firmly believe they are right, and they often have like-minded friends, if only in cyberspace. The problem comes from trying to find simpatico mates and friends beyond activist conferences and online communities.

An obvious strategy is to use a pseudonym and this is necessary and desirable for many. Lots of people do, including a clear majority of the writers at TOO. However, pseudonyms don’t completely solve the problem because the people who are terrified of doxing can’t know for sure that it won’t happen some at point in the future. This hangs over them like the sword of Damocles. It’s just a matter of time before it drops, or so the thinking goes. And when it does, she would have to deal with the cold stares, the terminated friendships, and perhaps antifa protesting (or worse) in front of her home.

Perhaps the main point in my recent book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition is that Western peoples are far more prone to valuing their moral reputation, especially in their face-to-face world. Westerners create societies made up of close family, friends and associates, as well as strangers where moral reputation is critical for fitting in. This contrasts with societies in the rest of the world, where moral status is filtered through kinship connections. The Western culture of moral reputation worked well over long stretches of historical time, but in the contemporary West, a hostile elite has achieved control of the media and educational system, and they have managed to corrupt mainstream Christian religious sects. This hostile elite has used its power to create a moral community in which White identity and interests have been demonized. Standing up to that places one outside this moral community and has major psychological effects.

A famous example is Anne Morrow Lindbergh when her husband, Charles Lindbergh, stated that Jews were one of the forces attempting to get the United States to enter World War II. Shortly after his speech, she wrote:

The storm is beginning to blow up hard. …I sense that this is the beginning of a fight and consequent loneliness and isolation that we have not known before. … For I am really much more attached to the worldly things than he is, mind more giving up friends, popularity, etc., mind much more criticism and coldness and loneliness. … Will I be able to shop in New York at all now? I am always stared at—but now to be stared at with hate, to walk through aisles of hate![1]Anne Morrow Lindbergh, War Within and Without: Diaries and Letters of Anne Morrow Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980), 220–239.

What is striking and perhaps counterintuitive, is that the guilt and shame remain even when she is completely satisfied at an intellectual (explicit) level that her beliefs are based on good evidence and reasonable inferences and that they are morally justifiable.

I cannot explain my revulsion of feeling by logic. Is it my lack of courage to face the problem? Is it my lack of vision and seeing the thing through? Or is my intuition founded on something profound and valid? I do not know and am only very disturbed, which is upsetting for him. I have the greatest faith in him as a person—in his integrity, his courage, and his essential goodness, fairness, and kindness—his nobility really…How then explain my profound feeling of grief about what he is doing? If what he said is the truth (and I am inclined to think it is), why was it wrong to state it? (From Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.)

Her reaction is involuntary and irrational—beyond the reach of logical analysis. Charles Lindbergh was exactly right in what he said, but a rational understanding of the correctness of his analysis cannot lessen the psychological trauma to his wife, who must face the hostile stares of others because her husband’s beliefs place him outside the moral community she values.

ORDER IT NOW

Women are more connected to the social world. They care more about having friends and being respected in the community. Men want to feel connected too, but they are also more willing to take risks. And men’s reproductive prospects are far more linked to being part of a dominant group, so men are far more concerned about politics and the distribution of power. Men tend to suffer more when there is an alien takeover: history is replete with men being slaughtered and women taken as wives and concubines by the winners (as happened with the Indo-European invaders of Europe and elsewhere, Genghis Khan and the Mongols, etc.).

And in the contemporary world, any non-brain-dead White male has to be aware that the current hegemony of our new elite has meant that White heterosexual males are the most demonized class in all Western societies. White males are regarded as historical oppressors and the basic reason for the failures of certain (low IQ) non-White groups. Their statues are being removed, their culture ridiculed and hated. Most importantly, their political representation is steadily declining.

So how should one talk to a significant other about the very real dangers of being on the dissident right? I think a good tactic is to point out that many people are being attacked these days, not just people linked to full-blown race realism, opposition to immigration and multiculturalism, and assertions of Jewish power and influence. Individuals associated with the Trump administration have been harassed on the street and barred from or insulted in restaurants. MAGA hat-wearing people have been physically attacked in broad daylight in public places. With impunity. Mainstream conservatives have been greeted with mass protests, riots, and moral panics at college campuses.

Your significant other may relate to the fact that the censorious left is shutting down many ideas that were entirely mainstream and respectable just a few years ago. If we are not to become something like the society imagined in Orwell’s 1984 (we’re already quite close given the wall-to-wall propaganda and ubiquitous surveillance by government and left-leaning big tech), we have to stand up to this. Again assuming one’s significant other is not a dyed-in-the-wool social justice warrior, she should relate to that as threatening all that she valued in the society she grew up in, including especially her own children. (It’s well known that women get more conservative when married and as they get older.) This should make her able to buck up and withstand the hostility, so that she’ll join you in firmly believing “We’re the good guys, and they’re evil.”

Having a demonstration outside one’s house is terrifying to many of our weaker brethren. It’s probably number one on their list of fears since it’s very public and it strikes very close to home. But that’s what happened to Tucker Carlson who was harassed by a mob of antifa outside his house. One can imagine the fear his wife, alone in the house, felt as one of the masked cowards pounded on the front door. Despite repeated attempts to get Carlson fired and quite successful campaigns to get advertisers to boycott his show, Carlson continues with his edgy views and still draws a huge audience. And as far as I know, his marriage is fine—even though he likely can’t show his face in public in the deep blue urban areas of America.

What are some things that would affect how his wife felt about all this? One thing would be whether she believes that her husband is honest and sincere in his beliefs. Because they are sharing their lives, she has a long experience with him in a wide range of areas besides political opinions. She knows if he is trustworthy or duplicitous, whether he has strong moral convictions or is prone to manipulating others for personal gain. If she thinks of him as basically a good guy who is doing his best to have well-grounded opinions, it would make her stronger, more willing to deal with the haters who are doing their best to make their lives miserable.

Assuming that he has honestly held, morally defensible ideas, this increased willingness to simply reject the haters is likely even if she doesn’t fully agree with his opinions or even understand them completely (e.g., understanding Jewish issues is difficult without doing a lot of reading and all too easily results in oversimplified assertions by those without some background in the area). And, again assuming that there is trust in the relationship, a greater willingness to put up with the haters is likely even if, like many Americans, politics is not at the center of her world—even if she doesn’t dwell on the future of Whites as a minority in a hostile world but is far more involved with family, church, or hobbies like music, cooking or gardening. Again, in general, women are not as politically focused as men.

As with Anne Morrow Lindbergh, simply believing that her husband is honest and correct in his opinions may not remove the psychological distress. But it likely makes it easier to put up with the “aisles of hate.”

If your significant other is not an enthusiastic believer in the ideas of the dissident right, I would also suggest not being obsessed with politics in day-to-day conversation with her. Again, she may be more interested in family, friends, and hobbies than the latest example of how the Israel Lobby has manipulated U.S. foreign policy. That’s fine. Showing an interest in what she is interested in is always good advice.

So that’s all I can think of for now. This is a really tough area for those on the dissident right. Control by our hostile elite has made it psychologically difficult to have dissident opinions, and we all live under the specter of formal legal punishments—as has already happened in much of Europe—if the left manages to abrogate the First Amendment (as they so ardently desire).

But for many of us, we don’t feel that we have any other choice than to soldier on. And while we are soldiering on, we should do everything we can to make life livable by having good, rewarding relationships. Like Anne Morrow Lindbergh was forced to do, we have to be willing to put up with “aisles of hate” should we be outed, and we should do all we can to keep our relationships intact if that were to occur.

Living well is the best revenge.

Footnote

[1] Anne Morrow Lindbergh, War Within and Without: Diaries and Letters of Anne Morrow Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980), 220–239.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 434 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Good article, though I am feeling a bit left out. I guess I am nOt LiKe tHe oThEr giRls as my primary area of interest lies in politics, human history, et cetera, leaning heavily towards what some might call “the right.” I am currently reading my copy of your latest book!

    Even and maybe particularly as a woman, I find it very difficult to pursue both friendships and relationships with people in the real world because of my views. If you don’t get a good feel for people beforehand, the next person you have even a sugar-coated discussion with about race, LGBTQ+++++, et cetera, could cost you your job.

    Because all of this stuff is important to me, no one can really know me. I have to be on guard at all times.

    It is possibly even more frustrating online due to the immense level of hostility that many men who share my beliefs hold towards women. I have been told I am “barely human,” am incapable of love, independent thought and more.

    Being “red pilled” on certain issues is a very isolating reality all around.

    There’s gotta be a better way.

  2. The fact that Anne Lindbergh would worry about her shopping habit is interesting and revealing. I think that was the moment Charles should have shown her the door. This is not a wartime Mrs. Lindbergh.

    Anyway it’s no use going through life filled with fear. I was practically ejected from an ex’s parents house after she brought up something I wrote online critical of Israel–which she found through the Google machine. I didn’t bring it up. To hell with her. I laugh about it now. You erase the people in your life who can’t handle your opinions and move on.

    • Agree: Anatman, theMann
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  3. 22pp22 says:

    I have had two serious relationships in my life. I had a partner for four years and I have been with my wife for eleven. My wife largely shares my views, but is unwilling to voice them. My relationship with my former partner really broke down over this issue, especially when her sister took up with a Nigerian. She even accepted that I was right, but argued that the moral position was to embrace the obvious negatives of diversity and accept them as a price we need to pay. She came from a town in Northern England and even saw the rape, torture and murder of local children as a price worth paying. What it really was was cowardice dressed up as tolerance.

    I used to be an academic. Now I rent out property for a living and my wife helps me in my work. In our new line of business the gulf between wokeness and reality is just too painfully obvious.

    I married late and my ability to breed was effectively curtailed by my views. My wife has children by a previous marriage and tried to give me a baby, but our efforts ended in two miscarriages.

    I was devastated, even though being the son of a gay guy (I am not 100% sure of my paternity) and having lesbian aunts, I was unsure if it was morally correct for me to sire children.

    Having been raised gay and being a white male in academia, I have paid a huge price for wokeness. Given my upbringing I must have picked up some effeminate mannerisms because I have been mercilessly persecuted for being gay – in spite of the fact that, for me, being gay was always an option. If I wanted to be gay, I would actually be gay.

    My father was sure that he could help me get a job by camping me up for academic job interviews and making me dress in a slightly gay way. I now regret not following his instructions.

    Most annoyingly of all, the people who made my life a misery when I was a kid are now all super woke – to judge by their Facebook posts. I did a degree in geology later in life and the persecution started up again – from impeccably woke millennial students. The thing to remember about the woke is that they are bullies just looking for prey. Always remember that they are lower than cockroaches and that their morals are purely superficial. When you meet one, transpose the image of a cockroach over their faces. That is the best protection.

  4. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:

    Good piece. I enjoyed it.

  5. dingo.jay b says: • Website

    That is why we need something like the brownshirts as a protective organization.

  6. A typical situation might be a wife or girlfriend—the great majority of activists on the dissident right are male—who is terrified of it becoming known that she is associated with someone who is shunned and socially ostracized.

    IME, the strongest and securest marker of Toxic Wokeness is the amount of television watched. If your wife or gf is glued to the TV set every night, all is probably lost. Or you can just settle for living under the same roof as the enemy. Since every single structure of the Establishment will support her notions against yours, and her friends ask her how and why she is willing even to know someone like you, the hill ahead is steep indeed.

    Tucker Carlson is probably the most courageous person in public life, and likely the most famous person of courage. He should move out of that house if you ask me. But where can and should someone like him live with his family? We don’t suffer original or courageous thinkers in our society these days. We don’t allow basic human rights to those who dare disagree with the Narrative. Yet we continue to pretend we live in a free society.

    Everything is going to get vastly worse after November of this New Year. Unless the Dems can’t manage to come up with a compelling candidate–which, incredibly enough, appears to be a real possibility. I just wish we had political figures half as articulate and intelligent as Tucker and Ann.

  7. LarryS says:

    I certainly identify with and appreciate this column. Not only am I “othered” as an orthodox Christian, I cannot share my true beliefs with Christian friends because I do not share their enthusiasm for the modern state called Israel. Just the opposite.

    I wish there was a way to meet like-minded people. I’m thankful for this website.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @secondElijah
  8. @Constant Vigilance

    Another red pilled female here. Sharing same thoughts and issues. Let’s be cyberfriends!

    • Replies: @Constant Vigilance
  9. I agree with everything said except this:

    Your significant other may relate to the fact that the censorious left is shutting down many ideas that were entirely mainstream and respectable just a few years ago.

    This is not a left-right issue. Some of the biggest purgers are on the nominal right. Recall the attacks on the paleocons in the early 90s from Jewish neocons. All was within the GOP. Today, we see a similar schism with regards to Charlie Kirk vs the people around Nick Fuentes. Kirk is just the figurehead for the group TPUSA – which is funded by jewish billionaires like Singer.

    The big lie here is that the censorship is coming from the left. The reality is that this is a false dialectic. The right-wing is even more top-down controlled than the left, precisely because the biggest threat to the current order comes from the right.

    We have to get away from a right-left understanding and instead embrace an ethnic one. The people who fund Kirk to purge nationalists do not fund him out of some abstract political principle but from narrow and venal ethnic interests. Singer is a very noted supporter of Zionism.

    • Agree: Kali, Charlemagne
    • Replies: @DaveE
    , @Harbinger
  10. My wife has been a social worker in the Chicago area for the last 25 years, with an agency that focuses on child separation. Nothing has done more to base her views on the realities of racial and cultural differences than the experiences she has had in that career.

    • Replies: @Jim bob Lassiter
  11. SafeNow says:

    “When you meet one, transpose the image of a cockroach over their faces. That is the best protection.”

    This is good advice, if it is only “meet” – a transitory encounter. The far greater problem is if one has unanimously progressive family and friends who now revile you as a deplorable person. (I know something about this.) You receive minimal respect or affection. Camaraderie has been lost. Escape physically, if feasible. If not, then accept that these unraveled relationships cannot be cured. Life as you knew it is over. As some poet wrote, Be drunk on wine, poetry, or virtue.

  12. Rahan says:

    *Re: comment N#1*
    Sorry about the harassment you get from women-haters. Some of the smartest and most focused and disciplined people I know are women. Two-three of them with way higher IQs then me or any other man I personally know.
    Everywhere I’ve worked, and I’ve worked in a lot of places, there were female coworkers who were absolutely useless, but also other female coworkers who were fantastic, and actually better workers and smarter too.
    It’s understandable, that the current radical right’s attempts to drag the overtone window’s boundaries back into normality, through guerrilla-style culture jamming, includes saying the exact opposite of the mainstream propaganda. To “minorities are victimized by whites” they say “whites are victimized by minorities”, to “gender is a social construct we must chop of the dicks of boys” they say “gender is set in stone and boy castrators should be hanged”, and so on. This includes them reacting to “men suck, women are super” with “no, women are good for nothing”.
    It’s a compensatory reaction, which while is quite understandable, and maybe even politically beneficial in the long run, is still no doubt hurtful emotionally, and also no doubt some people take this at face value and use it as an excuse to be bullies. There are cretins and bullies in every group of people:(

    *Re: comment N#3*
    Yup, “being gay” is indeed a choice, as is everything. One makes a moral choice, and then one acts according to the moral choice. You can train and condition yourself in order to achieve the moral goal, and that’s perfectly fine.
    The people who insist on “being the real them” in various mostly degenerate ways, are in fact using the assumption that “inner impulses should be followed blindly, instead of modified and channeled”. And yet it’s one thing to squat on the street and take a dump in order to feel like it, another to control your impulse until you get to a restroom. One thing to steal something you like in the shop, another to save up money and buy it, and so on.
    This “just follow your initial impulse” ideology is a road to hell paved with feces.
    As is the idea that “happiness” means a drug-fueled orgiastic manic episode, and “living happily” means trying to maintain that episode indefinitely.
    Anyway, good luck with everything in the new year!
    P.S. Being gay and awesome is indeed possible for a minority of phallic heroes, such as the singer of Judas Priest.

    *Re: the article*
    I suggest that the “hide your power levels” principle extends to family as well. This doesn’t mean that you should hide your beliefs from the world, but rather that one shows different bits to different people. Some of it online, some of it offline. Some of it to friends, some of it to family, some of it to colleagues, and so on.
    And the moment a spouse starts showing signs of discomfort–back off. Be a polite and reasonable husband. Don’t be like the degenerates who suddenly say “after X years of marriage I have now decided to show my true self, which is a latex bimbo unicorn into anal fisting, so here’s your strapon, support me or you’re evil.”
    That’s not OK. Same goes with the red-pilled worldview. Easy does it. Having a happy and functional family is more important than “being right” or “having allies” and other SJW measures of how life should be lived.
    Very important topic, so thanks for the article!

    • Agree: Lockean Proviso
    • Replies: @22pp22
    , @Lockean Proviso
  13. @22pp22

    ‘…The thing to remember about the woke is that they are bullies just looking for prey. Always remember that they are lower than cockroaches and that their morals are purely superficial. When you meet one, transpose the image of a cockroach over their faces. That is the best protection.’

    Pretty much. People never change; just the labels.

  14. If you can’t agree to disagree you can go fuck yourself.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • LOL: Charon
  15. JimDandy says:

    Great article! But…

    “Her reaction is involuntary and irrational—beyond the reach of logical analysis.”

    Um… I’m not really comprehending this assessment, I guess. The fact that she dreads the thought of becoming a total social pariah doesn’t strike me as irrational at all. I grew up in a white ethnic culture where people generally knew the score, but the first noble truth was: “Don’t let anybody hear you say that, or you’ll end up on some kind of a list.” And if someone were to respond to that warning with, “But what I’m saying is true!” they would be regarded as a child, and given a look that said, “Who told you you can just go around saying things because they’re true? You can’t. And that is the way of the world.”

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  16. gotmituns says:

    I’m of an age that I only have to deal wit one woman, my wife who knows me better than any person alive. We can’t even have a good fight anymore we’re so old – we get tired and the fight just peters out after a minute or so. She just accepts me and I accept her and that’s the end of it.

    • LOL: Liza
  17. Miro23 says:

    I feel that this is changing – and it’s coming from the same place as usual – younger people who don’t like adult conformity rules.

    If the US doesn’t turn into a full Soviet style dictatorship, complete with political police, political arrests and imprisonment then people like Nicholas Fuentes are going to keep picking up support.

    • Agree: Anatman
  18. Sean says:

    The best Kevin MacDonald post of the year. Westerners being vulnerable to withdrawal of public approval because they place value on the opinion of non relatives links his original ideas together and apply the synthesis to a pressing problem in a very helpful way. Men wanting to be on the winning side and being even less attached to their people’s interests, if that gives them personally the prospect of being able to sow their seed far and wide, also makes excellent sense.

    Yet I was aghast when after brilliantly explaining how the dread of a bad reputation even in the eyes of completely unrelated people, is a characteristic of Europeans, Professor MacDonald then used Charles Lindbergh’s attempt to keep America out of the Second World War as an implicit parallel to the effort to ensure survival for the traditional majority people of the West. Be it ever so “honestly held and morally defensible”, Mr Lindbergh’s policy was hardly compatible with the white male leadership class of the US remaining the most powerful group on Earth. After all, the tardy entry of the USA into the original world war came as Wilhelmine Germany with lots of Jewish brains working for it, was about to win. Minus the Jews, this was remarkably similar to US entry into WW2. One might be forgiven for thinking the white American elite males’ love of power and satisfied female partners (for women like powerful men) was what made it inevitable they would keep their country and themselves paramount by any means necessary.

    As Brendan Simms’s recent book explains, observing US POWs in the summer of 1918 convinced Adolf Hitler that the Fatherland had been “emptied out”, having lost the best blood by emigration to America (Germans are the largest immigrant group in the US ). The bright Germans had left and been replaced in their homeland by Jews. He wanted to gather the German diaspora back from America, and toyed with the idea of swapping them for the Jews of Germany. Although perhaps not the only reason for conquering ‘living space’ in the East, it would be required for the returning German-Americans. If Hitler had got his way a lot of German Americans would have been returning from the neutral US to the massive opportunity presented in the expanding Reich of the late 1940s. Perhaps these migrants would have including Kevin MacDonald’s mother. It is often said that only after Pearl Harbor did Lindbergh publicly support the United States war effort, but after he was given a guided tour by Goering he warned the US military in 1936 on return from what was effectively a spying mission that the German air force was the most advanced and powerful in the world.

    Rather like Chamberlain, Lindbergh wanted his own country to remain strong and powerful by staying out a war between Germany and Soviet Union. However, strategist expected –with the exception of cities being levelled by bomber fleets–the next war was going be like WW1 and eventually result in a bloody stalemate. Absolutely no one thought that Hitler could crush France, isolate Britain, and then turn and conquer Russia, which he came astoundingly close to doing.

    The main force that actually drove America into war with Germany in WW1 was the success of the German attacks on France and then the Soviet Union, and the horrified realisation by American strategists that if Japan mounted an offensive on the Soviet Union, then the German effort to become the most powerful country in the world would be crowned with total success. (Mearsheimer 2001)

    I wish Kevin had found a way to discuss Anne Morrow Lindbergh without the ponderous impedimenta of her husband’s view of Nazi Germany as harmless to US primacy. The points about relationships and the psychology of both sexes offers great insights nonetheless.

  19. americangoy says: • Website

    “Since we still have a functioning First Amendment”

    Hahahahahaha

    https://unitedwithisrael.org/florida-becomes-5th-state-to-pass-anti-bds-laws/

    “Florida became the fifth state in the US to introduce a resolution to confront the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement when it passed a law on December 21, similar to the first anti-BDS legislation introduced in Tennessee last April.

    By doing so, Florida has joined Tennessee, New York, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Another 35 states are reportedly considering similar legislation.”

    (…)

    “Furthermore, the resolution states that the BDS movement and its agenda are “inherently antithetical and deeply damaging to the causes of peace, justice, equality, democracy and human rights for all the peoples in the Middle East.””

    This is comedy gold.

    First, that people believe that we still have freedom of speech.

    Second, some even believe that we have the right to bear arms…. perhaps folks forgot that during New Orleans Katrina hurricane, when gangs were wilding out and shooting at people and helicopters trying to bring succor to stranded people, the police bravely went around and confiscated guns from…. law abiding citizens (all races).

  20. I apologize, but this is comedy gold…

    Brave tacticools disarm grandma:

  21. Bert says:

    Unless I missed it, nothing is mentioned about The Unz Review as a resource for educating and converting significant others and just plain others. A friend of mine had a parent who was a member of the German-American Bund in the 1930’s. After the death of that parent, my friend burned photos of the parent in Bund uniform. I succeeding in getting my friend to read several articles here regarding the causes of WWII and Operation Barbarossa, and that changed my friend’s viewpoint substantially.

    A slight addition to the format of especially long Unz Review articles might make them better for introducing uninformed persons to HBD facts and alt-right prescriptive ideas. A prefatory abstract of two or three sentences could help orient potential readers who are looking at an article that someone has recommended to them.

  22. @Constant Vigilance

    I am sorry you feel isolated. The taboos against right-wing opinions are not as strong in “uncool” environments. You may be assuming everyone is an SJW because people in certain sub-groups are that way. Keep looking and you will find people who are more congenial. Also, consider that politics might not be the most important thing in life. Many (most?) conservatives find it so unpleasant that they dial it out. I’m not saying to abandon the cause but keep things in perspective. Finally, remember that 50 or 60 years ago it was the leftists who had to watch what they said and act stealthily to further their goals. Think of yourself as a secret agent.

    As for the anti-woman bias, strongly tabooed movements tend to attract people who are antisocial, since people who are more convivial are usually not willing to accept the social penalty. Many of these people are alienated males and disposed to put down women. All I can say is, avoid these people!

    • Replies: @Valka
  23. Great article, Mr. MacDonald! Though I have not finished and will enjoy the rest of it later (I’m sure), I have, in the blog Peak Stupidity lain out the same theory as you describe, but regarding politicians in particular. Not all of them are complete psychopaths heading into Washington, FS, believe it or not. Some really intend to be on the side of the working American white man.

    What happens with decent politicians of a conservative/libertarian bent is described in “The Cocktail Party theory of Political Stupidity”.

    Excerpt:

    Something I’ve been thinking of for a long time that could explain the reason even most of our best people go native is the possibility that they have been simply pussy-whipped by their wives, who want to dress up and go to the best Washington, FS cocktail parties. See, women being women (and we sure don’t want to stop that), they do like to show off black dresses, new $200 shoes, and $50 hairstyles.* Some of these ladies have been through a lot of abuse, whether actual abuse from the psychopathic politician husbands or just the normal wear-and-tear on the rubber-chicken** campaign trail. Woman call a lot of things “abuse” that are normal parts of life, but still, that resentment will be there.

    [SNIP]

    A decent married guy may come to Washington to take office and make some changes to help actual Americans vs. our Globalist elites. However, usually his wife will not be concerned with the politics, just more with the social scene. There is lots of taxpayer money there to be spent on clothing and entertainment. She reckons that that was the point of making it to the nation’s capital.

    What happens after 5 years, or 2 terms, whichever comes first, of this constant haranguing about fitting in, as per the “conversation” above? How much can the guy take before he just chucks all those principles and goes native?

    • Replies: @Abbybwood
  24. @Bragadocious

    Very good point, Mr. B. The thing is, Mrs. Lindbergh felt obligated to stay with her husband Charles, even though she might not have as good a time going shopping in NY City. Why? Because getting divorced due to “not being happy” was looked down upon back then, and that risk of “social opprobrium” was part of that decision too.

    That’s all different now due to the long-term effects on feminism. Now, a married guy who puts the truth out there risks not just his marriage itself but also having the kids taken away by The State and losing most of his hard-earned assets (the former being the worst, of course).

    Fighting for the truth now is not limited to, but a lot more practical for, single guys with a lot less to lose. Retired guys who are not worried a whole lot about what the old lady’s got to say about it rank 2nd. They just don’t know the stupid Millennial lingo, is all.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    , @Skeptikal
  25. 2020 is here! Now let’s recap 2019 and prepare to get President Trump reelected and get him help by winning the house and inproving the Senate!

    [MORE]

    1. 3 Years of lies and fake news published daily by Main Stream Media has proven they are our enemy!
    2. Mueller and Horowitz proved the Russian Collusion Delusion was a poorly concieved coup by the Clinton forces withing Government. At least 30 of her forces and allies are gone.
    3. Horowitz showed all of America the seditious attempts by too many entrenched Bureaucrats and now for 2020 we must push for indictments,
    4. The Durham Investgation will finally show the criminal intent of too many entrenched Bureaucrats and should allow for real indictments and hopefully year long trials and convictions.
    5. Political Corruption has been exposed by the Trump Administration in the form of Money Luandering by Democrats of taxpayer funds.
    6. It is time to expose who in the Democrat Leadership have filled positions in Government, Advocacy and Lobbying entites with family.
    7. It is time to expose the family relationships of Media types with Government families.
    8. We The People must network around the country and help build groups who work to wake up the populous of the dangerous vile actions of Liberals, Democrats, their Media.
    9. We The People must begin full blown boycotts of Entertainment by not going to Movies, not tuning in to various Television Channels and disrupting Events supported and funded by Liberals.
    10. Fight back! Attend a Democrat Political event, Point out Biden’s corruption and stupidity!

    Recent polls show 30% of Millenials actually say they could support Communism! 70% of Millenials say they could support a Socialist candidate!

    Yang supporters have said they will not support the Democrat Party if Yang is not on the ticket! Let’s help foster that kind of thinking.

    Sander supporters know Bernie was cheated by Hillary in 2016, find Sander supporters empathize with them and help they decide to not vote if Bernie is not the head of the ticket.

    Foster whatever angry you can with these loons.

    Reach out to any Black or Hispanic you know, talk about how odd it is Democrat Leadership is all White, remind them Democrats have controlled much of Government for nearly 100 years and they only seem to make Whites richer.
    Foster their internal hatred of White Supremacy and show them examples.
    Like: Look who is on the Debate stage.
    Ask them why they support Islam as a religion yet chastizeanyone who believes in Christianity, Blacks and Hispanics still have strong Christian bases and they do actually dislike the sexual deviancy beng pushed on them.
    Ask them why Democrats want children exposed to Transvesties, Transgenders and have Homosexual leaders.
    Sympathizer with olderBlacks about any story where a young Black child has died in a drive by shooting in a big Democrat city. Lay the seeds of uncertainty!
    Use the Political Correctness and Identity Politics to our advantage.

    Remember when we seem confused and concerned rather than judgemental we will always be able to help the weak minded who support Liberalism to falter and start thinking they are beingused by their Liberal Rich White Masters.

    We have 11 months to help breed a ground swell within the weak minded Lemmings in that party!

    Let’s get organized and work to help reelect President Trump.

    We need 15 to 20% of both Black and Hispanic votes so get busy.

    • Replies: @anon
  26. Anon[718] • Disclaimer says:
    @LarryS

    I’m LCMS Lutheran and we don’t buy Jewish fables either. The Synod did almost apologize for Luther’s On the Jews and their Lies, but haven’t completely folded (yet). And like the Orthodox, our Eucharist is not a thought experiment.
    Hang in there, brother. You can also try Gab.

  27. Exile says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    CV, don’t dwell too much on the bitter guys. Speaking as a fairly hardline man-o-sphere guy even before I fully red-pilled, there’s a lot of us who are willing to accept a limited number of women activists so long as they aren’t a vanguard for feminist-entryism.

    If you accept that you are going to be an outlier (no aspirations for “equal representation in leadership b/c reasons”), if you treat your would-be-peers with respect and if you understand that you have to earn their trust (as would any man, but you bear the baggage of the e-thots, so it’s going to be harder), you can be part of Our Thing, although many including myself would still reserve “inner circle” membership to men.

    As auxiliaries, women with children are often more dependable than single men, as they have skin in the future-game. I don’t think that many of us based men “hate women” but the ones who do tend to have an elevated profile, in large part because they’re spot-lit by the enemy to smear the rest of us.

  28. Exile says:
    @americangoy

    KMac’s still right on the broad scale. We have serious infringement problems but literally mocking someone of his stature for noting that these are still powerful counter-currents to Clown World culture is taking the Black Pill too far. We don’t need to e-peen each other on our cynicism power-levels to the point of treating the guy who J-pilled us all with disrespect. Ease up on the friendly fire.

    • Replies: @Just passing through
  29. mp says:

    The term ‘significant other’ admits defeat from the get-go. In a traditional relationship, the man would simply play his role, and his wife would follow. As would children. But those days are long gone. A ‘significant other’ represents a non-contractual (and non-spiritual) arrangement for convenience… designed possibly for occasional sexual enjoyment, or maybe some other sort of of unfulfilling non-committed companionship. Perhaps in order to raise some dogs.

    I understand arguments against marriage–at least from a man’s standpoint. They are good arguments. Divorce is devastating to a traditional (but now non-existent) male-oriented family.

    At this late stage of the game, the best a man can do is to simply tell his wife what she will think, and what she is allowed to say in public. But since that will likely result in no conjugal relationship at all, most men are not going to accept that advice. Certainly few modern women would.

  30. anon[680] • Disclaimer says:

    The part about them psychojews stands out

  31. Communism by the back door. Nothing more, nothing less.
    https://communismbythebackdoor.tv/

  32. Nodwink says:

    There are some misguided statements here.

    Marxism is not in any way connected to “woke” capitalism. This is the favoured ideology of the Democratic Establishment, ie. right-leaning liberals.

    Antifa are a tiny group, to which much of the Left is indifferent, or hostile. They are a bunch of street brawlers, whose only core belief is a hatred of Nazis. They have no program, no agenda of reform, no plan for concrete political action. The far Right have wound themselves up over an insignificant fringe group.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  33. gotmituns says:

    I had a fight with my wife recently and told her I was leaving her and running away with Taylor Swift. She just laughed at me. I told her I could make it with TS. She laughed more – that really stinks.

    • Replies: @Anon
  34. @Exile

    The sheer abandon with which you use stupid neologisms like “red-pill”, “J-pill”, “Black pill” etc just makes you come across like an idiot who most likely doesn’t actually care about the issues at hand but is just treating this like another political subculture (which it is to be fair)

    It is funny how this “based” uprising will not actually lead to much, well not in America, the family unit has been absolutely destroyed and now people just surf the web looking for in-groups to be part of where they can share insider jokes and humour. I have met one guy who was in the know about these things, he just became annoying after a while and talked about nothing but this stuff when in my company. It’s like one of those weird hippie clubs where all the stoners talk about it weed, just to appear different from society.

    The West is finished.

    • Replies: @Sunshine
  35. This is precisely the dilemma I am currently undergoing, minus the partner, as I am a single man in my 30s. I’ve grown up in an area which is predominantly inhabited by middle-class, tweed wearing socialists. Previously, I’d really capitulated to the consensus beliefs of my peers. However, as I’ve grown a bit older, and become more enquiring, my worldview has shifted a great deal. As a result, I’ve been left with a feeling of isolation. Rather than repressing my thoughts in the company of leftists, I’ve decided to avoid social engagement with those groups, all together. Sentimentalities aside, it’s actually been really liberating. The problem is, though, the feeling of loneliness that comes along with that sense of liberation, as it’s difficult to find people with whom one can hold honest dialogue.

    Overall, I’d rather hold a full sense of self, without compromise, and live – at least momentarily – a life with less social engagement. I guess the way to swing it is to make the effort to get out there to conferences, demonstrations, talks and the like, to meet people on the same wave-length. The issues at hand are of critical importance; thus, hierarchically, the embodiment of truth Trumps living a compromised life, for the sake of upeasing lefties in order to maintain superficial connections.

  36. The first paragraphs apply equally to SJWs and the Dissident Right.

    • Replies: @FvS
  37. anon[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @America1st

    Let’s get Trump elected so that he can continue using ethnic slurs , sell MAGA hat , rouse the low IQ base , and enrich Israel .
    His foreign policy success stories include what? NK, Syria , Venezuela,, ??
    No it includes Golam Heights, Settlement, moving embassy to Jerusalem .
    What is his domestic success other than psychobabbles of a 5 yr old bully surprising some grown up ( the real shock and awe ) . Surprise is the new hope . Surprise mixed with hate .
    Did Democrats derail his domestic agenda? No . All white Democrats leaders never raised an eyebrow and never stopped him from subsidizing military, corporate , anti environmental policies , anti poor anti middle class policies .

    • Replies: @KA
    , @America1st
    , @Wally
  38. @Sean

    The main force that actually drove America into war with Germany in WW1 was the success of the German attacks on France and then the Soviet Union, and the horrified realisation by American strategists that if Japan mounted an offensive on the Soviet Union, then the German effort to become the most powerful country in the world would be crowned with total success.

    Nonsense. The US public, having learned of the pointlessness of the first world war, if not the real cause of it, was overwhelmingly opposed on the eve of Pearl Harbor to US entry into the second world war. And if “American strategists” were horrified at the prospect of a German victory over the far more murderous, far more totalitarian, and far more nakedly aggressive Soviet Union, then it only serves to demonstrate their preference for Jewish tyranny and their own narrow ethnic strategic interests.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Disagree: Charlemagne
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  39. What is to prevent a right wing militant from surreptitiously tracking an Antifa member back to his lair to deal with him later out of the sight of his Antifa friends and the friendly media?

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    , @Charlemagne
  40. J.W. says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    Quit your whining.

    Until women stop sleeping around, accumulating debt, get off social media and marriage laws change men aren’t committing.

    We gain nothing from current conditions.

    Blame women for being so stupid. They abandoned morality to believe in propaganda.

    Red pill is only a response to the current environment.

    • Troll: West Reanimator, Saggy
  41. Anonymous[394] • Disclaimer says:

    Women when they participate in politics on their own initiative are almost always left wing, those pictures comparing the new Tory and Labour MPs sums it up. Very few women actively support the Tory party or would want to become a Tory MP, if a woman wants a political career it would almost always be for a left wing party.

    Yes many women do ultimately vote Tory, but most women who do generally only do so because their husband or partner does so and they have no strong opinions on politics themselves. A large percentage of men have right wing/conservative political views but it’s generally quite rare for women to be anything other than leftist and socially liberal.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  42. jsigur says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    Jews were smart to herd the Jew woke into the “white only” camp”. It basically made information sharing about Jewish power into blind race hate (it occurred around 2010 up to the Trump election where the media then pounced)
    the man hating- women hating is an orchestrated phenom to distract from the hostile elites who are doing all the damage. They actually orchestrated segregation after the Bacon Rebellion in 1650 to assure the fact that whites and blacks wouldn’t work together and thus the advantage of meshing Jew wokeness with white only thinking.
    If only those who think they swallowed the red pill and stay hung up on one or two things, know that red pill pretty much encompasses everything in life sold to us as normal and fact and their unraveling the conspiracy has just begun

  43. KA says:
    @Sean

    Don’t you get it ? White wanted America not to kill white in Europe . This price was unacceptable. American entry into WW1 or WW2 are seen through this racial prism . But the Jews screwed this arrangements . Jews reminded that the deal between White ( UK -USA) and Zionism was not limited to the constraint of any fellow feelings , to any extended kinship , to any religious attachment to any concept of existence of psychological unicorn like high IQ . This deal stands whether Philippine is fighting or Hawai or Germany or Russia.
    Some low IQ still balks at this like Bannon .

    Kevin McDonald comes with example of Mongol invasion to emphasize certain point about gender differences . He should have looked closer at home -at the behaviors of Europeans to the native .

    Cromwell , Balfour ,Lloyd , Churchill , Truman LBG , Bush 2and Trump belong to the long list of the hopefuls whose hopes were dashed by the ingrained Jewish habit of stabbing at the back to get 100 % of a deal and leave less than 0 for the counter party . If Balfour didn’t do what he did, empire still would be standing .
    Trump ‘s MAGA is already only MIGA no American benefits to show from his foreign policy in ME. But the Jews want more of the Sheldon Adelshon bargain – attack on Iran and want it blamed on Saudi machinations ( giving rise to more Islamophobia )

    Soon are we going to hear that it was unAmerican BDS and presence of raw rabid anti American Palestinian voice on campus that forced suppression of free speech and not the Jewish money and the Jewish media . We have heard this type of arguments before – Palestine forces Israel to kill babies , shoot children at the eyes and bulldoze homes . We don’t hear that so much from Israeli media as we hear this argument from US media . This subtle arrangements give Israel the confirmable deniability of not being responsible for any of the pro Israeli activity by US congress cabinet senate or pentagon .

  44. DaveE says:
    @Thulean Friend

    Best comment on this thread. You’re absolutely right. This is not a right / left struggle, it is ethnic in nature and that is what makes it so hard for spouses, women, “woke” types, morons and fools to deal with. (That means about 85% of Americans…!)

    As Jews work feverishly to implement the New World (Jewish) Order, they must work from both ends of the political spectrum. Jews wear different disguises when impersonating Republicans or Democrats, but beneath it all, the same vile ideology (Jewish Supremacism) guides their every move.

    Let’s look at the life of Christ as the penultimate example of the courage required to face down a vicious and vile enemy, the Chosenites and their sick megalomaniac agenda of World Takeover, straight out of the Torah. And remember what the Book of Revelations and the Gospels say about the “blood of the Saints” spilled by those who will, in the end, be rewarded for their suffering.

    Hell…… if courage, honor, decency and integrity were easy, everyone would exemplify those virtues and they would lose all meaning.

    Have a Courageous New Year, if you truly care about the (potentially beautiful) world God gave us.

  45. Nixon was once reported to have been asked what he thought of the long term prospects of Israel were. He was said to have responded with a voiceless “thumbs down.”

  46. Bill P says:

    A lot of this depends on where you live and who you work with. Compared to a lot of the women I know, I’m a moderate, and I live in a “purple” county. If you’re looking for a racially conservative white woman, they aren’t hard to find (the real problem is finding one who is also a good wife).

    That isn’t the case where I grew up in a deep blue city, but who wants to live there anyway? And looking at the marriage and fertility rates in those cities, it doesn’t seem that the men and women in those places like each other much regardless of politics.

    As for Lindbergh, he may have been brave, but he was not a great moral role model. He fathered seven bastards with three German women in late middle age. Perhaps he and his wife were essentially separated at the time, but three mistresses (two of whom were sisters)? Come on…

    I don’t think Jews had all that much to do with corrupting mainstream Christian sects, BTW. It seems to me that they did a fine job corrupting themselves. Fortunately, Christianity has self-correcting features built in.

    The moral angle here kind of confuses me. Is K. McDonald implying that the white left has some kind of consistent moral code? Maybe it kinda sorta looks that way if you squint real hard, but just about the only thing that matters to them as far as I can tell is social status, and that value dictates everything – fair or foul – that comes out of their mouths. How could people who publicly celebrate late term abortion and sexual mutilation of children be considered moral in any way? It’s getting to the point where they don’t even try to morally justify themselves anymore — they just threaten and intimidate their opposition like so many noisy, violent apes.

    On that note, morality is indeed the salient issue here. It would be better for those of us who care about the future of our people and of the world itself to make living a moral life a high priority. This is not only the best defense against would-be persecutors, but also the best path to a happy family and community. To do that, first we have to understand that corruption always originates from within ourselves, and only then can we set about fixing this mess and dealing with malefactors.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    , @jbwilson24
  47. Agent76 says:
    @americangoy

    It is a sad state in the states.

    Apr 28, 2013 Boston Bombing, House to House Searches

    A Prelude to Martial Law & Gun Confiscation in The US

  48. BenKenobi says:

    I’m on my second wife — I’ve referred to her before around these parts as “a gentrified girlfriend in a gentrified neighbourhood” — and she’s lost a lot of friends since 2016. We wore MAGA hats to Trump Tower in Vancouver on inauguration day.

    One of her friends disowned her a year ago for listening to Molyneux.

    Ironically (perhaps?) her Israeli friend still associates with us.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  49. MLK says:
    @americangoy

    “Since we still have a functioning First Amendment”

    Hahahahahaha

    Either you’re in middle school or none to bright if you think 1st A. protections died because of an anti-BDS resolution.

    Free Speech can never be free in the manner some here seem to desire — without penalty from those who disagree. You have the right to speak your mind. I have the right to disagree and choose not to associate with you.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Anon
  50. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @americangoy

    This is comedy gold.

    First, that people believe that we still have freedom of speech.

    Freedom of Speech is a legal concept. But freedom of action, whether in the form of speech or otherwise, is subject to both legal and social controls.

    Political correctness diminishes or eradicates the value of the legal right of free speech by imposing social control over speech, i.e., informal sanctions imposed by friends and family, or economic sanctions imposed by employers, political parties, etc.

    The pervasive and uniformly PC impact of media, the propaganda dispensed by state-managed educational institutions, and the Google-style economic punishment of the expression of non-PC beliefs, ensures that the exercise of Freedom of Speech is a rare and painful experience.

    The result is a massive build up of resentment among the socially oppressed until something gives. In the UK, the working class, comprehensively betrayed by Phony Bliar’s “New Labour” party, has defected in large numbers to a supposedly populist Johnson Tory Party.

    The consequence of this reaction remains to be seen. But if the Johnson Government fails to deliver for Britain’s working class the consequences may be be ugly in the extreme.

    Meantime, the liberal left are turning up the invective against the working man. Hence the headline in that most disgusting of all liberal newspapers, The Independent:

    The antisemitic monster rising from the slime is not Corbynism – it is white nationalism

    There you have the resort to hate speech direct in the cause of British national genocide through suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

    The outcome? Civil War, anyone? Most Americans think it likely. Why should it not be likely Britain too, where another civil war now seems overdue.

  51. @Nodwink

    “Antifa are a tiny group, to which much of the Left is indifferent, or hostile.”

    This is not correct – As the Charlottesville, Berkeley, Proud Boys, and other incidents have shown, Antifa enjoys cooperation and protection from the authorities at least on the municipal level. Police have been ordered to stand down against them, prosecutors will not charge them, and judges will not rule against them. Like negro violence, the Left pretends that they don’t exist, and operates in denial of their activities.

    “They are a bunch of street brawlers, whose only core belief is a hatred of Nazis.”

    They are cowardly LARPers who hide their faces and only dare become physical when they hold significant advantage in numbers. Their use use of the term Nazi is merely a euphemism for their true enemy: The normal straight white male and his family. But the term Nazi in invoked to grant themselves the moral high ground (because who doesn’t automatically hate nazis???). In reality, there is no such thing as a Nazi anymore, and Americans have no connection to this 75 year old defunct foreign political party.

    “They have no program, no agenda of reform, no plan for concrete political action. ”

    That’s not their purpose. They are muscle, such as it is. 3rd rate soldiers of the oligarchy. But they are relatively well organized and well funded.

    • Agree: mark green, Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Wally
  52. KA says:
    @anon

    Don’t forget to include the servile acquiescence and natural obsequiousness of the Trump supporters , non Trump supporters and the religious white Evangelical to the unspoken demands of the Zionist. They are well trained dogs who can smell any implied or implicit desire of the Zionist and are equally conditioned to cite nationalism , rising antisemitism or bible to defend the ass licking Trump’s decisions in Palestine .

    They have the same teacher who explained to them three contradictory understandings of how to safely justify ,understand , and morally accept most unimaginable unpatriotic illegal dastardly example of a self-destructive behavior .

  53. What the dissident right needs is a complete rebranding.

    The DR are the bad boys of society because they don’t conform, and when could chicks ever resist bad boys? Why was Julia attracted to Winston in 1984? Because Winston was a bad boy, a non-conformist, and Julia was a rebel ‘from the waist down.’

    Here’s to being bad in 2020!

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  54. @Bill P

    As for Lindbergh, he may have been brave, but he was not a great moral role model. He fathered seven bastards with three German women in late middle age. Perhaps he and his wife were essentially separated at the time, but three mistresses (two of whom were sisters)? Come on…

    I say good for him. Lindbergh was a man of great accomplishment and is precisely the kind of alpha who should be siring offspring. Better than some mudshark in Bradford, England.

  55. “I just wish we had political figures half as articulate and intelligent as Tucker and Ann.”

    Well,

    I appreciate the perspective of both. But it’s not their articulation. It’s their critical perspective and talents. And I am not unmindful that it was their articulate perspectives that encouraged millions to support invading Iraq and Afghanistan — both invasions huge errors.

    That they seek distance from those positions now, I have not heard a single one engage in mea culpas for their misleading articulate arguments. While Miss Coulter may be consistent now, especially on the question of immigration and spot on – she’s a tad late to the party.

    As for Mr. Tucker, as of my understanding he tends to go along with anything that Israel claims is the way to go and that by their any means necessary calculations. Such a perspective will keep the US involved in needless ventures and worse —

    As indicated by last nights article on TAC

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/

    which if it develops will be a sticky wicket. Not that we can’t deal wit all three. I think even if we had to stand alone, we could. And that by the way is exactly how we should be moving forward, as if we have no allies.

    Because it may very be that the interventionists have gotten their way — and cold war with intermittent or prolonged hots spots – as are now in play.
    ——————————

    No. I haven’t lost a centimeter of a thing for Miss Coulter.

  56. FvS says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    Of whom, you would fall into the former, Fred “La Raza” Reed. However, many on the Dissident Right would likely settle for partitioning the country, allowing everyone to go their separate ways. Do you think the same applies to SJWs?

  57. ” I find it very difficult to pursue both friendships and relationships with people in the real world because of my views. If you don’t get a good feel for people beforehand, the next person you have even a sugar-coated discussion with about race, LGBTQ+++++, et cetera, could cost you your job.”

    But your positioning should have included the hot button and too tangible economic issues and those of intervention. Liberals were all to happy to slip behind the interventions to use as shield to get rid of political undesirables.

  58. @Jim bob Lassiter

    I suppose I could go on for a while – can you be more specific?

    But in general, she has been made fully aware of the self destructive nature of American blacks, as well as that they are entirely responsible for their current predicament. You can pick your stereotype: Entitled, lazy, foolish, promiscuous, etc, she has had all of those validated.

    My wife is 48. She regularly interviews grandmothers who are 10 years younger than she is, tasked with fostering the young children of their own teenage children. She once interviewed a great grandmother in her late 50’s because she was the only family member available to take custody of a child (or children, I don’t remember) that her granddaughter had lost custody of.

    Displaced black children become so because of abuse and drug exposure, but neglect is a significant factor. She interviews 10 year old children who have the verbal capacity of a three year old. These kids are almost always in the grade their age would place them in, as opposed to being held back. Administrators and teachers are incentivized to just pass them along. It’s good for the stats, you see.

    See has interviewed infants (this is obviously more of just an observatory session; she measures their activities based on what are considered normal behaviors depending on specific age: interest in playing with toys, curiosity, verbosity, crawling, walking, etc.) with multiple broken bones, dislocated limbs, burns, and genitals and rectums that have been permanently damaged by sexual abuse.

    She has interviewed 4-7 year old kids with all of their teeth rotted out, can barely speak coherent sentences, are not toilet trained, withdrawn, can’t read, aren’t bathed…

    She interviews teenagers who are drug addicted, sexually active, dropped out, pregnant, in juvie, violent; some times these kids are both the separated child, and the separated parent in different cases. Many of the girls are in sexual relationships with their mother’s boyfriends. When there is a father in the picture, half the time my wife does his interview at Stateville Prison or one of the county jails.

    This is off the top of my head. My wife tells me horror story after horror story. This is the unspoken subculture of the lower middle class to poor American negro. The media does not report on it. The black leaders/politicians do not address it. Nobody talks about it. There has been exactly one movie that we know of, that has attempted to show this world for what it is, and that was the movie Precious. Every other TV show, movie, and or documentary portrays these people are magical humans, possessing only the most superior honor, morality, insight, and ability.

    So my wife will not be able hold a presentation on the effects of HBD or throw out stats off the top of her head. She has no interest in it. But she knows natural differences exist between Africans and other people. She sees it almost everyday.

    • Thanks: Bardon Kaldian
  59. I just read the rest a while back. Again, this is a great column, Mr. MacDonald. This is a very down-to-earth practical problem for those of us who understand politics and how important it has all gotten by this point in the US. of A. When you talk about solutions involving ways of getting one’s wife or g/f “on-board”, so to speak, or at least ready to leave you alone about it all, I think you come close to a contradiction.

    Any advice that includes using reason with women is bound to fail. As you explain, they use emotion more than reason. My wife has no interest in politics, and I greatly respect her honesty on that. As much as I try to explain that I am, and that though she may not be “politics is interested in you”, she gets upset with my writing a simple blog. If it’s not making money, then what’s the point, is what I hear.

    I think one direction a family man can go in is to somehow show her the light regarding how your children’s lives will be adversely affected with the ctrl-left’s plans coming to fruition. There are plenty of examples all around us already. Again, reasoned logically explanations won’t cut it. You’ve got to get her to see it and feel it. She needs to feel the pain coming to her offspring. Otherwise, just ignore any calls for you to “try to fit in”. When you are right you are right. That’s a man’s thing, not a woman’s thing.

    • Agree: Craig Nelsen
    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  60. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Does your wife have any solutions to fixing black dysfunction? The Left’s solution to every problem is to throw money at it, but there has to be a more sustainable solution. Prior to the civil rights movement (as Thomas Sowell has written about) Blacks weren’t nearly as dysfunctional.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  61. Bill P says:
    @Bragadocious

    He pretty much guaranteed that three German men would never find a decent wife (none of the women married after they had his kids) and seven kids grew up without a father, and you say “good for him?”

    Can you see why that attitude might actually have something to do with people’s distaste for white nationalists?

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  62. Omegabooks [AKA "Anon"] says:

    Just another reason I’m glad to be an introvert.

  63. FvS says:

    Can you see why that attitude might actually have something to do with people’s distaste for white nationalists?

    No. What does his comment have to do with white nationalists?

    • Agree: JimDandy
  64. anon[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @22pp22

    Unz Forum could do with a “Sticky” glossary —
    what is Woke?
    what is relationship of Woke to Red pill?
    Is woke different from Awake?
    Does the Left get Woke but the Right gets Awake?

    Confucius say: the first thing is to reform the language.

    Insist on use of conventional English (if you’re American); reject all the cutesy memes and acronyms.

  65. @Bill P

    Who said anything about white nationalism? Are you a Fred Reed fanboy who sees white nationalists under your bed at night? I’m saying Lindbergh was a great man who probably had young women offering themselves to him every day. So yes, good for him. I don’t care about German men. But a white nationalist would.

  66. @MikeatMikedotMike

    I was about to write back to this guy. That was a great reply, as you’ve got the antifa nailed. I couldn’t have said this better myself, Mike. I hesitated replying only because I wondered whether Mr. Nodwink really believes his own BS there or was just trying to fool some readers.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  67. @MLK

    I don’t think you get what the anti-BDS resolutions are about. Can you read more about it? It’s about stopping groups from refusing to associate with others.

  68. @anon

    One thing we should never do is help elect Liberals. Their sycophant followers enjoy homosexuality, pedophilia and are working to get bestiality normalized.

    They desire open borders to give them the ability to import cheap slave labor with their young boys and girls used by the Rich While Liberal Oligarchy for deviate pleasures.

  69. Wally says:
    @anon

    So, of those running, who are better options than Trump?
    And why?

  70. There is no stopping point for leftist insanity. They’ll get around to promoting pedophilia simply because everything else (polygamy, necrophilia, bestiality) will have been made legal.

    I can’t picture anything less than an entire state seceding to stop them.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @anaccount
  71. AaronB says:

    So KMac has added a new and fascinating wrinkle to his emerging portrait of the Western personality type.

    It is not only uniquely individualistic and uniquely altruistic – it is also uniquely conformist to public opinion.

    Good to know.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @awry
  72. @Mick Jagger gathers no mosque

    It wouldn’t be hard to pick off Antifa one at a time. The hard part would be doing the time.

  73. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sick of Orcs

    There is no stopping point for leftist insanity. They’ll get around to promoting pedophilia …

    They’ve been doing that for years — actually decades: Corbyn’s paper’s pro paedo propaganda.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  74. @Achmed E. Newman

    I guess personal shoppers weren’t a thing in 1940. Actually they did exist but perhaps no one told Anne the compulsive hat buyer.

    • Replies: @Lucia Chiara
  75. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    The people on the right have been exposed to truths. They have been red pilled.

    So they are also aware that black men have bigger penises and white women are vulnerable to cheating on them with a black guy.

    It doesn’t mean their behavior is appropriate, just that being race aware is not all good.

  76. Harbinger says:
    @Thulean Friend

    The thing is the right is controlled by the left as is the centre. There’s been a paradigm shift within the political establishment, everything has moved left. Here in the UK, conservatives are now left leaning liberals, liberals are socialists and socialists are communists. This is the problem. They’re is NO right wing in politics anymore. The international Jew the left and centre, while the Zionist the right. Either way the outcome is heads Jews win, trails non Jews lose. The only real battle between left and right wing Jews is the former wants to stay in the west, parasiting off of and destroying goyim culture and nation, while the right follows Herzl’s views of the establishment of a Jewish homeland and bringing all Jews together in one land.

    The answer is an utter obliteration of the system. We’re talking complete expulsion of all Jews from within and an end to aristocracy control of the judiciary, police and armed forces. Send these parasites packing as well! Of course a better solution is an instant ‘Nuremberg’ style hunt for traitors, clearly having committed treason, followed by trial under a newly established ‘people’s court’ which would most certainly be finding, previous high up, judiciary guilty and the obvious outcome would be execution, medieval style that would make William Wallace turn his head on horror.

    The bottom line is simple; we can’t continue as we are, using the corrupt system to fight for our freedom. It’s like trying to use the Tolkien’s one ring to do good when it’s not possible due to it being inherently evil, full of the hatred and malice of the Dark Lord Sauron.

    Is time all the fence sitters realised that ‘that’ time has come around, yet again, for the peoples of the west. Its time to put down your ploughshares and pick up your swords. You are only going to win this war with violence and bloodshed.
    Yes, Kali has stated correctly ‘Ordo ab chao’, order out of chaos, but we know and they know its an inevitability. It’s history repeating itself and we haven’t learned because once we’ve won the war, we end up allowing the very peoples responsible for its coming about, to take power yet again. And voila, we’re right back at square one, back at the start, walking into another inevitable civil war.

    Many people are oblivious to the fact that governments were created for one reason – to give people the illusion they had a say in how their nation was run. The aristocracy got tired of having to put down revolutions every five years when the people got angry at clear upper class privilege and milking dry of the poor. They needed a way to maintain power but stop the inevitable uprisings. If people cared to look they’ll find that not only has the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) been putting in prime ministers into office, here in the the UK, for the last 120+years (Council on Foreign Affairs (CFR) is the sister group, doing the same with presidents the USA) but all high up politicians have been connected to British royalty.

    So I hate to be the be a reroute of bad news people, but you have a choice: you can either continue playing the rigged game of politics, you’re always going to lose, or you can start dismantling the system. I would love to go into detail, but doing so would most likely see this post (typed on my phone) not published.
    The UK peoples have sat in comfortable splendour, devoid of warfare, since Culloden in 1746, the last battle on British soil. There’s nothing that gets people moving than a complete break down of the status quo.

    War is coming. It’s time people faced that reality and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Let’s hope this time we actually do it right and stop the same people’s getting back into power, yet again, once it’s over.

  77. RodW says:
    @dingo.jay b

    That is why we need something like the brownshirts as a protective organization.

    Exactly. Paul Golding of Britain First clearly understands this principle of political organisation.

  78. Sean says:
    @AaronB

    Less worried about its own flesh and blood.

  79. anaccount says:
    @Sick of Orcs

    Sorry but I just don’t think ZOG is going to allow a White bantustan to form anywhere it can deploy police or military personnel. A good example is what is about to happen to a small White town in South Africa, a town I didn’t know about until reading this National-Justice article: https://national-justice.com/op-ed-what-about-south-africas-jewish-oranias

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to be wrong about this (convince me) but we’d be better off moving and grouping up in an Eastern European country, or Russia. Not that these are realistic options either but I think any attempt to form a community in ZOG would be doomed from the start.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  80. @22pp22

    I like to visualize their head on the body of a chihuahua myself but yeah that is great strategy. They are little yap yap dogs posing as homo sapiens.

  81. Norseman says:

    Until the masses recognize the Jew in their living room, nothing will change. They play us against each other, they own us monetarily. they practice ethnic cleansing in Israel, and the white christian culture has allied itself to the parasitic poor victim mentality they impose on us by law. Muslim bashing is fine, but disagree with Jewish lies and you face jail time.
    Kennedy and Lindberg were right, we had no business in European wars, killing cousins, but the Jews forced the issue to protect their Bolshevik brethren, and wipe out those fighting communism.

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrC5rKVAg1et3UAbLn7w8QF?fr=mcafee&ei=UTF-8&p=The+Myth+of+German+villainy+pdf&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asp-qrw-corr-top&norw=1

    • Agree: Sunshine, Sin City Milla
  82. @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, your wife needs to “feel the pain” coming to her offspring, but isn’t that the same emotion that drives you?

    The opposition between “reason” and “emotion” is illegitimate and causes lots of bad thinking. All voluntary, willed, human actions require an emotion as a motive force. No one can get “too emotional”. The problems arise when emotions are irrational.

    • Replies: @DaveE
  83. Carlson is a government approved millionare shepherd who herds his little flock via the main stream media. Antifa is another government run operation. What happens when the establishment protests the establishment? Carlson gets a boost in ratings and buys another vacation home while adding an exclusive mud room to his DC castle.

    The voting class believes in establishment protests 100% because of social media, no matter how incredible and against all reason they are. Lots of confusion really, if they see something evil happening in the world they’re obliged to post their thoughts and feelings immediately, even though nothing at all happened, especially the way the media described it.

  84. Anon[232] • Disclaimer says:

    They do this within their echo chambers of like-minded people, ignoring data they don’t like and never encountering a dissenting voice. Trust me, you can’t talk to them.

    I wonder how many people, how many among people who have tried to comment at your The Occidental Observer, will happen to think of the comment moderation and moderator over there, whilst reading that paragraph.

  85. Anon[232] • Disclaimer says:
    @gotmituns

    Well, you married. So you like to be exposed to female abuse, basically.

  86. @Sean

    Speaking of ponderous…

    • Replies: @Sean
  87. @Achmed E. Newman

    Thanks. IIRC Mr. Wink usually has thoughtful things to say, and I think he is mostly on the right side of things.

    You’ve seen the difference in my tone with those who I feel are our enemies. HNY!

  88. JackOH says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    ” . . . [H]orror story after horror story.”

    I can confirm, M—. I’ve talked to the occasional policeman, CO, PO, and social worker over the years. The stories are as you say they are. There are some low-end Whites in the mix. The Blacks who try to maintain a sense of propriety are themselves beleagured by overwhelming Black dysfunction.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  89. @I'm Tyrone

    Her solution is mostly built around mine: Take money away from the problem. End welfare entitlements and the incentives of being a single mother. What makes blacks – and everyone else for that matter – more functional is the need to see to their own survival. Blacks also require what I refer to as intensive local authority, but even that is a form of government assistance.

    But seeing as none of that is realistic, and even if a return to pre Civil Rights norms were possible, blacks as a group are still a net loss on civilization. In the form of welfare, housing, schooling, policing, crime, imprisonment, child care and or healthcare, they will always require some form of subsidy from the taxpayer.

    So at this point repatriation for all but the top 10% is the only way to truly deal with the issue of black dysfunction.

    • Agree: Alfred
  90. goodhalogen says: • Website
    @Constant Vigilance

    Same here. You described my situation to a tee. Most of the world thinks I’m nuts as my perspective is far less “social standing, money, getting my 401K in good shape and buying nice stuff” and far more in line with what’s really going on and how much longer before we’re going to stop eating our own and start getting prepped for the catastrophic future that will trap us unless we take action.

  91. JnotJ says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    Fellow dissident woman here. Thanks for sharing your comment. I identify with a lot of what you said…. and I hold my tongue everywhere now. I’m resigned in that I found a man to share my life that holds many of the same values. I had a child with another man, and I’m sure if I had tried to maintain that as a whole family, we’d be miserable. I hope you never have to know the same situation.

    I hadn’t learned much of history and politics (I blame public school, but it’s my responsibility now) until this second half of my 20s… it’s definitely a focus now that I have progeny.

    I feel politically black sheeped within my own family and have recently refrained from any heated discussion on the matter. And I certainly leave that discussion out from work. My only place of solace is on the internet now, and in books and articles. It feels like enough, but I totally understand what you mean.

    Best of luck to you in the coming spicy times. Just wanted to say thank you and share my two cents.

  92. Abbybwood says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Just for the record, unless the D.C. wife is going to “Super Cuts” for her hairdo, the cost is NOT $50!

    More like $300-500 plus tip.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  93. @Mr McKenna

    Obviously Tucker cannot go as far with his opinions as he would like, and still keep his job @Fox. Touch the JQ at Fox and you are dead meat, and Tucker knows it. In spite of his good ratings, one wonders how much longer he will be able to last in an Israel-first, neoconservative controlled network.

    Good ratings were not enough to save Phil Donohue from getting fired by MSDNC as he railed against GWB’s coming war against Iraq. If Trump, (whom I feel was made more mentally unstable by the detestable, unjustified Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler impeachment), goes off half-cocked in igniting the coming war with Iran, how could Tucker continue to support him and still maintain his integrity?

    IMO, when war comes, Tucker will be shown the door, even though such a move will greatly harm Fox in the short-term. Hopefully, there are no #MeToo leftist feminists out there willing to accuse him of unwanted touching. Given today’s toxic workplace, and given how the crazy left will do anything to rid the networks of anyone even a little sympathetic to the plight of white males, I’m a little surprised that he hasn’t been “Kavanaughed” already.

  94. I’m Tyrone: “What the dissident right needs is a complete rebranding.

    The DR are the bad boys of society because they don’t conform, and when could chicks ever resist bad boys?”

    Great point. But unfortunately, whenever one of these “bad boys” acts up (Tarrant, Breivik, Roof, Manson, etc.), the rest of the DR stampede away from him. This happens because the vast majority of the DR are hobbyists, not revolutionaries; or in plain language, they are frauds. Chicks can sense this, and are repelled.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @I'm Tyrone
  95. 22pp22 says:
    @Rahan

    I would say that gayness is not a choice. Gays can tell each other apart. Very few straights do gay convincingly. I don’t mind the company of gay men, because I grew up with them and they don’t identify me as one of them. When I was younger, they would often tell me I was handsome. Sadly, I rarely got that compliment from women.

    The most annoying thing about the woke world is that it says homosexuality is hard-wired while gender is a choice. That is nonsensical. It is one of those lies some people loudly repeat just so that they can parade their smug moral virtue.

    The most annoying things about gay men are their overdone flamboyance, overdone emotionalism and overemphasis on trivial things. I never allowed myself to be exposed to their lifestyle.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  96. @JackOH

    ” There are some low-end Whites in the mix. ”

    There are. The white mothers fall into two main categories: The fathers of their children are POC, or her and the white father are addicted to heroin (cheaper than prescription opioides, but that’s what usually gets them started). My wife’s area reaches from Chicago to Urbana to Peoria to LaSalle and back, where there are quite a few towns in varying states of deterioration depending on how long ago the manufacturing base was outsourced overseas or simply abandoned Illinois’ ridiculous taxes.

    The differences between black dysfunction and white is two fold: The destruction of rural white communities is by design, and the overall rate of separated families between the races is higher among blacks.

    In my wife’s estimation, she deals with relatively few Hispanic families (as well as no Asians, as both groups keep a lot more of their dysfunction in house) but almost all of those involve acts of incest.

  97. DaveE says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    Exactly right. Emotions are a call to arms. Logic and reason are the tools necessary to win the war. Both need to work together to get anywhere, in any struggle.

    “Wisdom, without courage, is worthless.” —– Gandhi

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
  98. Hodd says:

    A very interesting but too intellectualised article that suggests the writer is not au fait with the reality of this situation.

    If you are living with a woman who is unaware of your political leanings this is not going to make very much difference.

    You quite simply have to lead a double life. One where you are politically correct and another where you are a racial nationalist. There is no other way.

    But there are a number of things you can do to lessen the chances of discovery…

    The first is NOT to use social media.

    There is an old English saying ‘don’t sh*t on your own doorstep’! In other words if you drink in a local pub, eat in a local restaurant or use local facilities like supermarkets, libraries and health centres DO NOT TALK ABOUT YOUR POLITICAL BELIEFS TO ANYONE.

    The third is not to have printed media relating to your political beliefs delivered to your home. Postmen, at least in Britain, are heavily politicised and are known to throw away political literature rather than deliver it. And if they discover your affiliations they will pass on your name and address to Antifa or any other government supported bunch of thugs as seems appropriate.

    There are a number of other rules but these are the most important in the UK where we have a ‘government of occupation’!

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  99. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I said bad boys, not mass murderers. The latter are psychopaths which we don’t need. The former are those that flout leftist cultural conventions and get others to laugh at the loony left. As the demented Left becomes more parochial, bad boys can make ‘sexism’, ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ cool again.

  100. Some light in the Darkness

    [a picture, a thousand words]

  101. Skeptikal says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    I wonder how many women are commenting on this site under gender=neutral names and thus witnessing and even being assumed to agree with the misogynist blasts regularly indulged in by UR commenters (assumed male).

    Most commenters assume that all other commenters are male (Hey, dude) except for the very few with actual female names (and of course these may actually be males). At the very least it is quite revealing.

  102. @Bragadocious

    Considering how plainly & simply (or to be honest, frumpy) the (inevitably hatless) Anne Lindbergh looks in her photos, one can scarcely call her a compulsive shopper or hat buyer! My fave anecdote from this period is when Anne & CL were invited to a weekend party at someone’s house in CT(?): upon their arrival some other guests–perhaps Mr & Mrs George Kaufman–ostentatiously took affront & departed in a huff!

  103. Skeptikal says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The idea that someone would divorce a spouse because of disagreement about sociopolitical issues is absurd. I can see it in wartime, if someone were actually in the underground or some such. But otherwise . . .

    Maybe you *are* taking yourselves a bit too seriously?

    In my family, my grandfather supported FDR and my grandmother couldn’t stand “that man in the White House.” My father was a pacifist, but my stepfather was a Nixon republican who was in the army reserves. My mother had a hard time with the Nixon bit, but they certainly were not going to divorce over Nixon!!

    I am sure there are many cases of political disagreements within marriages and within families. It could get tense but if a couple divorces because of political disagreements, there was probably something missing in the first place.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Charon
  104. Wally says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    said:
    ” In reality, there is no such thing as a Nazi anymore, and Americans have no connection to this 75 year old defunct foreign political party. ”

    Indeed. This is particularly true since we now know that the basis of calling someone ‘a Nazi’, the “holocaust”, is meaningless. The “holocaust” narrative has easily been proven to be a fraud for the ages.

    It’s time we all speak up or forever be enslaved by the ultimate in Big Lies.

  105. Skeptikal says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    I think Sean is talking about WW1, not WW2.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  106. @Bill P

    “I don’t think Jews had all that much to do with corrupting mainstream Christian sects, BTW.”

    Well, looks like it is time for some reading:

    1) the history of the Jesuits and the attempts of Jewish conversos to subvert the Catholic church.

    2) the Scofield Bible, and the manner in which Untermeyer and other Jews worked pro-Zionist material into Christian literature.

    “It seems to me that they did a fine job corrupting themselves.”

    How do you separate that out from Jewish cultural influences like the Frankfurt School? The long march through the institutions captured not only faculties of education, but also schools of theology.

    I agree, not EVERYTHING is a Jewish plot. There are other reasons, including biological ones (e.g., Edward Dutton’s theories) that explain why Europeans are so soft and useless these days, but to ignore one of the major causes of decline is foolish.

  107. @Skeptikal

    The purpose of this site isn’t to pander to women as there is no shortage of white knights and manginas within mainstream media outlets. If women want their egos massaged, those places are always open to them.

    • Replies: @anon
  108. @22pp22

    I would say that gayness is not a choice. Gays can tell each other apart. Very few straights do gay convincingly. I don’t mind the company of gay men, because I grew up with them and they don’t identify me as one of them.

    I’m not convinced when it comes to lesbians.

    I’ve met too many that fit into the limited options pool.

    But I have also met a gay man that couldn’t even fake bi if he tried.

    I think it will come out in the future that most lesbians are born hetero and are basically man haters that don’t mind having sex with women. It won’t be reported in the news though.

    • Replies: @Wally
  109. Gabby says:

    What a mistake it was to allow women to vote or work outside the home.

    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Miro23
  110. @MikeatMikedotMike

    But in general, she has been made fully aware of the self destructive nature of American blacks, as well as that they are entirely responsible for their current predicament.

    The weird thing is that urban teachers reach this conclusion but still side with liberalism and lying to the public.

    Well the ones that don’t run back to the burbs anyways.

    When I see urban White teachers on tv I cannot help but think they are some of the scummiest people in the US.

    They know the destruction and continue to do their part for the lie.

    • Agree: Sunshine
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  111. I’m Tyrone: “The latter are psychopaths which we don’t need. ”

    Nothing reveals the middle-class values of the dissident right like its horror at breaking the law. In reality, they support the current system, but just want to take it over and run it the way it used to be run back in the “good old days” (pick your era). But it’s a futile nostalgia, because societal change doesn’t work like that.

    I’m Tyrone: “The former are those that flout leftist cultural conventions and get others to laugh at the loony left.”

    Andrew Anglin of Daily Stormer fame is an archetype for the comedic right, but he falls in the fraud category, in my view. There’s nothing “bad” about being a complainer/victim who denounces anyone who takes action on the legitimate grievances he himself articulates. It just makes him look weak, and scared. As with many on the merchant right, Anglin owns a web page and subsists on donations from like-minded hobbyists. Others peddle books, herbs, records, or paraphernalia. They are shopkeepers who shy away from anything that might affect their business negatively, not men of action, and hence not attractive to women as “bad boys”.

  112. Harbinger says:
    @Hodd

    “If you are living with a woman who is unaware of your political leanings this is not going to make very much difference.

    You quite simply have to lead a double life. One where you are politically correct and another where you are a racial nationalist. There is no other way.”

    Hence why I’m single and will remain so. I would never, for example, ever live a lie Hodd and living with a woman, who’s left wing, wouldn’t ever be a contemplation. How could you live, with someone, knowing that they believe in exactly the opposite of you? How, for example could you sit at a dinner table while she quoted the Guardian, talking about how awful the rape of so and so was, continuing on stating that the rapist was an immigrant, whom she helped in the ‘refugee’ centre, as she was a strong advocate for mass immigration and multicultural society? And then, to add insult to injury, went onto state that she forgave her attacker, blaming his actions on white racism?
    VOMIT!

    All that, just so you can get your ‘rock & roll’? Seriously?

    If you’re going to have a relationship with a woman it has to be with someone who will follow you implicitly into whatever venture you make, your rock and strong supporter of your views. I’ve had so, many occasions, worse now I’m getting older, of women throwing themselves at me, not just for sex, but relationships, courtesy of the failed reality of feminism and them seeing their chances of children and happiness end, because they’ve pursued a career all their life, they’ve got older and the door’s almost closed. As for those past fertility, they’re simply desperately seeking someone, before the reality hits them that they’re ‘used goods’, no longer wanted, psychologically damaged, past their ‘sell-by-date’ has beens, destined to a future of loneliness, with no one to love them, most certainly their apartment sold and put into an old folk’s prison.
    Just the other night, New Year’s Eve I was chatted up by someone I hadn’t seen for 30 odd years and her cousin. Both certainly in their mid to late 40’s. It’s becoming an epidemic.

    But it’s not just the fact of waking up with someone with completely the opposing mindset as myself, I could even sleep with them! Other than one drunken, one night stand, 6 years ago, I haven’t had sex in almost 12. I have absolutely no care for it, for just the very reasons explained. How could I even begin to contemplate having sex with a woman, giving my love to her, when she’s an advocate for essentially the utter demolition of her own nation and civilisation? The desperation of men today is only paralleled by their stupidity.

  113. Dainagon says:
    @22pp22

    Hi,

    I’ve been browsing your post history, and it seems like we have some things in common. I’m a little bit younger– 30 years old– but recently relocated back to the West for a graduate degree after having lived in Japan for a year and a half. It has only been 3 months but I am regretting the decision immensely. It appears you used to work in academia and lived in Japan? Might there be an email I could reach you by if I was seeking advice? Per the contents of the above article, I cannot actually reveal what I think to anyone around me. Thanks,

  114. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Skeptikal

    Which Craig Nelsen realized, as is evident in his response. (The comments from Sean are often hard to understand.)

  115. Anon[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @MLK

    Jew spotted.

  116. When I met my wife, she had just started college and had already been thoroughly indoctrinated with all kinds of fashionable nonsense that was then current. Family members were surprised that I was dating a “college liberal-type” (the term “snowflake” had yet to be coined). But… she was (and remains) beautiful and—flattering to my ego—considerably younger than me.

    There were clashes, mostly smaller ones, but a few larger ones that could have ended most relationships. Clearly we had divergent cultural and political beliefs. At the time, I was still smarting from a prior long-term relationship that had descended into acrimony, mostly as a result of me being too yielding and deferential to the former little lady. Not wanting to have to endure a similar ordeal, I stuck to my points. Many years later, we’re very happily married, and often find her to be even more extremely conservative in her views than even me.

    The thing with women is that they’re not as headstrong as the pop media would have you believe. As soon as they come under the sway of a charismatic man who is a fine lover, they’ll be happy to listen to you and shape themselves according to your beliefs. I make the latter point about being a good lover not out of personal vanity, but out of honesty. For a good lover, most women are willing to follow them without question. The importance of sexual prowess cannot be underestimated, but there is more to being a “good lover”. Namely, attentiveness, warmth, and security. Without all those things, one risks becoming an anonymous lay, so to speak.

    Interesting article. Things seem worse than they were when I finally left the dating market, but there is always hope to someone willing to work for it.

  117. Bill P says:

    Jews have been opposed to Christianity since Jesus began his ministry, so Jewish hostility is a given. The examples over the millennia are too numerous to list, but Christianity held up fairly well for a long time.

    What changed? It wasn’t the Jews, who have always struggled against Christianity, so it must have been something else. My bet is that it was the Christians themselves.

    I am convinced that our problems are mainly internal. I didn’t used to think so, but on looking back from my now middle-aged perspective, I can’t deny it anymore. The behavior of the mainly middle-class Christian Americans I’ve observed over the years has been far from ideal. In most cases, Jews had little or nothing to do with it. Many Jews have certainly profited from this bad behavior in all sorts of ways, and that isn’t something they ought to pride themselves on, but I can’t honestly say they instigated it.

    I don’t think there is any way forward if we don’t recognize how deeply flawed we are – all of us – and make some effort to change that. A good first step is looking at ourselves. When I look back at some of my own past behavior I cringe. I can take some consolation in the fact that I received next to no moral guidance from my parents and therefore am not entirely responsible, but all the wasted time weighs heavily on me, and I am constantly anxious on behalf on my own children lest they fall into some of the traps I did.

    So I look at this focus on Jews as largely useless, and often counterproductive. It is enough to know how they feel about Christianity and other peoples in general, and the Christian scripture makes all that perfectly clear.

  118. @22pp22

    Jesus, that sounds like a truly horrific upbringing. Hearing something like that makes me appreciate all the more mine, which was rigidly—and ultimately liberatingly—traditional.

    You have my sympathy, truly, and I’m happy that you’ve triumphed in spite of it all.

    • Replies: @22pp22
  119. @Harbinger

    Hence why I’m single and will remain so. I would never, for example, ever live a lie Hodd and living with a woman, who’s left wing, wouldn’t ever be a contemplation. How could you live, with someone, knowing that they believe in exactly the opposite of you?

    There is more to a person than politics and women by nature are more prone to liberalism and egalitarian explanations. Expecting the right mix of politics or religion is being too picky in clown town.

    Fortunately my wife thinks liberalism is a crock of s— so it isn’t an issue.

    But I would still rather screw the opposition than be single.

    I’ve also turned around a woman’s politics with a roll in the hay.

    A lot of these feminists are really just bitter and short on male attention. Women have a harder time being single but this is a taboo in our gender denying age of stupidity.

  120. I get it. I know what you mean. And I agree it happens.

    But you can’t say “liberal” things around bunches of conservatives either. It used to be worse. Everybody was conservative, and so you couldn’t say anything, really.

    Here’s what you don’t understand. It’s called the Clarification. I keep trying to make you understand it. But you refuse, in the typical hidebound dyed-in-the-wool denial mode of all conservo-liberals.

    Here is the Clarification: The Left is just as bad as the Right. And the worst of the Left are even worse than the worst of the Right. Which is really, really bad, because the worst of the Right are really bad.

  121. Sunshine says:
    @Just passing through

    What do you want to talk about, with other people? Any politically incorrect people I’ve known, have generally had a wide range of interests they could discuss, not just politics and memes or whatever. The problem is that most people don’t have any other interests, on either side. I mean normies that aren’t “right wingers”, but just generally “conservative”.

    I’d rather talk politics with another right wing weirdo any day, than have to pretend to be interested in the crap normies talk about. Movies, tv, celebrities, it’s all utterly boring. If this is all people can talk about, or will be allowed to talk about, in the new USSA, send me to the gulag.

  122. anarchyst says:
    @Bill P

    The difference between people like us and jews is that we learn from our mistakes, and live better lives as a result. Jews are so arrogant that they don’t make mistakes. Everything they do is based on “what is good for the jews”.
    In addition, jews are amoral and lack a sense of empathy toward others, especially those who are gentiles. Screwing over a gentile is normal behavior for a jew.
    THAT is the major difference between jews and the rest of us.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  123. Zumbuddi says:

    ahem

    couldn’t help but notice that It’s mostly guys hanging out their laundry while the women who have outed themselves have said, Yeah, I am in the Resistance, I accept the loneliness and isolation because the cause is just.

    Do men on this planet actually believe women should “stay at home and stay out of the voting booth ?
    Really guys?
    Why — ’cause you need your Momma to keep the basement clean for you?

    Are you gonna take care of mom when she’s 85 and wets herself?

  124. @John Johnson

    That’s because all they care about is their own pensions. They will tow any line to reach that end.

  125. Wally says:
    @John Johnson

    “Man haters” that try to act & look like men.

    Unhealthy & ridiculous to say the least.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  126. @I'm Tyrone

    What the dissident right needs is a complete rebranding.

    The DR are the bad boys of society because they don’t conform, and when could chicks ever resist bad boys? Why was Julia attracted to Winston in 1984? Because Winston was a bad boy, a non-conformist, and Julia was a rebel ‘from the waist down.’

    Here’s to being bad in 2020!

    This is actually so stupidly genius that it could work.

    If what I call the others (people that know the mainstream right/left is based on the same lies) started a new group that took pride in being bad and not conforming I could see that actually working. Negative media coverage would completely backfire.

    I think there also needs to be a break from anything described as alt-right and dissident right. Not just to stop feeding the media red meat but because many of us are technically to the left of the mainstream on a lot of economic issues.

  127. 22pp22 says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    My upbringing did not feel terrible at the time. My father never abused me. I hope I did not give that impression.

  128. @Wally

    “Man haters” that try to act & look like men.

    They’re not all that way.

    I converted one and she flowered pretty well.

    She even had the “nice guy” liberal boyfriend at the time that she was trying to force herself to like.

    Picking up liberal women really isn’t a bad way to go. Kind of an amusing game actually.

    I’m married now but would do it again if I was single.

  129. J.W. says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    “I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American Negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the Negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him.”

    H.L. Mencken

  130. CanSpeccy says:
    @anarchyst

    The difference between people like us and jews is that we learn from our mistakes, and live better lives as a result.

    LOL. What complacent fatuity.

    Jews are so arrogant that they don’t make mistakes.

    That is a logical absurdity.

    Everything they do is based on “what is good for the jews”.

    I am sure few Jews are that consistently virtuous — from the point of view of other Jews. Also, the mentality of the most ethnocentric Jews is really no different from that of ethnocentric Christians. For example, Lord Milner, as Governor of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony (1902-1905) who said that the interest of the black must be sacrificed without limit.

    In addition, jews are amoral and lack a sense of empathy toward others, especially those who are gentiles.

    That is a silly generalization contradicted by anyone who has had any long-term personal dealings with Jews. Some are no doubt shits, as is true of some non Jews. Others have a strong sense of social responsibility to the community in which they live.

    Screwing over a gentile is normal behavior for a jew.

    For some, the psychopathic few, and they will no doubt screw a fellow Jew too.

    Presumably your comments were highlighted by the moderator in compliance with the Unz policy of maximizing anti-Semitism, here. A policy in accord with the needs of the most disreputable Jewish organizations such as the ADL, who are always glad of something to complain about.

    • Replies: @ivegotrythm
    , @anarchyst
  131. zimriel says:

    I just want to say, thank you for this post, Dr MacDonald.

    I am (a lot) more philoSemitic than anti-, or even indifferent; but I’ve been caught in the Left slime-machine, which cares more about fealty to the Left than even to whatever fashionable ethnicity (or other ‘identity’) the Left is coddling at the moment.

    We need to remember what is important, and we need to cultivate interpersonal ties.

  132. @Skeptikal

    Skeptikal, the initial conversation was about someone famous and important politically (by a certain point), Mr. Charles Lindberg. The author’s article made the very good point that women have a hard time if they are socially ostracized, or at least feel they are. You don’t think that could lead to problems?

    For those of us not famous or making a living in politics*, sure, if it’s just about who’s voting for whom this election, it’s not hard to get along anyway. However, we are talking about guys that get involved enough to receive the wrath of the ctrl-left in their local communities, which is a point not hard to get to anymore. Just a truthful remark about too many “refugees” being settled here, or about the real reason your kids will not be going to that local school, to the wrong person (and don’t get me started on Facebook, etc.) is enough to get the other side up in arms against you and your family.

    Wives don’t like it when the kids end up inadvertently getting involved. That can happen no matter how much you try to keep them out of it. “Why can’t you just fit in?” “You’ve made it to where I can’t even go to the grocery store without getting a look?” Should the women just stop worrying about these looks, whether real or not? It’s in their nature – they can’t.

    Serious involvement in trying to save one’s country stresses the women out to no end, even if you don’t go as far as busting the family budget doing it. Most will never understand the seriousness of it until there is a war going on or it has gotten really personal. They simply do not have the imagination to extrapolate from the small things changing today to a different and terrible world of tommorrow.

    .

    * BTW, I wrote up a couple of paragraphs about the now-divorced pundit couple Ragin’ Cajun James Carville/Mary Matalin in this old post “Pundit vs. pundit during the slow death of the Lyin’ Press”. I don’t think that type really has any big principles, so I doubt that’s why the two split up. They’d say whatever it takes to stay on TV.

  133. @22pp22

    I’m sure your father meant well. The important thing is that you’ve managed to overcome. That’s laudable in and of itself.

  134. @Abbybwood

    Thank you Abby. That asterisk pointed to the following facetious footnote in that original Peak Stupidity post:

    * I hope I am not too out of date here with my pricing. I’d be perfectly fine with women of the current day paying $4.25 to get their hair fixed up like Valerie Bertinelli, but One Day at a Time Valerie Bertinelli, with a rear-end to match of course.

    300 to 500 dollars, though! Yowsa! We’ve gonna need to raise those tax brackets again, I’m afraid.

  135. John Johnson: “If what I call the others (people that know the mainstream right/left is based on the same lies) started a new group that took pride in being bad and not conforming I could see that actually working. ”

    The thing is, non-conformist just for the sake of being non-conformist doesn’t cut it. The bad boy gets the girl because he’s a dangerous non-conformist. In the minds of many women, dangerous = sexy. Mock rebellion by advocating scandalous ideas while running away as fast as you can from taking action on them = not dangerous = not sexy.

    Also, it should never be forgotten that women are, above all, status seekers. They acquire status by attaching themselves to a man. But in the culture at large, the vast majority of the dissident right is low status, which acts as a chick repellent. This might in theory be counteracted by being dangerous, but that would involve ACTUALLY being dangerous, not just pretending.

  136. Sean says:
    @villamalcontenta

    I could have made more of an effort to pare it down, yes. The intention was to get across that the policy of a country is tectonic and overdetermined when it comes to preventing rivals gaining in relative power. If you think America was a leaf blown in the British and Jewish wind in WW1 and WW respectively, then I can see the sense in saying so in a pithy unfinished sentence.

    Lindbergh only had to say the Jews were one of the forces driving the US into WW2, and what he thought was the main driver became irrelevant. Kevin McDonald’s main point is about the internal American political and cultural environment.

  137. Anon[151] • Disclaimer says:

    Unlike a lot of people here, I think it’s a very good idea to cut all the liberals out of your life. Why? Because while everyone is focusing on the “Wah, snivel, I’m all alone bit,” did it ever occur to you that you’re inflicting the same feelings on the person you cut off? Some liberals don’t have any real friends except for that one conservative person in their life that they’re always annoying with their snide talk. When you cut your liberals friends off, you subject them to greater social isolation and teach them the lesson that their beliefs are weird and unacceptable.

    Liberals need that lesson.

    Liberals don’t marry or have kids at the same rate as conservatives, so they can easily fall into a situation in which they have no one there for them at all. When you punish a liberal with social isolation, you start applying pressure on them to abandon their wacky beliefs so they can have friends again. Do it. It’s a good lesson to inflict on them. You need to tell liberals they are crazy and unreasonable, and then cut them off. Applying social pressure is a very useful skill to know.

  138. @Constant Vigilance

    Good hearing from you Constant. Don’t pay attention to some of the commenters Not all of us males perceive you as “whining”.
    There is a long time dissident right guy name of Sam Dickson who says(I’m paraphrasing) ” I want to talk about race. That is the issue for our movement. If you’re a feminist or a homosexual, come on in. The issue is white identity which does not preclude these things”. That’s the attitude we whites need if we are going to build an effective political movement and not just a chat room. A lot of these guys just want to go back to a time when “real” men ruled the roost. Well if “real” men had done a good job of it, we wouldn’t be where we are today, You stick around. We need you.

    • Agree: Rosie, Liza
    • Thanks: Constant Vigilance
    • Replies: @Constant Vigilance
  139. awry says:
    @AaronB

    Reputation is important in all societies. The difference is that

    This contrasts with societies in the rest of the world, where moral status is filtered through kinship connections. The Western culture of moral reputation worked well over long stretches of historical time, but in the contemporary West, a hostile elite has achieved control of the media and educational system, and they have managed to corrupt mainstream Christian religious sects. This hostile elite has used its power to create a moral community in which White identity and interests have been demonized. Standing up to that places one outside this moral community and has major psychological effects.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  140. R0O0FL says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    ROFL, why can’t more right wingers be like you? You cut it directly to the truth, as harsh as it is.

    Unbelieveable how many so called “dissidents” are deluding themselves while fervently claiming to stand for the truth.

    They really are shopkeepers and burgeoise, afraid of losing their comfort, or “privilleges” as the left says. In this regard, the left is right about us.

  141. Rosie says:

    And men’s reproductive prospects are far more linked to being part of a dominant group, so men are far more concerned about politics and the distribution of power. Men tend to suffer more when there is an alien takeover: history is replete with men being slaughtered and women taken as wives and concubines by the winners (as happened with the Indo-European invaders of Europe and elsewhere, Genghis Khan and the Mongols, etc.).

    This is unhelpful and divisive, and I’m not even sure it’s true. If your all your male relatives are murdered and you are enslaved, who suffers more? It’s a petty question to ask to be sure, but since we’re asking it, I suppose I would rather be murdered along with my sons.

    On the dissident right, gender differences are always used to justify suspicion of and hostility toward women. Men have a nasty habit of killing each other? Well, that just goes to show how honorable and morally superior they are!

    • Agree: Constant Vigilance
  142. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I do not believe the dissident right is low status.

    In fact, it takes a big brain to figure out the JQ.

    The jew myth is that far right white males are trailer trash. The truth is just the opposite.

    Lindbergh and Ford had genius IQ’s, even if the women in their lives were weak and stupid.

    The left doesn’t have anyone like Vince James, Richard Spencer, Ramzpaul, David Duke, Jared Taylor, JF, Henrick Palmgren, Kevin Macdonald, etc.

    The far right has the high class big brains for sure. The left has no intellectual firepower at all. CNN has faggots talking about dicks on New Years Eve. Talk about repellent!

    • Agree: Sunshine
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  143. Dunnyveg says:

    Out here in rural Texas, we also have the PC pressures, but in my experience there are a lot of women, even middle class women, who are as attracted to that outlaw image of a man who lives by his own code as any of their working class sisters. This is especially true if we possess the knowledge and verbal facility to run circles around the liberals, and a devil-may-care attitude about what others think. Also, being a Disqus refugee, almost half of my friends there are female, and their contributions to our cause in many cases surpass that of most men. These are the women American men need to be pursuing. Extreme differences in values are bound to cause problems in couples who would otherwise be the epitome of compatibility.

    I expect Kevin MacDonald’s views on how dissident right views are received rests in part on the fact that he lives in ground zero of post-American liberalism, California. The evidence is in that even more mainstream Republican conservatives no longer feel comfortable living there, and want to leave:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=conservatives+want+to+leave+california&oq=conservatives+want+to+leave+california&aqs=chrome..69i57.13807j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Let me go a step further and say that Americans remaining in these post-American utopias need to leave as soon as possible. It should be obvious even to the semi-sentient that this country is in the process of unraveling, liberals are on the war path, and they are above the same laws the rest of us obey; we have no more rights in a liberal world than a fetus does. This means one of two things are all but inevitable: A civil war that makes the first one look like a cake walk, a national divorce, or both. Americans remaining in these areas will be lucky to escape with their lives, much less the property they have spent lifetimes accumulating. It’s better to walk before liberals make you run.

    Another very important reason for Americans in blue states to relocate to a red state is that post-American liberals are in the process of making all Americans into a despised, pauperized minority, and our system means this happens by state rather than popular vote. So, while Texas is rapidly becoming as crowded as California, the remaining Americans in places like California are likely our only hope for seeing states like Texas don’t go the way of California. This is why we Texans need to welcome American refugees with open arms. It’s the only way we can continue being American.

    Finally, there is the matter of which areas to relocate to. What I have noticed here in Texas is that the big cities are relatively good places to make a living but terrible places to live while the rural areas are great places to live, but hard places to make a decent living. So, while many blue state refugees have no choice but to live in urban environs, those able to make a living in smaller towns and rural areas will likely be much happier, and more likely to find compatible spouses. I’ve lived for the last twenty years in a very rural area of Texas, and while the changes I’ve seen around here aren’t good, there are still a lot of Americans out here who hold traditional values, which are much more amenable to dissident right ideas. The more rural the better. The trick is to live in an area so remote that it’s not possible to commute to a big city, or larger town, for work. For those able make it to such a Shangri-la will find that the women still love strong men who recognize that our values are only worth what we are willing to pay for them. After all, rural Americans have held onto our values at great personal cost since the days of William Jennings Bryan.

  144. anarchyst says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Looks like I hit a nerve. GOOD!

    For your information, I highlight my own posts an responses. I don’t need the moderator to do it for me.

    Jews ARE amoral.

    Today’s latest examples of this are the jews in Jersey City attempting to drive out blacks. If any other group did this, there would be civil-rights investigations, ad nauseum–but not for jews.

    These jews are running around with bagfuls of money, attempting to “buy them out” while threatening to introduce drug dealers and criminal activity into the community.

    This is the same blockbusting tactic that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s in many large cities.

    Joan Terrell-Paige, the Jersey City school board member is absolutely correct in calling out the jews for their nefarious dishonest behavior.

  145. @Skeptikal

    Very likely here as well as other forums. Not all women online feel the need to signal that they are female. I’m often presumed to be male

  146. @DoniaBrava

    Thanks for your comment, Donia! I can be reached at [email protected]

    • Replies: @DoniaBrava
  147. A guy being anti-feminist, race-realist and tranny/homo-realist has a certain charm to liberal chicks because every women has a longing to change and improve her man. Chicks despise creepy, girlly male feminists, but they still think they can soften my approach. Eventually however, about the time I’m sick of their liberal/feminist horseshit, I’ve worn em down and they leave of their own accord. By then, I’ve had the best they got to offer anyway. It’s a consequence of living in liberal bastion. Liberal chicks ain’t built for the long haul..

    • Agree: Anatman
  148. AaronB says:
    @awry

    I believe KMac is saying that whites have an unusually strong propensity to follow the opinions of the wider society that is not composed of their immediate kin, whereas other groups – like the Japanese or Chinese, say – are noted for defying the social norms of the wider society and only conforming to the much narrower expectations of their close kith and kin.

    This is why white societies have always been characterized by mindless social conformity on a large scale and groups like the Japanese are noted for fractiousness and decentralization of power into small family groups which operate as independent centers of power.

    This helps explain why more socially disruptive ideas emerged from the non-white world, since whites were hampered by a globally unusual predilection for conforming to one centralized power structure – which, once captured by Jews, could easily control the behavior and thinking of the white population.

    It is a fascinating and original contribution to our understanding of the predicament of whites today, and I can’t wait to hear KMacs next elaboration of his central idea, which I am sure will be as unexpected as this one.

  149. I am trying (and failing) to reply to a lot of comments without flooding the board. Sorry, guys..

    @jack daniels

    You are right about the maladjusted people that any “extreme” ideology attracts, unfortunately, I am also on the more anti-social side myself.. To compound things, I also am located in an extremely blue state/chocolate city.. Being *conservative* is something of a rarity around here — far less holding the belief that the Third Reich will be vindicated by history!

    @Exile

    Thanks for the offer, but I am fundamentally uninterested in validating your notion that the fight for the preservation of European art, values, culture, history and bloodlines should be gatekept by anyone who uses the negro term “thot” (or anyone else for that matter)

    @J.W.

    Thanks for the illustration of my point!

    @jsigur

    Spot on. A house divided cannot stand. But whereas mobilizing racial hatred and resentment may be a distraction, creating division between the sexes is on a completely different level – we literally cannot survive as a species without male and female cooperation.

    @Anonymous[392]

    While it is tempting to chalk some attitudes towards white women up to jealousy, the belief that penis size alone is a major motivator for any significant number of women to race mix reflects a sex-education strongly influenced by pornography :\

  150. @Achilles Wannabe

    Thanks, Achilles. You are right, especially at this point, that we have to prioritize. If we do not embrace our identity first and foremost, we are doomed. We can worry about lesser issues at a later time.

    @I’m Tyrone

    Who benefits from the alienation of white men and women, and why would you want to drive white women into the arms of the mainstream media? Is keeping your online social club a complete circle jerk more important to you than the quest for the preservation of Greater Europe?

    @Gabby

    Poorer women have always had to work – be it in the fields, in cottage industries or coal mines. If you are concerned about the amount of time women are spending away from their families, which is a legitimate concern, the true blame must be placed on the process of urbanization and industrialization, which has alienated both men and women from more meaningful, direct labor, and benefits no one except capitalist oligarchs.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  151. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    A large percentage of men have right wing/conservative political views but it’s generally quite rare for women to be anything other than leftist and socially liberal.

    What nonsense.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion

    https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-men-women-poll

  152. Miro23 says:
    @Gabby

    What a mistake it was to allow women to vote or work outside the home.

    Without recommending it, it’s interesting to imagine what the US or the UK would be like with women still in the roles they occupied up to 1900.

    Taking it that they would be well looked after by their families, provided for by their husbands, and have a principal homemaking, social, child upbringing role, what would US society look like? I’m not sure – but there would certainly be more marriages and more children.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Rosie
  153. Fair point, Rosie.. I myself would sooner die than be forced into sexual slavery, and not all women have gone along quietly with being considered the spoils of war (suicide of German women during the allied occupation to avoid rape, for example)

    Further, inter-tribal or inter-racial conquests may only have happened a handful of times in a particular lineage over the entire course of human history.

    Another perspective that is questionable is Devlin’s view that women have less innate tribal loyalty due to conquest – yet it is inarguably males who are most often forcibly inter-breeding with the females of a conquered tribe. A great example is Brazil, whose mongrelized racial reality can be laid at the feet of European men who interbred with black and Native American women.

    I would like an explanation of why being raped by an ex-tribesman once or twice in a maternal lineage would significantly lessen tribal loyalty whereas being an active participant in race mixing would not.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  154. Rosie says:
    @Miro23

    Taking it that they would be well looked after by their families, provided for by their husbands

    Unless he decides to spend his whole paycheck at the tavern or the casino and knock her teeth out if she complains about it.

    This is the problem with the nostalgic right. Leftists look like hard-headed realists compared to dissident right idealism and faith in man’s nature.

    • Replies: @Liza
  155. Rosie says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    Another perspective that is questionable is Devlin’s view that women have less innate tribal loyalty due to conquest – yet it is inarguably males who are most often forcibly inter-breeding with the females of a conquered tribe.

    There is something seriously wrong with Devlin.

    First of all, his claim that women are particularly “hypergamous” is scandalously dishonest, the opposite of the truth:

    Second of all, he has a sadistic streak.

    The date rape issue can be solved overnight by restoring shotgun marriage—but with the shotgun at the woman’s back. The “victim” should be told to get into the kitchen and fix supper for her new lord and master. 

    • Replies: @Constant Vigilance
    , @Liza
  156. Charlemagne says: • Website
    @Mick Jagger gathers no mosque

    “What is to prevent a right wing militant from surreptitiously tracking an Antifa member back to his lair to deal with him later out of the sight of his Antifa friends and the friendly media?”
    Really? Do you not read the news and live in the West in the 21st century?
    A “right wing militant” would be hounded to the ends of the earth, arrested, and in a show trial, be convicted and sentenced to the maximum for the alleged offense(s), regardless if the alleged transgressions were civil or criminal in nature. Refer to Charlottesville.

  157. anon[205] • Disclaimer says:

    i only want to thank jews for bringing the love of my life to my country

  158. @Rosie

    I am not surprised, but somehow I forgot about this gem. What a sick piece of shit.

    He’s right up there with broken-clock (right twice a day) Roosh – an admitted Arab rapist who used underhanded and predatory means to fuck his way across Europe and wrote books about it, and is now embraced by the Alt Right. At least Roosh has seen the error of his ways (I think, I do NOT follow him.)

    I find it very disappointing that people who I respect, like Jared Taylor, associate at all with the likes of Devlin – having him speak at conferences as well as publishing him on American Renaissance.

    No one is perfect and people can change, but I find it hard to believe that someone who was similarly vocally anti-male would be embraced so readily by anyone pro-white without turning themselves in knots in repentance.

    • Agree: Rosie
  159. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    The thing is, non-conformist just for the sake of being non-conformist doesn’t cut it.

    Well of course there would have to be more to a movement than just image.

    But part of the problem is that the MSM will do their best to keep their coverage to a superficial level. They don’t want to explore arguments that undermine the narrative. A bad boy image aspect could in fact work to the favor a movement.

    Also, it should never be forgotten that women are, above all, status seekers. They acquire status by attaching themselves to a man. But in the culture at large, the vast majority of the dissident right is low status, which acts as a chick repellent.

    I think that is too much of a denigrating generalization. I have met too many women that would simply be happy with a companion to watch movies and eat dinner with. There are also women everywhere whose husbands are worthless. This internet oversimplification of women contradicts with observed reality.

    Any new movement has to attack asymmetrically. It can’t refer to itself as right or new right.

    • Agree: Constant Vigilance
  160. @Anon

    When you punish a liberal with social isolation, you start applying pressure on them to abandon their wacky beliefs so they can have friends again. Do it. It’s a good lesson to inflict on them

    You haven’t spent much time around liberals.

    They are not as confident as they try to project. Even CNN commentators with Harvard degrees get nervous when simple questions outside the script are asked.

    I would say around 90% of liberals can easily be flipped to independent.

    You just have to be tactful and not make them feel as if you are trying to push them right. Talk about how you used to be liberal but then learned about (whatever). This way it isn’t you that is challenging them. It’s information.

    There is also a false assumption by those on the right that liberals actually enjoy being liberal. A lot of them are in fact miserable and feel controlled. But in their minds you have to be either a liberal or on the side of Hannity. They often just need someone to show them that it’s ok to be independent.

  161. @Bill P

    @Bill P.,

    It is not a religious thing, It is the behavior of a foreign mafia taking control of our government, media, banking, and legal system. If you do not see the propaganda, then your mind has been manipulated by it.

  162. TGD says:

    I’m wondering why the professor chose Anne Morrow Lindbergh’ s sorrowful state to illustrate his point that actions of people around you can affect a person in socially harmful ways.

    The truth about Mrs. Lindbergh is that she knew or suspected that her husband was involved in the kidnap and murder of her 22 month old son, Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.

    Why would Lindbergh do a thing like that? Lindbergh was an adherent of the eugenics movement. Little Charlie suffered from macrocephaly and was probably mentally retarded. Lindbergh couldn’t allow such a defective individual to survive.

    Some questions: 1. Why are there no photos of young Charlie after 1 year of age? 2. Why did Lindbergh arrange to have his son’s remains cremated and scattered at sea? 3. Why was little Charlie’s skull bashed in to such an extent that he couldn’t be identified- his life could have been snuffed out easily with a blanket?

    Alternate history researchers speculate that Lindbergh hired the Jewish grifter, Isidor Fisch, to plan and carry out the operation. Fisch chose a low IQ German immigrant named Bruno Richard Hauptmann to be the “fall guy.” Meanwhile, Fisch took his portion of the loot (in valuable gold certificates) and high tailed it back to Germany leaving a little bit with Hauptmann as proof of Hauptmann’s guilt. Fisch supposedly died in a German hospital in 1933. That tied things up nicely for Lindbergh.

    Far from being a hero, Lindbergh was an arrogant scumbag who married Ann Morrow for her father’s money and later in life fathered 5 illegitimate children in Germany by several different females.

    • Thanks: Constant Vigilance
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  163. @Robert Dolan

    The far right has the high class big brains for sure. The left has no intellectual firepower at all. CNN has faggots talking about dicks on New Years Eve. Talk about repellent!

    I don’t think we all identify as far right but your point is valid.

    The comments here compared to Huffpo are a joke and they probably have a million more readers.

    It’s like comparing college essays to middle school poetry.

    Fox comments are trash as well.

    We might disagree with each other at times (or quite a bit) but one thing is for sure which is that the heavy guns are here.

    If those guns ever line up……. get out of the way.

  164. @Anon

    No, see, lefties have their cats. Their cats will always listen to them, if locked indoors long enough. I do feel sorry for the poor bastards … the cats that is.

    Really, I agree with your comment, but for me, it’s not like I’d ever get to be good friends with the type you describe to begin with. The people that have the same interests as me tend not to be lefty in the first place.

  165. @Constant Vigilance

    Wait until you have a knife at your throat or gun barrel sitting up against the back of your head. You can’t answer that otherwise.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  166. @Achmed E. Newman

    This was supposed to be part of my last comment – sounds weird otherwise, sorry:

    I myself would sooner die than be forced into sexual slavery,…

  167. John Johnson: “I think that [women are, above all, status seekers] is too much of a denigrating generalization. I have met too many women that would simply be happy with a companion to watch movies and eat dinner with. There are also women everywhere whose husbands are worthless. This internet oversimplification of women contradicts with observed reality. ”

    A woman may be willing to settle for considerably less than she wants, but they all want to acquire status by snagging a “catch”. Believe me, in the unlikely event Tom Cruise calls your girlfriend, she’s taking the call. The funny part is, for women, who’s considered a “catch” or not isn’t tied to the intrinsic worth or character of the man at all. Fame and/or wealth seem to be catnip to females, because any kind of fame, even negative fame, gives status. Even the worst criminals have their fan clubs, so long as they’re famous. Charles Manson was pulling young chicks even from prison at the age of 80. Also, consider that even an effeminate man such as Michael Jackson ended up with Elvis Presley’s daughter. Hordes of screaming girls attend the concerts of similar worthless musicians, or other celebrities, and many girls are delighted to make themselves sexually available to them. Or consider Jack Johnson, the negro boxer and heavyweight champion of the early 20th century, who was able to attract white women at a time before it became fashionable for white women to have sex with negroes. Why? Because of his fame, and the status it conferred on any female attached to him!

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Rosie
  168. Charon says:
    @Skeptikal

    Back then, we didn’t have a mass media insisting that anyone who’s not in perfect lockstep with the reigning ideology must be depersonned. Mere shunning is fairly minor in comparison.

  169. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    A woman may be willing to settle for considerably less than she wants, but they all want to acquire status by snagging a “catch”. Believe me, in the unlikely event Tom Cruise calls your girlfriend, she’s taking the call.

    You clearly haven’t spent a lot of time around women.

    Yes of course men with fame can attract women easily but that doesn’t mean all women are sitting around waiting for a celebrity or wealthy man to marry them or even thinking about it.

    Women in our society are increasingly lonely and aren’t sitting around and passing on men that don’t meet their standards. They continue to lower their standards in fact which is really a sad commentary on today’s men. It’s not uncommon now for women to put out on the first date or move in with a man without marrying him just so they don’t end up lonely. In many cases they are pretty much taking what they can get. The idea of them holding out for status shows you have a disconnect with most women. I’m sure that happens in LA but it is definitely not norm in rural America. The women here are happy to have a man that has a basic job and is drug free. Women are a lot more practical than depicted on television. Most want a family and will give up a lot to have even a chance at one.

    The real problem is that too many men today have been raised as wimps and aren’t willing to take risks when it comes to meeting women. I have quite a few single friends and I am always shocked by how few of them don’t ask women out at random. I have an awesome wife that my friends are jealous of but I didn’t score her by luck.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  170. Rosie says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Believe me, in the unlikely event Tom Cruise calls your girlfriend, she’s taking the call.

    More male projection. I figure it’s an attempt to cope with their relative lack of sexual self-control.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  171. @LarryS

    @LarryS There is a “home for people like you. Visit my website Larry. Explore my blog (mostly political) and read my commentaries.

  172. Rosie says:
    @John Johnson

    It’s not uncommon now for women to put out on the first date or move in with a man without marrying him just so they don’t end up lonely.

    The taboo on premarital sex has broken down in the evangelical community, because church-going men are in particularly short supply. They are demanding, and getting sex without marriage. Church authorities look the other way because they know they have no solutions.

    This is also contributing to the collapse of opposition to homosexuality in the same evangelical community. A believing woman who is “living in sin” cannot take a principled position against homosexuality, and they are accused of hypocrisy unless they are pro-gay. They have no answer for this.

  173. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Also…

    Hordes of screaming girls attend the concerts of similar worthless musicians, or other celebrities, and many girls are delighted to make themselves sexually available to them.

    Would civilization be a thing in the absence of women’s love of musicians?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278262608002303

  174. John Johnson: “You clearly haven’t spent a lot of time around women.”

    And you just as clearly haven’t got an answer to the examples I gave you. Closing your eyes won’t make them go away, Mr. Beta Cuck.

    John Johnson: “Yes of course men with fame can attract women easily …”

    So you admit I’m right. There’s some progress!

    John Johnson: “… but that doesn’t mean all women are sitting around waiting for a celebrity or wealthy man to marry them or even thinking about it. ”

    To be successful with women, a man doesn’t need ALL women. Nobody gets ALL the girls, not even Tom Cruise (or whoever). So that’s a strawman.

    John Johnson: “The idea of them holding out for status shows you have a disconnect with most women. ”

    I didn’t say they hold out for it, I said they want it. In fact, I specifically said the opposite. I said they all want it, but that they would settle for considerably less if they had to. Your wife settled for you, didn’t she? I rest my case.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @John Johnson
  175. @TGD

    Far from being a hero, Lindbergh was an arrogant scumbag who married Ann Morrow for her father’s money and later in life fathered 5 illegitimate children in Germany by several different females.

    Good, I hope that some of them got his balls. The guy flew across the Atlantic without navigation equipment.

    Sure he was probably an arrogant jerk but we could use a few dozen Lindberghs right now. We have enough moral orel “nice guys” that just watch tv and submit to liberalism.

    I’m beginning to believe we should rethink polygamy.

  176. Rosie says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I know manosphere creeps don’t care about evidence as their blind hatred of women is not based on rational considerations, but the evidence supports your view that women don’t really care all that much about status. From UR’s own Audacious Epigone:

    Beyond not being a criminal, drug addict, or chronically unemployed, women aren’t that particular. “Upper class” men hardly fare better than “middle-class” men, who hardly fare better than “working-class” men.

    Also, more and more women are marrying men with less education than themselves.

    I suppose I should be grateful that your interlocutor is at least admitting that women aren’t holding out. Of course, that is the assumption behind the claim that the decline of marriage and birthrates is AWF (all women’s fault).

    And pay no mind to the “beta cuck” slur. Misogynists argue like Jews. They use ridicule and shaming to humiliate their adversaries into silence. A New Year’s Resolution for White Men: Try to stop caring so much if people call them a mean name. At least for now, deranged woman-haters don’t have the power to unperson people.

  177. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    And you just as clearly haven’t got an answer to the examples I gave you. Closing your eyes won’t make them go away, Mr. Beta Cuck.

    Incel terminology. No one knows women like basement dwelling incels.

    I am happily married and you could be too if you dropped this incel garbage and actually spent time talking to women.

    The fact that you are even bringing up celebrities when discussing women shows how out of touch you are.

    Here is the real problem:
    https://www.abc.net.au/life/social-isolation-why-are-we-so-lonely/10493414

    We have a serious problem with birth rates in the US/UK and here you are talking about how women are all about marrying for status or they are forced to settle. In reality they are crying themselves to sleep.

    I didn’t say they hold out for it, I said they want it. In fact, I specifically said the opposite. I said they all want it, but that they would settle for considerably less if they had to. Your wife settled for you, didn’t she? I rest my case.

    You are pathetic in trying to lash out at me or mention my wife. Is it men or women that are more likely to resist marriage? Is your mind so disconnected from reality that you think all these women are constantly turning down marriage proposals and only eventually settle?

    I know a dozen women at my work that are single and they don’t care about celebrities or status. They would simply like someone to ask them out so they don’t feel like they are hopeless. I see their sad faces around the holidays and then I get on the internet to learn from incel sex experts about how they are all hypergamous wenches looking for money or celebrities.

    I am the one that is happily married, not you. Maybe you should take advice from someone like me that actually has experience with women and not base your outlook of women on the bitter meanderings of incels.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Adûnâi
    , @Anon
  178. John Johnson: “I am the one that is happily married, not you. ”

    Who wants to be married? Not me! And I’ve had sex with enough married women to know how easily your wife can be convinced to betray you. You may think you’re happily married, but the reality may be, and probably is, quite different. Certainly, it proves you were stupid enough to fall into the marriage trap in the first place. Now, good luck getting divorce raped!

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  179. Rosie says:
    @John Johnson

    FYI my comment number 178 was intended to be a reply to you.

  180. @ConstantVigilence

    I am with the posters who advise you to put your big girl panties on and quit with the feelbadz. To mangle an old Ozarker saying “there is nothing so disgusting as a woman who cannot cope” And a pox on the white knights.

    But sans the entitlement, you and, IIRC two other posters asked for help in finding like-minded souls. On Gab the Dangerous Women group is a place you can be your real self.

    For both gents and ladies living on a social desert, find a church that preaches law and gospel (Hint: The pastor calls Planned Parenthood the modern Herod on Holy Innocents Sunday) join, and dig in and get to work. Form a group dedicated to some thing you genuinely love: gardening, D&D, mysteries, etc. and use social media/library bulletin boards/Game shops to find fellow fans. Advertise as politics-free or based (Or require joiners to bring a tactical melon-baller.)

    Godspeed.

    • Replies: @Constant Vigilance
  181. Liza says:
    @Rosie

    Unless he decides to spend his whole paycheck at the tavern or the casino and knock her teeth out if she complains about it.

    Easy for people nowadays to smirk about the Temperance Movement, but it would never have started up if men had behaved themselves. The men who did lead decent lives didn’t seem to want to interfere with those who didn’t, so the women got going.

    • Replies: @22pp22
  182. Liza says:
    @Rosie

    Jeezus. Did Devlin really say those things? Perhaps there has been some misinterpretation? I knew from some of his stuff I read years ago that he had a bee in his shorts about women in general (I think he was left out or something), but not that bad.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  183. @Constant Vigilance

    I’m right there with you.

    On some things I’m far more right than my spouse. My MIL says I’m mean, selfish and harsh.

    When my aunt died, her kids lied to me and told me she was cremated, no funeral service was forthcoming. I found out 2 years later they had a grand ole funeral for her and guess who wasn’t invited? Myself, my brother and my spouse. Ironically, my brother is a liberal!

    If I were to meet women in church, I wouldn’t be able to keep my mouth shut when they wanted to do toys for blacks around Christmastime or blankets for the cold negroes in Africa.

    • Thanks: Constant Vigilance
  184. Rosie says:
    @Liza

    Jeezus. Did Devlin really say those things? Perhaps there has been some misinterpretation?

    It actually makes perfect sense from his point of view. He doesn’t think women should be going on dates. The point of going on a date is to get to know someone and see if you want to pursue a relationship, but according to Devlin:

    Sex is too important a matter to be left to the independent judgment of young women, because young women rarely possess good judgment.

    One of the curious things about manosphere creeps is that they will tell you girls become women ready for marriage at 16, 15, or even 13. Then they’ll tell you that these same girls aren’t capable of choosing their own mate because they’re too young to have good judgment. They’re both children and adults at the same time.

  185. @Rahan

    Regarding not pushing friend and familial boundaries, maintaining a dignified reasonableness while taking opportunities to notice and point out things from time to time is the long-term approach. Plant a seed, keep it warm with authentic honesty and empathy, let clown world fertilize it with regular application of dung, and it will be more likely than not to grow into a new tree bearing red-pill fruit. Respectability politics is hated by the woke, so occupy that ground that they have ceded and it will bring credit to the views that one shares with others.

  186. @Overgrown Hobbit

    I am with the posters who advise you to put your big girl panties on and quit with the feelbadz. To mangle an old Ozarker saying “there is nothing so disgusting as a woman who cannot cope” And a pox on the white knights.

    You mean the solitary misogynist troll? Nice. Misery loves company, I guess.

    But sans the entitlement, you and, IIRC two other posters asked for help in finding like-minded souls. On Gab the Dangerous Women group is a place you can be your real self.

    God forbid that a woman feel “entitled” to participate in pursuit of the truth.

    This is not a hobby – it is fundamental to our survival as a people. If you seek a male-only space, maybe start a bowling league or something.

  187. @Harbinger

    I think that political difference shouldn’t ever come between friends or family even if they sometimes find themselves on different sides of the firing line.

    In a long gone past when I was far more sociable I actually used to prefer left-wing politics and ideologies but preferred right-wing friends. I found that right-wingers were far more honest, trustworthy, and honourable people than left-wingers, some of whom were utterly despicable, immoral, untrustworthy, and scum as human beings, with notable exceptions of course. I was even surprised when some extremely right-wing neo-Nazi and fascist acquaintances, whom I was endlessly disputing with, turned out far more helpful and supportive when I needed it, and better friends than I could ever expect. It’s about respecting other people to hold their own views.

    Anyway people change their own views and I’m sure you may have changed yours over the years. Just look at more recent events. Imagine if someone on the alt-right dumped their friend because he/she suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome only to himself turn very anti-Trump soon after considering how Trump turned out and to have the anti-Trumper tell him “I told you so!”. Sure they may have different reasons for being anti-Trump, but it seems ridiculous that this guy that they both now hate should have come between them and destroyed their relationship. Ideas and relationships are interactive and evolve anyway and it would be a shame, and boring, if everyone thought the same. Or just look how many on the alt-right, so called confirmed “islamophobes” because of their opposition to immigration and the islamisation of their countries, are expressing condolences and mourning the passing of Qassem Soleimani, a general of the Islamic Republic no less, murdered by Trump they helped to elect. Certainly more than many liberals and left-wingers. It’s not so straightforward.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Harbinger
  188. Rosie says:

    Misery loves company, I guess.

    Indeed. These misogynists love to make others as hateful and spiteful as themselves. Notice comment number 180. Dr. Robert Morgan actually attempts to sow seeds of mistrust in a marriage. How low can you go?

  189. tomo says:

    “..Westerners create societies made up of close family, friends and associates, as well as strangers where moral reputation is critical for fitting in…”

    In my experience it’s not so much moral but conformist.
    In my 14 years or so I’ve spent in the US (99% of my friends are’democrats’) I have never met any American who actually genuinely thinks that it’s bad that their country wages so many illegal, genocidal etc wars.
    They don’t care about morality at all. Even worse, they deliberately avoid even talking about it, or digging deeper into what even they know are lies and totalitarian brainwashing
    They just care about appearing similar to others and I think they got this slavish cultural attribute (basically a widespread lack of confidence they try to cover up with MANIA) from early religious brainwashing (better described as child abuse).
    The totalitarian MSM and confidence-destroying predatory marketing, as well as chemical assault on Anglosheeple via GMO, caffeine, sugar etc in everything they consume further amplifies the mental sickness.

  190. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Who wants to be married? Not me! And I’ve had sex with enough married women to know how easily your wife can be convinced to betray you.

    Taking pride in not wanting to be married. As if the problem is women and not your lack of having one.

    Even if you distrust women it still makes more sense to shack up with one that pays half the bills. But incels can’t see that and amusingly delude themselves into believing that being alone is the best possible outcome.

    What is your doctorate in anyways? Certainly not something involving numbers if you think it is wise to be part of a political minority and needlessly insult half the population.

    Furthermore if you actually had experience with women you would know how loyal and useful they can be to an organization and how it is poor strategy to denigrate them as a whole.

    The top tier of women are in fact quite useful. They are more submissive to authority if they feel they are valued. They will surprise you with ingenuity normally associated with top level men. Your experiences are probably more with the cruft. You would be surprised by how many women behind the scenes don’t care for the status quo. Liberals would have constant nightmares if they knew the politically incorrect thoughts of dissident women.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @anon
  191. @Commentator Mike

    In a long gone past when I was far more sociable I actually used to prefer left-wing politics and ideologies but preferred right-wing friends. I found that right-wingers were far more honest, trustworthy, and honourable people than left-wingers, some of whom were utterly despicable, immoral, untrustworthy, and scum as human beings, with notable exceptions of course.

    There is something else I would add which is that right-wingers are typically more fun to be around. Left-wing activists can just be down right boring as they expect conformity everywhere. They are constantly trying to control their words and behavior while expecting everyone to do the same. Right wingers will crack jokes about everyone including themselves. Tasteless at times sure but leftists are just suffocating.

    The leftist women also typically don’t respect their husbands or boyfriends if they are left wing. This is what I really hated about living near liberals. The men submitted to liberalism and the women in return treated them like garbage. Women simply aren’t naturally attracted to weak and submissive men. It was also amusing to hear a liberal woman talk negatively about her right-wing boyfriend despite there being single liberal men everywhere.

  192. Harbinger says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Respectfully, I’m going to have to disagree Mike.

    I simply do not have time for people, who are wilfully ignorant of reality, who choose sit on the tree bough and saw away at it.
    Mike, what I’m talking about here is not some spat about capitalism differences, or some other trivial argument, but the wanton destruction of the western civilisation, courtesy of left wing insanity and to a point right wing stupidity.
    Guaranteed, there will be far more within the left who happily sit in front of the TV, open up their newspaper, turn on their radio and go to the movies, who will gorge on propaganda and hatred of white people, promoting the dogma that we’re all evil and whiteness needs to go.

    I can’t listen to their stupid arguments, defending those who should not be defended, promote their LGBTQ+ crap and happily support immigration, when they haven’t the common sense to realise that if the most popular boys name is Muhammad in the UK, then it means certainly, towards the end of this century, the UK will become an Islamic enclave and they will have carte blanche on how this country behaves.

    I’ve always been predominantly right leaning to left leaning, simply because I realised a very long time ago that no one has any authority over anyone unless they give their consent. I have always opposed the state. I have always been for freedom of the individual and 100% anti authoritarianism and state control of society. I’ve been this way all of my life. Maybe I was naturally gifted to have common sense, I don’t know, but I was always the round peg amongst the square ones.

    Two of my sisters are left wing and I have nothing to do with them, whatsoever. The pair of them are just fruitcakes and that’s it. Guaranteed when civil war comes I won’t be there to protect them, firstly because their insane beliefs have created the situation and more so, they will most certainly end up being victims of some immigrant they all supported should be let in. I’ve never been close to them. I’ve never been close to any family member come to think of it. “As the saying goes, you can choose your friends, not your family“. You may think this cold, but then when you grow up in a family who aren’t around you don’t develop bonds with them. And worse, when you find out they’re insane left wing loons, then it’s even more reason to avoid them.

    Who am I going to support? The patriotic fellow Briton, whose ancestors died so I could be free and live in the greatest civilisation ever created, or a family member who’s effectively pissing and sh*tting all over the graves of those ancestors, promoting the mass immigration of people who have nothing to do with me or my people and installation of multi cultures that will result in the death of the indigenous one?
    It’s a bit of a no brainer Mike.
    Maybe you’re lucky to have had a close relationship with your family but I never got that luxury. most of them are selfish, ignorant, lefties promoting Armageddon.

  193. Harbinger says:

    Regarding women today and the debate between Dr Robert Morgan, John Johnson and Rosie:

    I would like to start off by stating that courtesy of years of feminist brainwashing and indoctrination of young women, cultural Marxism of the rest of the public, propaganda through the msm, political legislation to destroy culture etc, there has been a HUGE shift in how women behave and how people behave in general towards one another. Because of this, there has been a natural happening, within men, called MGTOW.

    MGTOW is an acronym for ‘men going their own way’ and it essentially involves men no longer having relationships with women. The ‘true’ MGTOW’ are the monks, that is they do not have any sexual relations with women either. However, it has become accepted that there will be men who will have sex with women, but not get into any relations with them.
    The true MGTOW is a man who follows his goals and remains courteous and polite to women and people in general. He won’t be a brute, or a boor, but he will stand his ground in debates with women and most likely be attacked as a sexist or a male chauvinist, which is always the first slur words a woman will use when losing a debate with a man.

    What I will state is that certainly, within the MGTOW community (not a movement, but a philosophy, a happening) there will be INCELS (involuntary celibate) and PUA’s (pick up artists) who will heap as much vitriol and hate upon women for various reasons. This is not the behaviour of the real MGTOWS.

    So why did MGTOW?
    Well, John Johnson likes to state “I’m happily married” but then so is everyone until the divorce, when the state grants the female, theft of a large chunk of her husband’s finances, along with assets and alimony. It’s widely known that marriage is the ‘happiest’ day of a woman’s life and on what I’ve just written, it’s no wonder as to why – marriage is an instant guarantee, to the woman to take half of everything you own when she gets bored, finds another love, decides to move on or a combination of all three.

    Added to marriage, there is also the case of #MeToo which has led to strings of sexual assault allegations from women, to men, in the workplace, resulting in men losing their jobs and worse, careers. This has now led to not only managers stopping mentoring women, but also men being alone with work colleagues, avoiding getting into a lift if a woman is inside, or leaving if a woman enters etc. They’re simply being careful. Considering that the law will always lock a man up, the minute a woman says she’s been raped/sexually assaulted, then men today have had to be careful. Added to #MeToo men also know how easy it is for a woman to cry rape, destroying their careers and in many cases life. I had a friend who was falsely accused, kicked off his university degree and it was dragged through the courts for 4 years, where it was found she lied. Nothing happened to her at all. No charges were brought by the court for wasting of court of police time, let alone perjury.

    And finally, women today, I would pretty much say most women under the age of 50, are essentially men with vaginas. They have lost all feminine qualities and sadly the only thing they offer in any relationship is sex. That’s it. They can’t cook, won’t cook, can’t clean, won’t clean, can’t darn, won’t darn, can’t knit, won’t knit…..the list goes on.
    But moreso, what the real problem is is bonding. Courtesy of women casting caution to the wind, deciding to follow a career path, they end up spending their late teens and twenties, the time when they have their highest sexual market value, bouncing up and down on as many dicks as they can. Shocking statistics state that many young women aren’t just sexually active in their early teens, but by the time they reach 21 they’ve had well over 50 sexual partners, some double that.
    They fail to understand the gravity of the situation; women (and men) who constantly sleep around are incapable of bonding.
    Just the other night, I was chatted up by two single women, around my age. One of them complained that she wished she had the love her parents and grandparents had. I asked one “did they meet when young and couple?” she said yes. Both never slept around, both were each other’s first and only love. There was none of this feminist “go off, explore the world and find yourself” crap, roughly translated as jump into bed with as many men, from as many races as you possibly can. There was simply the natural progression of man finding a woman, coupling, having a family and loving one another.

    Although MGTOW is a perfectly natural reaction to female hypergamy and more so, far more protection from the state than men, what has happened to women most certainly is not.
    You will find that those MGTOW around are overwhelmingly right wing leaning. The left is full of the soyboys, NPC’s, feminists etc who ironically are the exact opposite of the alpha males that the women want. The MGTOW are the alphas who’ve simply decided that you’re far safer sleeping and having a relationship with a hand grenade than a women today. I also forgot to mention that because so many women are sexually active today, sexually transmitted diseases have now moved up a level to super strength, that medication is unable to cure. This is also another reason as to why many men are abstaining from sex.

    Thankfully, I’ve passed all that madness. I’ve been single now for 12 years, since I was 36. I have no longer the desire to couple with a woman. The reality is that most younger women are just insane. They all have children. Those in their 30’s are now becoming grandmothers and women in their late 40’s great grandmothers! Any man who gets into a relationship with a single mother is always going to be second best after the children. You’re simply there to be a provider. But what always amazes me about men who date single mothers is, if they’re going to leave the fathers of their children (many it’s multiple fathers) then how long before they leave you? Every relationship has a honeymoon period – 3 months. After that the woman looks at the man and thinks “this is what I have and I’m not getting anything else” when she looks at him. This is why women get bored, constantly seeking the fairy tale romance and that ‘successive’ male.

    I was reading above in one of the replies that John Johnson stated there are lots of women who would just like to be taken out and they’re not looking for a celebrity/someone famous. Rosie and John both disagree in Dr Morgan’s statement that if Tom Cruise called they’d be off. It is a simple fact that this is a reality. Heck, my sister loved Jack Nicholson, even when she was married to her then husband. She would go with him to the USA, hoping for a glimpse. Had he come up and done an ‘Indecent Proposal’ a la Demi Moore and Robert Redford, she’d have instantly said yes and run off with him.
    The sad reality is that women today ‘monkey branch’. That is, they’ll hold onto their current partner, but they’re always looking for something better. They’re weighing up their options and are simply staying with their current partner for security and of course, sexual reasons.
    Modern woman is no longer feminine, far from it. They gave up their femininity a long time ago.

    Lastly I will state that there will certainly be a good woman, of traditional values out there, under 50. However, these women are referred to in the MGTOW community as unicorns. They’re mythical creatures. Men normally give up after strings of bad relationships, searching through that hay field for the needle. Women have just lost it today. They are altogether different from my mother’s generation (now 86). I pity younger men and understand exactly why MGTOW. Heck, I’ve been one for the last 12 years!

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Rosie
  194. @JimDandy

    My social-climbing mother had very simple rules for us children:

    “Children are to be seen and not heard.”

    “Never discuss politics or religion or money with anyone–ever–no exceptions.”

    It seemed harsh at the time, but it was excellent advice.

    Now I am a retired old-timer, and my wife (who does have to listen to my comments on the “sensitive topics” ) views me as an amusing eccentric conspiracy theorist.

  195. 22pp22 says:
    @Liza

    I never cease to be amazed by human beings, both male and female. Take two former tenants in a property I now own in Australia. Both were NZ Maori. There is a head-shaped indentation in the wall – the result of one of the many bashings the man had inflicted on his partner. He was deported from Australia and she went back to NZ to join him – and get bashed again! Why!?!

    Spousal abuse occurs among all races but seems particularly common among Polynesians. There is an iconic NZ film called “Once we were Warriors,” which contains some truly horrific depictions of domestic violence. At the end of the film, the victim emerges bruised but triumphant, her self -respect intact.

    Some Maori women seem to drawn the conclusion that there is something noble in her behaviour. There isn’t. It’s simple – don’t stick around to get thumped.

    • Agree: Liza
  196. Rosie says:
    @Harbinger

    I think I’ll write a complete rebuttal to this post later on, but for now I’ll just note the total absence of empirical evidence anywhere in this comment.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  197. Adûnâi says:
    @John Johnson

    A woman sees herself lonely if she hasn’t had a chad inside her in the week prior.

    The Incel Theory is like the theory of evolution or of gravity – set in stone.

    And come on, the entire debacle of asking women out and setting up dates is faggy to hell and back. Talking to women is beneath any true man’s dignity. If there is no arranged marriage in sight, and if a man is not allowed to fuck/beat his wife, you should not be surprised at men’s turning to degenerate lifestyles such as travelling to Bali and getting Russian whores.

    Woman, to a very real extent, is the “natural born Jew” of the universe.

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/on-feminism/

    P.S. Of course, this is no excuse to men’s having led the West to this degenerate conclusion. But here’s the trick – women were given equal rights, and they proved without a doubt that they are whores. Verifiably so. Pure positivism.

  198. Adûnâi says:
    @John Johnson

    Taking pride in not wanting to be married. As if the problem is women and not your lack of having one.

    A man cannot be married if the institution of marriage has been abolished. No, I do not consider a country where women can initiate divorces, where men cannot stone adulterous women, and where women can sue their husbands for making love as countries where marriage is legal.

    Even if you distrust women it still makes more sense to shack up with one that pays half the bills.

    A woman that owns property is a whore.

    if you think it is wise to be part of a political minority and needlessly insult half the population.

    Women are not part of the population. The populus is men. Not goats, cows, women or gold. Those are inanimate objects.

    White Sharia or death. My people have chosen. Sadly, my people are not Somalis.

  199. Harbinger says:
    @Rosie

    I don’t need ’empirical’ evidence whatsoever to define the woman of today, sub 50 year old age group. I’m stating the blatantly obvious. She’s there in full view for everyone to see.
    Women have absolutely nothing to offer men today, other than their vaginas. It’s a sad reality, HENCE, why the MGTOW community is growing and a serious future problem for the populations of people in the west (and in Japan).
    But, be my guest, write a ‘FULL’ rebuttal, as a woman, of how you think woman are, from the point of a woman who doesn’t have ‘relationships’ with them and therefore not in the ‘know’ of how men feel.
    If you haven’t noticed marriage is plummeting. Men are becoming more estranged towards women. Population rate is isn’t just dropping, it’s going through the floor, meaning the white population is decreasing roughly by about 40% every generation, with a procreation rate of around 1.3.

    Men are avoiding women for obvious reasons: –

    1. You’re not worth our time as men are the catch, not women.
    2. You have nothing to offer us but sex.
    3. Most women are incapable of bonding courtesy of many sexual partners.
    4. Growing numbers of women suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder.
    5. Women are becoming more and more aggressive and violent.
    6. Marriage will ultimately lead to divorce and financial rape of the male (unless of course it’s childhood sweet hearts who’ve had no sexual partners, other then one another).
    7. #MeToo and feminism has led to a string of false rape and sexual assault in the workplace allegations.
    8. Men don’t want to bring up other men’s children and single mothers, in the west is becoming an epidemic.
    ……….

    I suggest you look into MGTOW. There is a massive change between the relationships between men and women and sadly, women are overwhelmingly to blame (albeit as puppets of Jews), not men. You (feminism), along with the blacks and the LGBTQ+ are the avante gard of the new world order.

    But, by all means, try to refute what I have to state. And again, remember what I wrote SUB 50 year olds. The above 50 year olds tend not to be like the younger generations with the reason being, they didn’t buy into the feminist crap of the 60’s indoctrination, at the state brain laundries.

  200. Harbinger says:
    @Harbinger

    I should also have noted, when it comes to women, about the concept of ‘love’.
    They don’t, well, not to men, to their children yes.
    Men are like dogs, loyal and will love a woman unconditionally. A woman, on the contrary, loves conditionally. This is not societal, but natural – she seeks a provider for her offspring and if he cannot provide she will move on. It’s called gynocentrism.
    This is why society is filled with single mothers – constantly seeking someone to provide for them and their children and currently ‘the state’ is winning, with the added bonus that women get to go out, have sex with as many different men as they want, without having to worry where the money’s coming from.
    The sad reality is that feminism taught women to STOP being women and be just like men – go out, drink, go away on holidays with one another, sleep with as many men as you want and if you’re unhappy about making the wrong choice – shout rape.

    The saying “men age like a fine wine, whereas women like milk” is an incredibly true saying. Sure, there are the exceptions , but overall a woman’s shelf life is 35. This is when she starts ‘hitting the wall’ (their looks start deteriorating) and stop being the women men are chasing, as they’re interested in the 20 year olds. Added to this fact, most women are now hitting the wall sooner courtesy of alcohol and other drug abuse. Men are now beginning to ghost women. The one night stands WILL become a thing of the past, courtesy of what is a growing concern – false rape allegations.
    As I stated in my previous reply, men are now seeing a relationship with women to be far more dangerous than a live hand grenade.
    To emphasise my point, just the other day, an associate of mine was in a bar. He’s in his late 40’s. He found out that his partner, around the same age, was sleeping around. She’d hit the wall years previously and could never understand what he saw in her, but anyway, she came into the bar, demanded his keys for his house to her keys and belongings, slapped him in the face and left. I then found out that upon entering, she smashed up his house, tried to steal his children’s Christmas presents and when the police arrived, not only broke her phone and tried to blame it on him, as well as say that he’d raped her previously, she then shouted rape when the policeman put handcuffs on her and arrested her.
    What this sadly is, is the future of woman who choose to play the career game, forget about stable families, go out drinking and partying into their 40’s and realise that they’re old has-beens that nobody wants. As stated, the more sexual partners, the less likelihood of bonding.

    Yes, I will admit that my last series of posts, on this thread were scathing attacks, upon women in society. I will also point out that I also emphasized NOT ALL WOMEN, but this behaviour is becoming more and more apparent in the under 50 generations – single mothers in their teens, grandmothers in their 30’s and great grandmothers in their 40’s. I’ve been researching this phenomenon for the last ten years. It’s a problem in the west and something that was carefully constructed to create a division between men and women, resulting in the destruction of the family unit and inevitably the western civilisation.
    I will stand by my words that women today, are no longer the catch – men are. They have nothing to offer men, as they do their best to behave just as men, courtesy of the masculanization of them. A man does not want a woman with a career and to raise her bastards. Women are seriously losing the plot and unless they find their femininity and start behaving like women should, then they have a lonely, single life ahead of them and a house full of cats, before it being sold and carted off to an old folk’s home. All you need to do is look at society and all the unhappy, lonely women, who chose careers, courtesy of feminist indoctrination, instead of the job nature made them to do – be mothers to raise children, as part of the family unit.

    • Replies: @Liza
  201. @Harbinger

    The results of your conclusions and beliefs have made for a sad existence, at least to me. Perhaps you may be right within the context of your personal experiences, but I can’t say that becoming a kind of eunuch is a fate that I’d welcome.

    While I agree with many of your points, I also believe that like many men of a right-ish persuasion today, you’re prone somewhat to apocalyptic levels of hysteria. As somebody in their late 30s now, things are nowhere near as bad as you make them seem. At least that’s the case hereabouts.

    Part of the problem is that men like yourself tend to only want to couple with White women, who at the moment occupy the top of the grievance pyramid; and due to that as well as already being sought after because of their general attractiveness, command disproportionate attention and power. White women, at least in my personal experiences, tend to be insufferable, extraordinarily finicky, and emotionally shallow. Not being White myself, I have had no problems with Hispanic, Asian, and Middle Eastern women. Of course, there will always be the “woke” ones that attempt to emulate their White peers, but one can always avoid them.

    Finally—and I mean this with all due respect—it may be worth considering whether you have much to offer the opposite sex to begin with. Myself, I’ve not exactly been blessed with matinée idol looks, to put it politely. Nonetheless, I’m very well read, conversant in a handful of languages, and know how to be funny with girls. At the end of the day, most women’s standards are remarkably low: Basically make them laugh, shower occasionally, and your foot will be in the door. I’ve seen older men than you bag younger women without having to entice them with money. Even for somebody your age, it really isn’t too hard.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Harbinger
    , @Rosie
  202. anon[631] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson

    He’s a Doctor in Bacteriology.

    Do you dare to imagine what it would be like to be… the last man on earth… or the last woman?

    Alive among the lifeless… alone among the crawling creatures of evil that make the night hideous with their inhuman craving!

  203. Harbinger says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    I think I need to reemphasise my previous point. I do not seek any relationships with women. I am most certainly NOT an INCEL, whatsoever, in the least. Quite the contrary, you state:

    “Myself, I’ve not exactly been blessed with matinée idol looks, to put it politely. Nonetheless, I’m very well read, conversant in a handful of languages, and know how to be funny with girls.”

    I could say the same for myself, although I’m above average in the looks department. I’ve never had any problems around women, whatsoever and many are more than happy to have relationships with me. I do regularly turn down ‘sexual’ advances and while that may seem arrogant, I’m simply telling you the current situation that I’m in. If I go out, with friends, then guaranteed, I’ll most certainly be approached by women ranging from their twenties upwards. As stated I have absolutely no desire to be with them, to have sexual intercourse and any kind of relationship, other than a friendly chat. That’s it. Heck, I even took to growing a massive beard to dissuade women’s advances, but they still come into my company. And even though I’ve ridiculed a large portion of the under 50’s generation, I do show courtesy and respect to them, when in company, that is of course, if they show the same back. If they choose to be obnoxious then I don’t suffer their intolerant company.

    Again, I thought that my previous reply would have made you realise that I am not seeking a relationship with women and that not choosing to seek a relationship with women does not mean ‘incapable’ of having one. I could, have relationships, with many women should I choose. On New Years Eve, there were at least 5 opportunities of just that, on a plate, had I wanted it. Again, it sounds exceptionally arrogant, but women who get older, are getting lonelier. These women were all in their mid 30’s to mid 40’s with one in her 50’s. I think it’s sad, but I’m just not interested. I’ve done all the sex I need and procreated, no longer ever needing to be near a woman’s sex organs. It’s just the way it is Nicolás. I’m actually quite amused that you think I’m a desperate 48 year old, who can’t get sex because I’m useless at conversing with women. It’s very much the opposite. And it’s the reason explained, in my previous replies, as to why I do not have relationships.

    Believe it or not, I have the utmost respect for women and do not see them as masturbatory aids, which sadly they (and men) have become today. The constant pursuit of pleasures of the flesh has turned them silly in the head, losing the real goals in life and protection of their civilisation and nation. E Michael Jones has written and spoken extensively on pornography as a weapon. And quite frankly, pretty much every man and woman who’s having sex, for the sake of sex, is pretty much promoting masturbation, albeit with another.
    Ironically I come from the UK that was renowned for ‘No sex please, we’re British‘ in the past, but courtesy of Jewish pornographers, it’s now very much the opposite. Britain is now a sex obsessed land, albeit that most of the product, of those sexual encounters is either being aborted or becoming the children of single mothers.

  204. Rosie says:
    @Harbinger

    He won’t be a brute, or a boor, but he will stand his ground in debates with women and most likely be attacked as a sexist or a male chauvinist, which is always the first slur words a woman will use when losing a debate with a man.

    These words are not “slurs,” though they may be used as such. Their meanings are as follows:

    Sexist: We’re different.
    Male Chauvinist: We’re different and men are better and/or more important.
    Misogynist: We’re better than you, and you’re despicable.
    Psychopath: Adunai, above.

    Sexism doesn’t really bother women. The other things do bother us, FYI.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146167218781000#abstract

    Well, John Johnson likes to state “I’m happily married” but then so is everyone until the divorce, when the state grants the female, theft of a large chunk of her husband’s finances, along with assets and alimony. It’s widely known that marriage is the ‘happiest’ day of a woman’s life and on what I’ve just written, it’s no wonder as to why – marriage is an instant guarantee, to the woman to take half of everything you own when she gets bored, finds another love, decides to move on or a combination of all three.

    There are a number of bizarre, indeed incredible premises assumed in this analysis.

    First, the claim is that the marital property belongs to the husband. That assumption in turn rests on the idea that a woman’s contribution to the household is worth less than a man’s, even though life cannot go on without mothers.

    The second bizarre premise here is that women leave men with substantial income and/or assets for no reason whatsoever. Men insist that women become progressively less desirable as the years go by, but somehow think they can do better than their current husband of means.

    And not only that, but muh biased courts are railroading men who dindu nuffin. Men come to divorce court totally innocent despite the fact that they are overwhelmingly more likely to commit crimes, get addicted to drugs, gamble, etc. Somehow, in the one particular case of marital misconduct, we’re supposed to believe men aren’t more likely to misbehave.

    I mean, I’m not saying these claims are necessarily false, but they certainly require some sort of evidence.

    I had a friend who was falsely accused, kicked off his university degree and it was dragged through the courts for 4 years, where it was found she lied. Nothing happened to her at all. No charges were brought by the court for wasting of court of police time, let alone perjury.

    My buddy knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy…

    Anyway, I kid. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your buddy was hard done by. What are the chances of this actually happening to a man nowadays?

    The odds are infinitesimal.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2017/05/11/study-89-of-colleges-reported-zero-campus-rapes-in-2015/37431949/

    That said, I personally would not object to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard in college disciplinary case. Of course, I have told my sons that the best way to avoid getting falsely accused is to not pump and dump.

    They can’t cook, won’t cook, can’t clean, won’t clean, can’t darn, won’t darn, can’t knit, won’t knit…..the list goes on.

    If this is what you want in a woman, you are right to avoid relationships.

    Let me tell you how this works. I spent my youth doing things that young people are supposed to do: reading books, traveling, getting to know myself. I met my husband in my early twenties and we married soon after. My inability to cook was completely immaterial to him. He just, you know, liked me. Imagine that!

    Fast forward. When I had kids, I had to learn how to cook, and now it’s one of my favorite pastimes, both fun and useful.

    Said no woman ever: “I would date this guy, but he doesn’t know how to maintain a heat pump.” We grow, we learn.

    But moreso, what the real problem is is bonding. Courtesy of women casting caution to the wind, deciding to follow a career path, they end up spending their late teens and twenties, the time when they have their highest sexual market value, bouncing up and down on as many dicks as they can.

    You assume that women wouldn’t be open to marrying earlier if their male peers were interested. This assumption is unwarranted.

    https://psychcentral.com/news/2012/04/18/lack-of-men-leads-women-to-choose-career-over-family/37500.html

    I think the unstated premise is that women should marry older men, because men their age can’t possibly be expected to commit without sowing their wild oats or something. Women don’t want to marry older men, and we’re not going to accept the double standard.

    https://image.businessinsider.com/51e55045eab8eaf71c000000?width=800&format=jpeg&auto=webp

    Rosie and John both disagree in Dr Morgan’s statement that if Tom Cruise called they’d be off. It is a simple fact that this is a reality.

    Oh well that clears it up.

    To sum up: The MGTOW says, “My way or the highway.” He doesn’t want to share or risk anything, and he wants to call all the shots. Otherwise, like a petulant child, he’ll take his ball and go home.

  205. @Harbinger

    Thank you for your reply. I understand better where you’re coming from.

  206. @Rosie

    If this is what you want in a woman, you are right to avoid relationships.

    Obviously, choosing a wife solely on the basis of their skills, as if one were hiring a housekeeper, is no better than choosing one for mere sex appeal. At the same time, however, neither is a good loving woman who also happens to be handy a detriment to a solid marriage.

    Women don’t want to marry older men, and we’re not going to accept the double standard.

    My wife, who is younger by a shade over a decade, married me; she apparently accepted this “double standard”. We’ve both been happy and inseparable for years; we hardly ever quarrel. A lot of women in my past did so too. After the age of 25, it seemed only girls aged 18 – 21 were interested in me. So never say never.

    I think among White women there is a strong, puritanical stigma against wide age disparities in relationships. (White women in general seem prone to residually or post-Christian puritanism and hysteria.) That phenomenon doesn’t really exist among Hispanics and Asians, even among the higher social classes, at least not to the degree that it occurs with Whites. But I speak only for myself and my own experiences.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  207. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    Obviously, choosing a wife solely on the basis of their skills, as if one were hiring a housekeeper, is no better than choosing one for mere sex appeal.

    I’m glad we can agree on something.

    I think among White women there is a strong, puritanical stigma against wide age disparities in relationships.

    It’s not a question of Puritanism. It’s the fact that women in their twenties who marry men in their thirties are tacitly accepting the idea that it’s ok for men, but not women, to be sluts, unless they’re marrying a 35 year old virgin (doubtful).

    Of course, I wouldn’t rule it out altogether. There are always going to be special circumstances. People change.

    Most women don’t think it through quite like that. They just don’t want to marry much older men.

    Your experience may be different, but that doesn’t change the overall fact of the matter: Young women want to marry a man their own age or just a little older, and that is what they usually do.

  208. Harbinger says:
    @Rosie

    A stated in my replies, there will be no need for me, whatsoever, refuting your argument. Again, if you would care to recall what I wrote, the sub 50 generations, women who married their childhood sweetheart (no non martial sex and thus able to bond) and NOT ALL women. However in your case you see women being attacked and off you go defending the sisterhood.

    However I did skim over your reply and simply laughed. You are looking at how women are from the context of a woman, in relation to how you think men see you. I suggest you listen to men telling you how they see women today.

    To finish I strongly suggest you look to see what a woman has to offer a man if she can’t cook, clean, sew, knit, darn etc? All a woman is, in this case is a friend with ‘benefits’. Whom if the fool decides to marry then he’s just signed over half of his earnings for what is an incredibly expensive, live-in escort, worse because at least with an escort you’re getting what you paid for. In this case, putting a roof over her head, paying for her lifestyle, while she watches daytime TV, gets fat and nags you when you get home. And people wonder why marriage is plummeting?

    Oh and by the way, I read the other day that feminists in the US (I think) wanted a ban on sex dolls, precisely because MGTOW. Yup, angry women who offer men nothing in a relationship don’t want men to have sexual relief with a plastic doll (no mention by them on vibrators and other female sex toys for women) because they’re angry many men would rather play with a plastic doll instead of them.
    I think sex dolls are a waste of time quite frankly, but the sex doll market is growing and it’s not just the incels who are buying them. Women today, with their attitudes, are becoming obsolete in the relationship market. And you’re post goes a long way proving as to why.

  209. It’s the fact that women in their twenties who marry men in their thirties are tacitly accepting the idea that it’s ok for men, but not women, to be sluts, unless they’re marrying a 35 year old virgin (doubtful).

    That’s one way of looking at it. Another would be that each sex implicitly recognizes that having a long list of sexual partners can mean different things depending on the sex of the person in question.

    We can all agree, I think, that when it comes to finding a sexual partner, it’s a seller’s market for women; has been so since time immemorial. Prostitution, the oldest profession, wouldn’t really exist were this not true. For a man, however, procuring a sexual partner of the opposite sex is a much more difficult feat. Were this not the case, there would be no widespread problems with incels, NEETs, hikikomori, and so forth.

    It costs a woman of even humble appearance comparatively little effort to rack up a long list of lovers, should that so be their desire. To be able to do likewise a man must possess some sort of unusual sexual capital beyond the average male. Not only in terms of bedroom prowess, but also in that undefinable trait once referred to as “animal magnetism”. Therefore, a significant portion of women—especially younger ones—find this quality attractive; they seek to imbibe of its allure; to understand why it is that this male individual is so desired. They may not articulate this feeling in exactly this way, of course, but it operates on a subconscious level nevertheless.

    When a man encounters a woman with a long list of lovers, they immediately recognize—whether they express it openly or not—that this resulted from little or no special skills in seduction.

    Women themselves are very often the ones that most enforce the slut/stud paradigm. And because of the power they can wield from the uneven sexual capital it derives from, they often are the ones that most benefit from it.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @John Johnson
  210. Rosie says:

    no non martial sex and thus able to bond) and NOT ALL women.

    If women with premarital sexual experience are unable to bond, why is it that divorce risk decreases with age until after 25?

    However in your case you see women being attacked and off you go defending the sisterhood.

    How dare I? Constructive criticism is welcome. Lies and scapegoating are not.

    To finish I strongly suggest you look to see what a woman has to offer a man if she can’t cook, clean, sew, knit, darn etc? All a woman is, in this case is a friend with ‘benefits’. Whom if the fool decides to marry then he’s just signed over half of his earnings for what is an incredibly expensive, live-in escort, worse because at least with an escort you’re getting what you paid for. In this case, putting a roof over her head, paying for her lifestyle, while she watches daytime TV, gets fat and nags you when you get home. And people wonder why marriage is plummeting?

    Well we also bear and raise your children, so there’s that. (I know, being a self-centered degenerate, kids don’t matter to you. It’s all about muh dick and muh dinner.)

    I assure you, stay at home moms don’t watch soap operas. We usually watch umi zoomi or something like that.

    It occurred to me recently that men exaggerate sex differences so that they don’t have to acknowledge that their wives work. Caring for kids just “comes naturally.” Dealing with the temper tantrums, the power struggles, etc. It’s all just a walk in the park for us, amirite?

    Oh and by the way, I read the other day that feminists in the US (I think) wanted a ban on sex dolls, precisely because MGTOW.

    I’m all for sex dolls. Any man that would want one is certainly not husband material, anyway. Of course, in demanding those, they are basically confirming everything feminists have ever said about men.

    I’m hopeful that future generations of men will be much improved by the absence of the MGTOW gene.

  211. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    Another would be that each sex implicitly recognizes that having a long list of sexual partners can mean different things depending on the sex of the person in question.

    True or not, that has nothing to do with the morality of the situation. Premarital sex is either right or wrong. I happen to believe it is wrong.

    You believe that women hold the power in the relationship. I disagree. Men have at least as much power. When women have sex outside of marriage, it’s usually because they feel they must in order to get the intimacy they crave. Do you not think that women have evolved to have a strong urge to be physically close to men? Our needs are as compelling as yours, only different.

    It does us no good whatsoever that it’s easier for us to get what you.

    Women themselves are very often the ones that most enforce the slut/stud paradigm. And because of the power they can wield from the uneven sexual capital it derives from, they often are the ones that most benefit from it.

    I’m not interested in any benefits that derive from unjustly stigmatizing other women.

  212. To sum up: The MGTOW says, “My way or the highway.” He doesn’t want to share or risk anything, and he wants to call all the shots. Otherwise, like a petulant child, he’ll take his ball and go home.

    Excellent description.

    If these incels really didn’t like women then their ideal would be to exploit them, not avoid them and bash men that are married.

    MGTOW is just the inverse of the feminist “I don’t need a man” and I’m going to prove it by writing a 20 page article in the NYTimes to convince myself.

    If you really didn’t like women then wouldn’t you just avoid them? Why would you spend so much time online talking about how marriage is a bad idea? Or trying to bash men that are happily married? I thought these incels are on the side of men??

    Even if I really didn’t like women I would still keep one around like a pet. I wouldn’t be lonely just for some dork ideology. If I didn’t like talking to women then I would marry a foreigner.

    But I actually like women and I like talking to them. Of course they have flaws in their nature but so do men. There is no ideal gender. Men are better for fishing and women are better for snuggling after a movie. If you really get bothered by men being happily married or have doubts then the problem is with you, not us.

    • Thanks: Constant Vigilance
  213. @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    It costs a woman of even humble appearance comparatively little effort to rack up a long list of lovers, should that so be their desire.

    But that isn’t what most of them desire. They are more likely to want commitment so the balance isn’t entirely in their favor.

    They can’t just take a random bar date and convert that to a commitment.

    So they have to be careful and selective.

    And because of the power they can wield from the uneven sexual capital it derives from, they often are the ones that most benefit from it.

    They supposedly have all this immense power and yet polls show they are less likely to get what they want compared to women before the 60s.

    The real problem is that not enough men are asking them out and instead are just sitting at home and posting online about how awful women are.

    I’m sure some of the he-man women-haters club here will be ironically posting about the problem of low White birth rates in another thread. Blaming Jews probably.

    Once we get a real movement going the whole MGOTW ideology will fall to the wayside. As with feminism it has too many contradictions and leans towards destructive tendencies that are motivated in resentment.

  214. @dingo.jay b

    When I moved from Hawaii to Orange County, California, in 1986 I had the same idea. Finally, I’m in the land of the skinheads, I thought. Disciplined, etc. To me the ideal skinheads are helping people change flat tires, helping little old ladies cross the street, you get the idea. Instead the skinheads with the black boots fought the skinheads with the red boots, and it was just more hyper-individualistic BS. They helped no one, and were mean to, basically, anyone within reach which means they were the biggest trouble to other whites.

    Let’s assume McDonald’s theories are correct. Then this would mean that whites, Aryans, however you want to term them, still have several 1000s of years to evolve past the gutting each other with rusty swords stage.

  215. @Bragadocious

    Such behavior was condoned and even encouraged in Germany in those years. F*ck around all you want, because what mattered wasn’t whether your parents were married, but how purely white they were.

  216. Valka says:

    “ If what he said is the truth (and I am inclined to think it is), why was it wrong to state it…”

    Still a good question

  217. @Rosie

    Premarital sex is either right or wrong. I happen to believe it is wrong.

    Oh, dear.

    Men have at least as much power.

    I don’t disagree. It’s just that this power structure is a dynamic one that complements (and antagonizes) the other. Women exercise the advantage in attraction and sexual capital; men tend to have the upper hand after seduction. Although this isn’t always true (cf. Tanizaki Junichirō’s Naomi.)

    When women have sex outside of marriage, it’s usually because they feel they must in order to get the intimacy they crave.

    Maybe. But in my experience, they also often have sex simply for the pleasure of it, without need of moralizing or rationalizing. They like what they like.

    I’m not interested in any benefits that derive from unjustly stigmatizing other women.

    You must be among the rare exceptions. Most women do, are glad to do so, and will step over others in order to attain them. Wasn’t it Mencken who said that a “misogynist” was merely a man who hated women as much women hate each other?

    It seems that your view is rooted in the unshakeable belief that women are intrinsically good and virtuous. I disagree. Women are no less flawed than men. Only difference is they look better.

  218. John Johnson: “Even if you distrust women it still makes more sense to shack up with one that pays half the bills.”

    I’m not that desperate for money.

    I have to hand it to you though, Johnson. When it comes to women, you are one of the most naive, delusional ninnys I’ve ever encountered on the internet. Your white knight act on this thread has been pure comedy gold. But I must say, you’re a bit of a scoundrel, too, aren’t you? Your endorsement of polygamy is a tipoff. Does your wife know about your polygamy aspiration? And how about those sad and lonely single girls at the office you mentioned. You’re keeping a close watch on them, and I bet you’d like to “comfort” them, wouldn’t you? Maybe you could start a harem. Is that what you fantasize about when plowing your fat wife with the pus-running sores? Yes, of course, I know. Never! You’d never ever “cheat” on your wife, and she’d never cheat on you. Neither one of you ever even thinks about sex with anyone else! Sure, I believe you. We all do.

    I pity that poor woman, and wouldn’t blame her a bit if she decided to step out on you. She probably finds your arrogance and condescension even more disgusting than I do, and she probably wishes she could, but figures no one else is desperate enough to want her.

    Looks like you’re stuck with her, and she with you. It’s a rough life!

    • Replies: @anon
    , @John Johnson
  219. @John Johnson

    But that isn’t what most of them desire.

    I never did say “most” did. All I said was they could if they should so desire.

    They supposedly have all this immense power and yet polls show they are less likely to get what they want compared to women before the 60s.

    The more financially independent and socially mobile one becomes, the more discerning one becomes with their choice of sexual/romantic partner. However, the Catch-22 of being a modern woman is that as their power increases, that of males diminishes. Women traditionally want a man who is at least their equal in social and economic standing. But with the pool of such men decreasing, women have less and less to choose from. On top of that, the vilification of manhood (think of “toxic masculinity”) makes many successful women wary of partnering with men, if not outright hostile to the idea. Then you also have a significant and growing contingent exhausted by the never-ending modern War of the Sexes and have dropped out of dating altogether, preferring instead to sublimate their desires for a man or children into career and pets. This phenomenon is a widespread one in East Asia.

    The real problem is that not enough men are asking them out and instead are just sitting at home and posting online about how awful women are.

    The fact that you do have a statistically significant number of men sitting at home and posting online about how awful women are would suggest at the very least that something is amiss. Even if their gripes weren’t real and merely perception, the fact that so many men feel this way merits acknowledgement at the very least.

    Once we get a real movement going the whole MGOTW ideology will fall to the wayside.

    I personally find the whole MGTOW thing to be silly; just the negative image of modern revanchist feminism. But what sort of “real movement” are you proposing as a viable alternative?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  220. @Constant Vigilance

    Expanding on Tyrone above, I will just say that Organized Jewry and the Plutocracy LOVE it that a lot of white dissident guys are so very old school masculine. The enemy knows we don’t have a chance if we alienate 51% of our race

    • Replies: @Rosie
  221. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    Wasn’t it Mencken who said that a “misogynist” was merely a man who hated women as much women hate each other?

    At any given moment, misogynists accuse women of either excessive ingroup preference (see the snide remark about “the sisterhood” above), or having an extreme hatred of each other. This is not at all unusual. The careerist/parasite thing is another one.

  222. Rosie says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    Expanding on Tyrone above, I will just say that Organized Jewry and the Plutocracy LOVE it that a lot of white dissident guys are so very old school masculine. The enemy knows we don’t have a chance if we alienate 51% of our race

    I won’t be surprised in the least if it turns out that some of the most notorious pigs in the dissident right turn out to be moles out to sabotage the movement.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  223. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    The fact that you do have a statistically significant number of men sitting at home and posting online about how awful women are would suggest at the very least that something is amiss. Even if their gripes weren’t real and merely perception, the fact that so many men feel this way merits acknowledgement at the very least.

    Do you feel the same about feminists?

    Anyway, do you think that access to porn might have something to do with men refusing to join a club that will have them as a member? Why should they settle?

  224. Bill P says:
    @Rosie

    Rosie, you are a real firecracker. Do you think any man could handle more than one of you?

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  225. anon[631] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Damn, Doctor, you killed him and you burned his body too! Fucking vampires.

  226. @CanSpeccy

    They’ve been doing that for years — actually decades

    Their evil is one long conveyor belt.

    The trans bullshit was half-a-year behind legal gay ‘marriage, ‘pedo probably 10 years behind trans.

    One knew never knows when the belt will accelerate.

  227. @anaccount

    Remember Satan Alinksy: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

    ZOG is not all-powerful. Gun confiscation will result in violent uprising. Even the SA town of (((Orania))) featured in your link can be destroyed by the black plague.

  228. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Your white knight act on this thread has been pure comedy gold. But I must say, you’re a bit of a scoundrel, too, aren’t you? Your endorsement of polygamy is a tipoff. Does your wife know about your polygamy aspiration?

    That fact that you even bring up my wife is downright bizarre. What the he-man woman haters club doesn’t get is how bitter you guys come across in practically everything you write. It’s no different than feminism where some lonely lib spends her time writing articles about how men aren’t worth the effort and how she is really truly happy drinking wine with her cat. The feminist doesn’t seem to get that we can all smell the bitterness when she pens an article like Why you don’t need a man to share the holidays as if that is what a happy person not needing the opposite sex would do with their time.

    I changed my views on polygamy because there are too many men that have decided to lock themselves away with video games and incel support clubs. Might as well let the aggressive men that aren’t afraid of rejection pass on their genes.

    Men’s feminism is just as bitter and self-destructive as traditional feminism. At least feminists at one point had legitimate complaints regarding law and access to certain professions. Men’s feminism just skipped ahead to rationalizing spending the holidays with a cat while blaming the opposite sex.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  229. “If your significant other is not an enthusiastic believer in the ideas of the dissident right”

    As a general rule one should not involve one’s female partner in political debates and discussions anyway, as is the traditional way.

  230. I honestly find the whole mgtow/men’s feminism movement to be embarrassing.

    It used to be that single European men were strong priests, mountain men, warriors, etc that found their own path.

    Now they need binkies and support groups to tell them that women are all meanies and not worth their time.

    Makes me wonder if the 1930s eugenicists were correct about Europe and the US diluting their strongest stock and outbreeding them with passive do-gooders.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  231. @Rosie

    Do you feel the same about feminists?

    I do. The difference between them and their male counterparts is that feminists’ criticisms are acknowledged and validated, while those by men are dismissed.

    Anyway, do you think that access to porn might have something to do with men refusing to join a club that will have them as a member? Why should they settle?

    When you say “club”, what are you referring to: Marriage or long-term romantic commitment? I do think that pornography has warped each sex’s views on their opposites, absolutely. There probably is a significant portion of men who prefer the simulacrum of porn over the real thing. In fact, what am I saying about “probably”?—I actually have a friend of 20 years who is such a pathetic creature.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  232. @Rosie

    At any given moment, misogynists accuse women of either excessive ingroup preference (see the snide remark about “the sisterhood” above), or having an extreme hatred of each other.

    Unfortunately, my first-hand experiences often bear the latter out to be true. Women can be vicious with each other, often for no good reason. Yet there never is any discussion of “toxic femininity”, certainly not in the mass media at any rate.

  233. Harbinger says:
    @John Johnson

    “I honestly find the whole mgtow/men’s feminism movement to be embarrassing.”

    I really, truly did not want to reply to you, because all previous debates have shown you be someone suffering from cognitive dissonance and severe lack of critical thinking skills.
    You are completely ignorant on MGTOW as you actually, foolishly believe that it’s the male version of feminism – masculinism.
    It’s high time you were educated (not the first time on this forum) on just what MGTOW is.

    MGTOW is NOT a movement. It is a philosophy, a happening a natural reaction to female gynocentrism. Why is gynocentrism a problem? It wasn’t in the past, as women remained married and understood that they were the property of their husband, who worked, fed, clothed and put a roof over their heads. Their duty, likewise, was to give him offspring, raise them and look after the house. It was a contract between the two. This was the family unit, the very fabric of western civilisation and all successful ones. When feminism came into being it was deliberately created to ATTACK the family unit (see the Frankfurt School of Marxist Critical Theory). There isn’t such a thing as equality between men and women. Women have their role in life – mothering, but those behind Feminism (Fabian Socialists of London’s Tavistock Institution) realised that by giving women the vote, allowing them into the workplace and positions of influence and power, not only could they tax the other half of the population, increase living costs and easily manipulate women into voting for whom they wanted them to vote for, they also took women away from their children, which the state then got control of for indoctrination. In one fell swoop, cultural Marxism was implemented which was taking complete control of the youngest generations, to bring about drastic change within that society.

    You are utterly oblivious to what feminism is about.

    MGTOW, unlike feminism has no agendas. It was not conceived by wealthy, change agent elites, quite the contrary. It was a natural reaction to the very movement created by them, to destroy the family and feminise the male.

    If you ran a company and employed a worker to do a certain task within that company and he didn’t you wouldn’t be very happy. You wouldn’t, for example, be happy if all he did was watch TV all day, eat food and not get on with his chores you’re paying him to do. Even though he signed a work contract, when it comes to firing him you then find you are taken to an employment tribunal, where you are then sued for at least half of your income, which he receives, are ordered to continue paying his salary for the next 20 years, even though he won’t be working for you and to top it off, gets to keep the building, you built, that he came to everyday and did nothing in.
    How would you feel?
    Would you want to continue your business?
    Would you want to employ another worker who may very well end up doing the very same thing again?

    What I’ve just described is marriage today.
    80% of marriages end in divorce. 75% are brought by women. You’re already married, which means that you’d most certainly be happy, were you to go up in an aeroplane, to take the parachute that has a 75% fail rate to skydive with.

    Now added to this, #MeToo and feminism has brought about women crying false rape as well as sexual assault allegation to men in the workplace.

    Then there’s complete bias in favour of the woman in the courts. The law states that if a drunk man has sex with a drunk women, he is breaking the law and she isn’t.

    The problem with people like you John Johnson, on this topic is that you are incapable of thinking. By marrying, you have opened up the opportunity for your wife to financially rape you, take your home and you family, having you pay 75% of your wages, to support her and your children, forcing you into a bedsit and a high possibility of suicide, especially if she decided to not allow you to see your children. Although this is illegal, most courts turn a blind eye to this behaviour by women.

    People like you would say “men who don’t marry women are weak” or “men who avoid relationships with women are simply incels and useless at chatting up women”. You are utterly incapable of understanding that women, can easily, should they decide that they shouldn’t have slept with that man the night before, call the police and accuse him of rape.
    In a reply to Rosie, I stated about a friend (not a friend of a friend of a friend) who was dragged through the courts for 4 years, lost his degree course at university, all because a woman filed a rape charge against him, proven eventually to be a lie. She was not prosecuted. No charge, whatsoever for wasting police and court time, nor for committing perjury. She remained anonymous. His name was all over the papers.
    That was one instance.
    Currently a woman I know, who happens to the be the partner of a close friend, has also filed a rape charge against a young man she met at a party. What’s worse is that I classed her as a friend. She had a fight with my friend and they fell out. A couple of days later she went out to a nightclub, where video evidence caught her performing fellatio on the ‘accused’. She went back to a party, where witnesses stated she was all over him and then she went to a room. The next day she called the police and said she was raped. She did this, obviously to try and repair the damage that would have happened to her relationship had she not screamed rape. My friend, the fool, is still with her. She’s lost a lot of friends because of this and the young man involved has pretty much said his life is over, continually maintaining his innocence.
    She is clearly lying and will most certainly be found to have lied, but nonetheless, this is how easy it is for women to scream rape and destroy another man’s life.

    Men who go their own way are simply incredibly cautious to the overwhelming power and control women have within society. There are women who are rebelling against feminism, clearly seeing the danger to the relations between men and women and many women are also now very much awake to MGTOW and putting up videos, on YT, speaking out as to why they very much understand why men are remaining celibate and remaining out of relationships with women.
    I could get any woman I want.
    I have no need to get any woman.
    I have procreated and the need for sex is no longer relevant in my life.
    I have been single for 12 years and will for the rest of my days. Women have no part in my life, that is, in the form of anything more than a friendship and/or in a working environment.

    Until the law changes and courts uphold the marriage contract, such as ‘falling out of love’ not a valid reason for divorce, as well as ending all financial settlements/custody automatically to the mother, more men will go their own way.
    Until women change and actually start offering men more in a relationship, other than their vagina, then more men will go their own way.
    Until women change and start respecting men, screaming rape or sexual assault, whenever they feel like it, more men will go their own way.

    MGTOW is simply men protecting themselves against unscrupulous women in today’s age, poisoned by feminism.
    I highly doubt you’ll understand a word of this John Johnson, as from what I’ve see of every reply you’ve ever made on this forum, in regards to the JQ, you simply haven’t the foggiest what’s going on.

  234. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    I do. The difference between them and their male counterparts is that feminists’ criticisms are acknowledged and validated, while those by men are dismissed.

    What feminists have done better than MGtards is that the former actually had a realistic, constructive agenda that everyone could sympathize with. To the extent that feminism has abandoned these reasonable, modest objectives, they don’t enjoy the support of the majority of women.

    https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-white-women-affirmative-action

    The MGtow have never done that. Their demands include:

    1. Barring women from paid employment so they are forced to marry a man they don’t want for a meal ticket (i.e. forced prostitution). Even in the Middle Ages, a woman could choose the convent.

    2. Abolishing alimony (the problem with that being that it would render the marital covenant totally unenforceable and meaningless).

    3. Bringing back slut-shaming. We’re not interested in that, because primitive, informal sanctions don’t come with basic guarantees of equal protection and due process of law, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as you all don’t want your life ruined on someone’s say so, we don’t either.

    In this regard, Sharia law has a certain appeal:

    24.2. The fornicatress and the fornicator – flog each of them with a hundred stripes; and do not let pity for them hold you back from carrying out God’s law, if you truly believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of believers witness their punishment.

    Fornication is either harmful or it is not. If it is as harmful as rape, as MGTOW imply when they claim ruins a woman’s ability bond, then it should be criminalized, with all the protections that go along with that.

    One thing I do agree with some of them on is no-fault divorce. I oppose it, and I am not alone. I’m not sure men would like the consequences of a return to fault-based divorce, though.

    https://www.gothamgazette.com/columnists/center-for-an-urban-future/523

    Now, I would very much like the MGTOW to come up with a realistic agenda. I certainly remain open to any constructive suggestions.

  235. John Johnson: “That fact that you even bring up my wife is downright bizarre.”

    I didn’t bring her up, you did. You’ve taken great pains to depict yourself as a “happily married man” and have been hiding behind her skirts all along. I’m just examining this “happiness”, and showing how empty it is, holding it up to a well-deserved ridicule.

    John Johnson: “Might as well let the aggressive men that aren’t afraid of rejection pass on their genes. ”

    Being a doormat and excuse-maker for whores isn’t my idea of aggressive. It’s cuck behavior; part of the problem, not part of the solution. Whatever inroads feminism has made in society has been due to white men like you, who give women the power to make or break your “happiness”. That is a big mistake.

    John Johnson: “Men’s feminism just skipped ahead to rationalizing spending the holidays with a cat while blaming the opposite sex.”

    Characterizing advocating a return to patriarchy as “men’s feminism” is a hilarious frame. Like I said Johnson, you’re comedy gold. Moar lulz!

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Troll: Rosie
  236. Sam J. says:
    @BenKenobi

    “…Ironically (perhaps?) her Israeli friend still associates with us…”

    That’s only so she can report back on her thoughts.

  237. Sam J. says:
    @Bill P

    “…So I look at this focus on Jews as largely useless, and often counterproductive…”

    Blah, blah, blah. We’ve all heard this before. Just ignore the Jews and work on…ourselves. Like that’s going to change anything, like working on the wallpaper of a house while the Jews undermine the foundations. Notice the Jews are big on telling us that, it’s our own fault, we should do this or that better or some other task that Whites should preform like monkeys to reform ourselves.

    There’s a long, long thread where I answered all these “work on ourselves” nonsense. An example I used was that if a dog has fleas he doesn’t need to learn to roll over or fetch he needs to get the damn fleas off of him. In this thread the Hasbara Jews pull out all the stops. It’s a very good education on the means they use to derail conversations, change the rules and emphasis of what the conservation is about in the first place and a big heap of them saying we should do all sorts on nonsense instead of the task that really needs done.

    The answer is to get rid of the Jews. It’s time to get rid of the Jews. Peacefully if we can get it but they must go whatever it takes. Here’s a link to the comment section and my first answer to the Hasbaras. If you put Sam J. into the search on your browser you can see how they attempt to derail the conversation through deflection and a lot of outright lies. I don’t always do this but sometimes I believe answering all their criticisms by pointing out exactly what they are doing can be instructive to others.

    https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/destroying-syria/?showcomments#comment-2174128

    The facts as they are is that every single country the Jews have gone to in any large numbers for thousands of years they have been thrown out of. It’s also a fact that the only cure for Jews is to get them away from you. Make them leave. Force them out. There’s no other action that has worked. You can look back at their history and that’s the only 100% sure and tried method to stop them.

    We should stop worrying about what the Jews are up to and get the smartest, most ruthless people we can find and come up with a plan to expel them by any means necessary.

  238. Bill P says:
    @Rosie

    Half of the problem is economic, and half cultural, roughly speaking. Marx would argue that culture is always downstream from economic conditions, but I digress..

    Being a young couple is very difficult today because of the cost of housing and the demands of the workplace. Childcare is more than a full-time job, and young mothers need support, but if their husbands have the kind of job required to feed and house a family they will not be able to offer much support at all.

    Young men in both white and blue collar jobs are required to work according to the business’ schedule, and lacking seniority often must work the lousiest hours. This leaves young mothers all alone with children, often with no help from relatives because boomer women are generally more interested in yoga classes and such than in helping with grandkids.

    It’s no wonder that so many young couples break up under this pressure. Many young women wreck their marriages as a way of forcing people to come to their aid. This often works in the short term, but the consequences down the road are dismal.

    So what’s a solution? Economically, I think dealing with the housing situation is most critical, then labor reforms. Young parents shouldn’t live with the specter of homelessness hanging over their heads, and companies should be forced to adopt family-friendly working conditions.

    Culturally, bring back fault-based divorce, incentivize two-parent households, and make single parenthood unpleasant for both parents.

    Remove domestic violence from family law and fold it into criminal law, where it belongs. If someone violently assaults his or her spouse, it is not a civil, but rather a criminal matter. Family law courts should not mix the two, because it encourages perjury and bureaucratic rent-seeking.

    Presumptive equal custody – the norm in much of the civilized world – should be standard in American courts. A parent who doesn’t want to care for the kid should pay child support, but not a parent who is both willing and able.

    Eliminate cash child support and replace it with vouchers/cards that can be used only for the child’s expenses.

    Withdraw child support when a custodial parent shacks up with a new spouse/lover. This alone would probably reduce family breakups by at least a third, and probably a good deal more.

    Aside from the issue of family law, I don’t think much needs to be done. Bad family law is most of what sustains hostility between the sexes. Men and women have natural, complementary roles as father and mother, husband and wife. If adopting those roles is rewarded by society, and rejecting them is consistently and impartially punished, men and women will find a way to make them work. Of course, there will always be exceptions for those who don’t fit into the roles, but they should be strongly encouraged to refrain from procreating.

    Finally, the entire industry that has grown up around family law should be uprooted and tossed into a mulcher.

    That’s a brief overview of my agenda.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke, Autochthon
    • Replies: @Rosie
  239. Rosie says:
    @Bill P

    Presumptive equal custody – the norm in much of the civilized world – should be standard in American courts. A parent who doesn’t want to care for the kid should pay child support, but not a parent who is both willing and able.

    I think this should depend entirely on fault. If a man leaves you for no reason, he shouldn’t be able to have your kids around some other woman for half the week. Likewise, if a woman leaves a man for no reason.

    Eliminate cash child support and replace it with vouchers/cards that can be used only for the child’s expenses.

    The problem with this is that household expenses cannot necessarily be apportioned as either pertaining to the child or not. Family courts are going to try to minimize disruption to the child. That means staying in the family home and/or going to the same school. Here again, fault should determine who gets custody of the kids, along with the house.

    Eliminate cash child support and replace it with vouchers/cards that can be used only for the child’s expenses.

    The problem with this is that a woman then won’t be able to get a new husband, because the new husband will be on the hook for supporting the children who aren’t his. Obviously, this may be perfectly fine, if the wife was at fault for the divorce to begin with, but if the husband was at fault, that would be a grave injustice. If the wife was at fault, she shouldn’t have the children to begin with.

    Again, it should be determined by fault. The fact is that most divorces settle out of court, because at least one party doesn’t want the judge to hear something. It’s like when the accused accepts a plea bargain. He does so because he thinks it’s the best deal he can get.

    And that brings me to another problem with no-fault divorce. It fosters paranoia. Your buddy’s cousin’s best friend tells you some sob story about he was railroaded in court, but doesn’t tell you about his own wrongdoing. Or, he doesn’t want to come right out and tell you that the kids get on his nerves, so he’d rather just pay the money. You walk away thinking that the system is biased against men.

    Everyone has anecdotes. I have plenty of my own. Suffice it to say that I have never, ever seen a woman walk away from a marriage for no reason. Literally, never. Quite the opposite. I’ve seen women try their best over years and years to get their husbands to treat them with minimal decency, to no avail.

    I’m not saying I know the whole story. I’m just saying you don’t either.

    There is generally reluctance to consider fault in custody determinations, at least explicitly, because the idea is that custody should be determined by the best interests of the child. But then, as far as I’m concerned, it’s in the best interest of the child to be with the innocent spouse, not the guilty one.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Bill P
    , @Autochthon
  240. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Also, with regard to this:

    Remove domestic violence from family law and fold it into criminal law, where it belongs. If someone violently assaults his or her spouse, it is not a civil, but rather a criminal matter. Family law courts should not mix the two, because it encourages perjury and bureaucratic rent-seeking.

    The problem here is that any fault-based divorce rule will encourage perjury and bureaucratic rent-seeking. There is simply no way to avoid this. You either accept that or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’re right back into no-fault divorce.

    You certainly can’t argue that domestic violence isn’t relevant to the best interests of the child, so any evidence about it is going to be heard regardless.

    In any event, I hope that something fruitful can come of this exchange.

    • Replies: @Bill P
  241. @Rosie

    What feminists have done better than MGtards is that the former actually had a realistic, constructive agenda that everyone could sympathize with.

    Feminists—women, at any rate—have the advantage of looking better making demands than men do. That and the fact that people, on the whole, tend to be more sympathetic to women than men.

    Remember that what you call a “realistic and constructive agenda that everyone could sympathize with” was not always considered so. It took a long time for these demands to be met simply because many people (including very often women themselves) felt they were anything but “realistic and constructive”.

    Barring women from paid employment so they are forced to marry a man they don’t want for a meal ticket (i.e. forced prostitution). Even in the Middle Ages, a woman could choose the convent.

    Preventing women from seeking out paid employment is a dumb idea, although it also can’t be denied that women are competitors for jobs. I think this ought to be acknowledged, rather than perpetuate lie that increased competition from women has not resulted in a zero-sum situation for men. In some industries, such as in academia and publishing, women hold a commanding majority of jobs.

    That said, even if somehow they were barred from obtaining work, how would that result in anybody being “forced” to marry anyone else? Couldn’t they still choose the convent? And weren’t they barred from many trades in the Middle Ages?

    Abolishing alimony (the problem with that being that it would render the marital covenant totally unenforceable and meaningless).

    Hasn’t modernity and late capitalism already rendered that covenant worthless for the most part? If two people should love and be devoted to one another, why would the elimination of alimony render their vows “unenforceable and meaningless”?

    Bringing back slut-shaming.

    Has it ever gone away? Women are just as guilty of that one as men.

    Now, I would very much like the MGTOW to come up with a realistic agenda. I certainly remain open to any constructive suggestions.

    Don’t hold your breath. Although their ideological antipodes are often no better. It’s just that their destructive or plain dumb ideas have the ears of crucial cultural gatekeepers, while the MGTOW people don’t. Whether this was always so is hard to discern, but at least today what each side has in common is that neither is interested in “realistic agendas”. Rather, they seem more driven by a primal need to antagonize and dominate the other.

    Feminists and MGTOW nerds can both take a hike.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  242. Liza says:
    @Harbinger

    To emphasise my point, just the other day, an associate of mine was in a bar.

    He had nothing better to do than sit in a bar and consume brain-wrecking poison. That is one major problem with white men and now women as well. No wonder white women are converting to Islam left and right. They may get treated like sht in a variety of ways, but at least the old man won’t come lurching home, puking and smelling, on a regular basis. They probably saw a lot of this in their homes as children.

    Women are seriously losing the plot and unless they find their femininity and start behaving like women should, then

    Oh, women did behave properly for centuries. But they were expected to just obey the lord and master, and not complain about anything, ever. Sorry, those days are gone. If some women decide that cats are better companions, well, let them be.

    A man does not want a woman with a career and to raise her bastards.

    Really? Could’ve fooled me. I know, and know of, more than a few men who were happy to find a woman with young kids. Why, I do not know. If my brothers married women with kids by other men, I would never speak to them again.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  243. @Rosie

    Hmm. Even I didn’t think of that. And I am pretty conspiracy minded. But it is frustrating. Times have changed. Technology has made traditional sex roles defunct.. Hate to sound PC but it is not ALL wrong. We are never going back in some ways. Even if we get our European country back, we are still going to have to deal with changes that would have happened anyway. Of course there are natural differences between men and women but in the new white republic we will still be arguing over what they are and what they mean. That is the way we are We are European individualists But we could UNITE on throwing out Jewish power and dethroning the plutocracy

    • Replies: @Rosie
  244. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    Preventing women from seeking out paid employment is a dumb idea, although it also can’t be denied that women are competitors for jobs. I think this ought to be acknowledged, rather than perpetuate lie that increased competition from women has not resulted in a zero-sum situation for men. In some industries, such as in academia and publishing, women hold a commanding majority of jobs.

    I agree with you that women are competitors for jobs. Her Imperial Majesty Queen Rosie the First will impose a very harsh progressive taxation regime to encourage women with well-off husbands to voluntarily leave the workforce, with assistance for liquidating any student loans.

    Men would be well within their rights to demand affirmative action in fields that women dominate. If we’re all the same, why are women so dominant in vet school. Don’t men love small furry animals as much as women? This is a legitimate grievance. Under representation of men is never considered a problem.

    Couldn’t they still choose the convent?

    Not in the way they once could. The Church can no longer afford it. Men have destroyed Christianity. Harsh, but true.

    Hasn’t modernity and late capitalism already rendered that covenant worthless for the most part? If two people should love and be devoted to one another, why would the elimination of alimony render their vows “unenforceable and meaningless”?

    Alimony is the assurance that women get that they won’t be dumped for a younger woman in their forties. If a man can simply walk away with no financial obligations and start a new family anytime he wants, then marriage is meaningless.

    Note that getting rid of alimony would be good for no one except rich old men looking to replace their wives like an old car. It would allow them to compete with poorer, younger men for mates. It would also encourage young women to marry an older man and “get while the gettin’s good.”

    Finally, you have already said that women compete with men for jobs. I agree that is true. If you want to encourage them to leave the paid workforce, you have to ensure they are protected from abandonment and old age poverty.

    Has it ever gone away? Women are just as guilty of that one as men.

    Yes, it’s pretty much gone away as far as I can tell.

  245. Rosie says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    Technology has made traditional sex roles defunct.. Hate to sound PC but it is not ALL wrong. We are never going back in some ways.

    I suspect that we are going into a very dangerous time. Automation is going to put tens of millions of White men out of work. My prediction is that the elites will attempt to channel their anger into a backlash against women to buy them off and secure the multicultural peace. If White men fall for this, that will be the end of us.

    In a White country, I think it would be entirely reasonable and appropriate for married women of means to forego paid employment for the benefit of another family in times of economic distress, but for the time being, any retreat from the workforce on the part of White women would just create a vacuum that would suck in more non-White scab labor.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  246. Harbinger says:
    @Liza

    “He had nothing better to do than sit in a bar and consume brain-wrecking poison. That is one major problem with white men and now women as well.”

    Drinking has long been part of western culture. Moderation is fine, whereas excess is a problem. It is not a problem amongst men, quite the contrary, men are consuming less alcohol than before. Women, on the other hand are drinking far more, hence the rise in obesity, courtesy of consuming jugs of sugary cocktails, not a single drink as women did when I was growing up.

    “Oh, women did behave properly for centuries. But they were expected to just obey the lord and master, and not complain about anything, ever. Sorry, those days are gone. If some women decide that cats are better companions, well, let them be.”

    Women not complaining? Seriously? You’ve never heard of the ‘clucking’ or ‘ducking’ stool? All women have ever done, since their inception is complain. It’s a regular past time of them. They’re not happy unless they’re moaning about something or other. Before I was born, bars, working men’s clubs, sporting clubs, private member’s clubs all were places where men could go to get away from their nagging wives. Women were not allowed in. It was a ‘male’ space. Nothing homosexual about it, whatsoever. Then the women, as usual, started complaining. They wanted into those clubs and so men’s private spaces were destroyed. Couldn’t it just have been easier to have created their own women only spaces? Nope, not good enough for them, just as the smoking ban wouldn’t allow bars to open up that were strictly for smokers. Women, as usual screwed it all up, demanding their ‘acceptance’ into places they weren’t welcome. It was a continuation from school days when young boys played with the boys and the girls were always wanting to come in and see what was going on. Ah the joys of feminism. This wasn’t about equality, far from it. It was about destroying men meeting with one another to socialise out of the way of women, who weren’t getting any attention from them.

    “Really? Could’ve fooled me. I know, and know of, more than a few men who were happy to find a woman with young kids. Why, I do not know. If my brothers married women with kids by other men, I would never speak to them again.”

    Yes there are, I agree but regardless, my point was about MGTOW, who not only do not have relationships with women, but if they did, they would never raise another woman’s child. Now while I feel sorry for the children, what I’m amazed about is the mentality of the man. Why? If she can dump her child/children’s father/s then it won’t be long before he’s shown the door, looking to find herself another man, to be a cuckold to her brood.

  247. @Harbinger

    If I’d gone the route of my college friends and married my college girlfriend-who fortunately broke up with me-I’d be rotting in post-industrial Michigan right now.

    Never went anywhere, completely victim to the economy etc.

    Now compare that to the life I have enjoyed overseas because at the age of 25 when I moved to Dubai I had no spouse, no kids, no debt, no obligations.

    Then there’s old Stanley who got a Polish-Catholic girl pregnant way back in 1994 when we were 20 and dropped out of college to marry her.

    Go check him out. Stuck in Flint, his wife divorced him, his kid left as soon as she was able and he stuck in a house he cannot sell in a half-deserted ghetto.

    Compare that to the life I’ve enjoyed overseas.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  248. Harbinger says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    I think you can safely state you went your own way. You’re a MGTOW whether you agree with it or not.

  249. Rosie says:

    Why? If she can dump her child/children’s father/s then it won’t be long before he’s shown the door, looking to find herself another man, to be a cuckold to her brood.

    Whence the assumption that she “dumped the father,” and if she did, that she didn’t have a compelling reason for doing so, like, I don’t know, he got drunk and beat her up while she was pregnant.

    Now while I feel sorry for the children,

    Yes, it really shows.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  250. @Rosie

    Not in the way they once could. The Church can no longer afford it.

    They really couldn’t afford it all that much in ye olden days either, but they managed. In the centuries spanning Late Antiquity through the medieval renaissance of the 12th century, the Church was a threadbare thing outside the few major cities. One only needs to see the humble structures that served as monasteries and cathedrals in much of Eastern Europe and the Levant to understand.

    Men have destroyed Christianity. Harsh, but true.

    More importantly, they created it in the first place. But if men have indeed destroyed Christianity, women were at the very least their accessories in this crime.

    Alimony is the assurance that women get that they won’t be dumped for a younger woman in their forties. If a man can simply walk away with no financial obligations and start a new family anytime he wants, then marriage is meaningless.

    Alimony is also the incentive which allows a woman to pull a similar stunt on a man without getting penalized. At any rate, the concept of alimony is a fairly modern one. Yet marriage somehow thrived and had proved meaningful in the millennia before its inception. Even with alimony in place, what is to stop a man (or woman) from doing exactly what you describe? It’s actually a fairly common occurrence, legal threats notwithstanding.

    Also, many young women do indeed marry older men anyway. With alimony being a reality, why is it that a statistically significant number of supple, nubile girls continue to marry old lechers such as myself? Even in the worst (best?) of times, fresh young girls marrying old men wasn’t exactly a viral trend. Supposing that it were, however, why would that have been a bad thing in and of itself—aside from your assertion that it was?

    Finally, you have already said that women compete with men for jobs. I agree that is true. If you want to encourage them to leave the paid workforce, you have to ensure they are protected from abandonment and old age poverty.

    Not that I care about this subject one way or the other, but with the legal system tilted so acutely in favor of women now, why is advocating for them to leave the workforce? After all, they presently happen to be well safeguarded from abandonment and old age poverty to an extent hitherto unimagined, at least in the developed countries.

    Yes, [slut-shaming has] pretty much gone away as far as I can tell.

    You should get out more…

    https://www.verywellfamily.com/the-effects-of-slut-shaming-on-teen-girls-460586

    That was just one of many articles on the phenomenon. It appears that as with Mark Twain, the reports of slut-shaming’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.

  251. Rosie says:

    They really couldn’t afford it all that much in ye olden days either, but they managed. In the centuries spanning Late Antiquity through the medieval renaissance of the 12th century, the Church was a threadbare thing outside the few major cities. One only needs to see the humble structures that served as monasteries and cathedrals in much of Eastern Europe and the Levant to understand.

    They were humble because they were monasteries, not because they were poor. You do realize the Amish are rich, don’t you?

    More importantly, they created it in the first place.

    And here we were getting along so well. It looks like I’ve smoked out the chauvinist.

    But if men have indeed destroyed Christianity, women were at the very least their accessories in this crime.

    Lame.

    Alimony is also the incentive which allows a woman to pull a similar stunt on a man without getting penalized.

    That’s only if you assume that judges are out to get men who dindu nuffin.

    Increasingly, alimony is awarded for a short “rehabilitative” period. As long as that remains the case, women are entirely justified in looking out for number 1.

    At any rate, the concept of alimony is a fairly modern one. Yet marriage somehow thrived and had proved meaningful in the millennia before its inception.

    Of course, you couldn’t divorce your wife, and you were liable for her debts.

    Even with alimony in place, what is to stop a man (or woman) from doing exactly what you describe? It’s actually a fairly common occurrence, legal threats notwithstanding.

    They might still do it, but at least the spouse is protected.

    Even in the worst (best?) of times, fresh young girls marrying old men wasn’t exactly a viral trend. Supposing that it were, however, why would that have been a bad thing in and of itself—aside from your assertion that it was?

    Weren’t you just telling me how we should have compassion for young men who can’t find a mate? Serial monogamy is, in effect, bigamy.

    Not that I care about this subject one way or the other, but with the legal system tilted so acutely in favor of women now, why is advocating for them to leave the workforce?

    People keep saying this, but I’ve seen no evidence for it. If black kids get disciplined at greater rates in school, does it follow that that the administration is biased? No.

    After all, they presently happen to be well safeguarded from abandonment and old age poverty to an extent hitherto unimagined, at least in the developed countries.

    I’m not sure what your point is here. Those protections are being dismantled at the behest of “men’s rights advocates.”

    You should get out more…

    That’s a shame. Fortunately, that kind of thing doesn’t persist into adult life. Public school kids cannot be disciplined as grown-up employees can.

  252. Harbinger says:

    Ah Rosie…….
    The UNZ Review’s resident feminist.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  253. Bill P says:
    @Rosie

    I think this should depend entirely on fault. If a man leaves you for no reason, he shouldn’t be able to have your kids around some other woman for half the week. Likewise, if a woman leaves a man for no reason.

    I’m fine with fault-based divorce, but it has to be based on a few simple rules. Infidelity, abandonment and criminal violence are a few fair faults, and they have to be proved by clear evidence. “I’m not happy” doesn’t cut it, nor does “he/she was abusive to me” based on hearsay and/or no proof whatsoever. If any spouse can claim “abuse” and thereby obtain a fault-based divorce, then no fault is better. Actually, that’s how we ended up with no fault in the first place.

    The problem with this is that household expenses cannot necessarily be apportioned as either pertaining to the child or not. Family courts are going to try to minimize disruption to the child. That means staying in the family home and/or going to the same school. Here again, fault should determine who gets custody of the kids, along with the house.

    Sure they can. Housing voucher, food/clothing/school supplies, medical care, etc. Children’s expenses are pretty straightforward. For most parents it would make no difference, as a voucher would simply free up other funds, but for the less responsible ones it would remove an incentive to be a single parent as well as ensure that the money is spent on the kids.

    The problem with this is that a woman then won’t be able to get a new husband, because the new husband will be on the hook for supporting the children who aren’t his.

    That’s a feature, not a bug. How is it fair to other women and society in general when one woman is drawing resources from multiple men? Is it really good for kids to have multiple “fathers”? This practice raises all sorts of moral issues, and when you take a good look at who benefits from it the system is a national shame. It is generally the worst sort of women who engage in this, such as that pig of a woman who is “Honey-Boo-Boo”‘s mother. I see it all the time in my neighborhood. Usually the women don’t even bother getting married — they just collect multiple child support checks (often on top of considerable welfare) and shack up with some flavor of the month guy. Maybe, as an additional benefit, if we cut them off when they shacked up we’d see fewer of those “mom’s new boyfriend bashes in toddler’s skull” stories.

    A responsible, decent custodial mother shouldn’t have a problem finding a man willing to marry her whether she gets child support or not. Furthermore, she can always split custody with the kids’ dad so the new man in her life doesn’t have to shoulder too much of a burden. This is the norm in Europe, and it works fine. Again, I think a man who refuses to take care of his own kids should pay, but these men are a minority.

    Everyone has anecdotes. I have plenty of my own. Suffice it to say that I have never, ever seen a woman walk away from a marriage for no reason. Literally, never. Quite the opposite. I’ve seen women try their best over years and years to get their husbands to treat them with minimal decency, to no avail.

    Sure, we always have reasons. When it comes to most divorces they tend to be pretty half-assed. The idea of women suffering in silence for years also doesn’t fit the statistics. Most women initiate divorce when they are in their 20s and still able to hook up with another man, and the marriage and children are generally quite young. Again, I’m sure they have reasons, but worth wrecking a family over? In most cases, no. Wrecking a family is a very serious thing to do and its effects last for generations. There should be no incentives to do so for women or men.

    Fortunately, the excesses of the 80s-2000s are slowly subsiding. Divorce rates are down and incentives are drying up thanks to the declining earning power of American men. Equal custody is slowly, but surely becoming the norm in a growing number of states.

    Men and women alike are adjusting to the new reality. Men with any options are steering clear of single mothers, and women are being more careful about having kids in general, hence the declining fertility rate. It’s a shame that people are going on a fertility strike of sorts, but maybe that will prompt needed reforms. We can’t go back to the flawed, sexually anarchic system the baby boomers created, but maybe we can draw some inspiration from the less selfish generations that came before them.

  254. Bill P says:
    @Rosie

    The problem here is that any fault-based divorce rule will encourage perjury and bureaucratic rent-seeking. There is simply no way to avoid this. You either accept that or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’re right back into no-fault divorce.

    Perhaps prosecuting people for perjury (it is still illegal) would have some positive effect.

    Also, you could set evidentiary standards that go beyond “he said she said.”

    You certainly can’t argue that domestic violence isn’t relevant to the best interests of the child, so any evidence about it is going to be heard regardless.

    Sure, by all means hear the evidence. If it’s worrisome but not conclusive order a CPS evaluation of the accused parent. However, if there’s zero evidence besides accusations and/or hearsay, sorry, but that doesn’t cut it.

    Statistically, the in-home adult least likely to injure or kill a child is his/her biological father. The most likely is an unrelated male in a sexual relationship with the child’s mother. So even if we erred from time to time in granting fathers equal custody, the net effect would be to save children’s lives. Also, importantly, girls who live with their biological fathers are far less likely to be sexually assaulted than those who do not. Those whose mothers live with an unrelated male are most likely to be raped. Yet another reason to keep dad involved.

    https://www.phillyvoice.com/child-abuse-single-parenting-divorce-marriage-new-partners-advice/

    In their article “Child Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living with both Parents,” published in Ethology and Sociobiology, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson note: “If their parents find new partners, children are 40 times more likely than those who live with biological parents to be sexually or physically abused.” According to a Missouri-based study of children living in homes with unrelated adults, children are “nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents.” These are worrying statistics, both disturbing and scary.

    […]

    Yet, most significantly, one must face the difficult truth that the primary cause of harm to children in blended family settings is the unrelated, usually male, adult – brought into the mix through romantic involvement with the biological parent.

    I think it’s pretty clear by now that lots and lots of kids have died due to father removal. So when we’re talking about “best interests of the child,” that’s got to include some very serious contemplation of the sobering statistics above.

    In any event, I hope that something fruitful can come of this exchange.

    Sure, why not? I like women like you (my wife’s similarly combative) — the easy ones bore me.

    Ultimately, I think it’s in our interests to get over whatever grudges we have from past experiences and think rationally about these issues, because now it’s our children – boys and girls – who will soon have to face them. Unlike my parents’ generation, I don’t intend to selfishly continue the same fighting and self-justification through middle age and beyond. To me, what’s really odd is seeing 60+ feminists and mgtow types reliving their 80s-era drama as though they’re still locked in battle and dragging the rest of us along with them like they did with their children all those years ago.

    Usually I try to go easy on the boomer demographic (it includes my parents, after all) and despise the “ok boomer” meme, but when it comes to their sexual and marital behavior and the destruction it caused, they really have a lot to answer for.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  255. Rosie says:
    @Bill P

    Infidelity, abandonment and criminal violence are a few fair faults, and they have to be proved by clear evidence.

    The question is what constitutes “abandonment” ? If you stay in the same house but ignore your spouse and/or treat them with contempt, does that count?

    And only “criminal violence”? Is there such a thing as “noncriminal violence”?

    Sure they can. Housing voucher, food/clothing/school supplies, medical care, etc. Children’s expenses are pretty straightforward.

    No, they’re really not. I already explained to you that courts are going to want to keep children in the family home and in the same school. Household expenses are going to be about the same as they were before the divorce. Of course, that will make it difficult for the man to start a new life, but (ahem) that’s a feature not a bug.

    Again, I think a man who refuses to take care of his own kids should pay, but these men are a minority.

    Which is to say you think that a man should be able to walk away and start a new family anytime he wants so long as his children can come stay for half the week, creating chaos, confusion, and instability in their lives.

    In other words, you like no fault divorce, which is the same thing as saying you oppose the institution of marriage as such, believing it should really just be a contingent arrangement.

    Men with any options are steering clear of single mothers,

    Weren’t you just saying that single mothers shouldn’t have any trouble finding a husband?

    and women are being more careful about having kids in general, hence the declining fertility rate.

    And no wonder.

    John Johnson is right. MGtow and radical feminists are sympaticos. Both share the same agenda.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-now-president-who-became-a-mens-rights-activist/372742/

    Statistically, the in-home adult least likely to injure or kill a child is his/her biological father.

    It certainly helps that biological fathers don’t spend as much time with the children as mothers. Women are also statistically less likely to have a motorcycle accident, because they don’t spend as much time riding motorcycles.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Bill P
  256. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    What is wrong with men? Seriously. I don’t get it.

    Literally no man ever would deny that a man should be able to divorce for constructive desertion in a sexless marriage scenario.

    But when it comes to women’s needs for warmth, affirmation, and emotional intimacy, well that’s just pretty.

    But there it is. Men have a tendency to be attentive and affectionate until they seal the deal. Then, they want to put as little effort as possible into the relationship, growing cold and distant. When women balk at this bait and switch, it’s just pure self-indulgence!

    https://mitnicklawfirm.com/sexless-marriage-something-can-proven-used-divorce/

    SSDD: Men’s needs matter. Women’s don’t.

  257. Bill P says:
    @Rosie

    The question is what constitutes “abandonment” ? If you stay in the same house but ignore your spouse and/or treat them with contempt, does that count?

    Nope. Out the door and haven’t heard from him/her for quite a while.

    And only “criminal violence”? Is there such a thing as “noncriminal violence”?

    Of course.

    No, they’re really not. I already explained to you that courts are going to want to keep children in the family home and in the same school. Household expenses are going to be about the same as they were before the divorce. Of course, that will make it difficult for the man to start a new life, but (ahem) that’s a feature not a bug.

    This is a property issue that isn’t relevant to most divorces/separations involving young parents today. Most young parents these days do not actually own property, so both are going to have to pay for their housing separately. High-earning young people are not divorcing at anywhere near the rate baby boomers did. It’s a very different world out there from how it used to be. But I suppose in this small minority of contemporary cases (where an upper middle class marriage with children breaks down) the old rules still apply, and in these cases a settlement will be reached between lawyers. This is outside of the usual state-enforced system that most parents deal with today, so the noncustodial parent can provide payments in whatever manner the lawyers agree on.

    The most common outcome today is a simple transfer of cash from the noncustodial parent to the state, then from the state to the custodial parent’s bank account to be spent in whatever manner he/she pleases. As you might imagine, it is not always spent wisely.

    Which is to say you think that a man should be able to walk away and start a new family anytime he wants so long as his children can come stay for half the week, creating chaos, confusion, and instability in their lives.

    Well, what’s sauce for the goose and all that…

    Spending time with their father is not going to cause chaos and confusion in children’s lives. Quite the contrary. Father-involvement is linked to positive outcomes on virtually every measure. It’s shocking that so many people got away with arguing otherwise for years when the evidence was staring everyone right in the face. Hell, just go down to the local state penitentiary and do an informal survey of inmates and you’ll have the answer right there.

    In other words, you like no fault divorce, which is the same thing as saying you oppose the institution of marriage as such, believing it should really just be a contingent arrangement.

    Not at all. I believe marriage is for life and I take my vows very seriously. When my first wife ran off with another (married) man I was so deeply ashamed that I couldn’t even show my face in the church I was raised in (Catholic). But I had no choice in the matter, and since then I’ve learned that you have to be pragmatic. While I still feel the same way about marriage, it’s pretty obvious that most people have a different idea, so we’ve got to structure family law in a way that provides incentives to parents to stick it out and disincentives for family-wrecking.

    It really isn’t about whether men or women are more at fault. It’s about how we can prevent men and women from breaking up families.

    John Johnson is right. MGtow and radical feminists are sympaticos. Both share the same agenda.

    I think they’re both casualties of the free-for-all of the 70s and the decade’s long, drawn-out consequences.

    It certainly helps that biological fathers don’t spend as much time with the children as mothers. Women are also statistically less likely to have a motorcycle accident, because they don’t spend as much time riding motorcycles.

    Sure, but this isn’t about mothers per se; it’s about the unrelated males they bring home. The statistic showing that children are 50 times as likely to be killed when there is an unrelated adult in the house is pretty mind-blowing. In fact, it’s probably even worse than that, because this is presumably an average that includes unrelated females in single father households. I think it’s fair to assume that males are an order of magnitude more likely to kill a lover’s unrelated children than females.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Rosie
  258. Rosie says:
    @Bill P

    Nope. Out the door and haven’t heard from him/her for quite a while.

    That settles it. Women’s happiness means literally nothing to you, and therefore there is no basis for common ground.

    I find myself coming to the conclusion that women should never have anything to do with any man who isn’t a Christian. They have no sense of accountability to any higher authority and cannot be trusted.

    Well, what’s sauce for the goose and all that…

    This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Whether desired by the husband or wife, do you support unilateral, no fault divorce without consequences, or do you not?

    While I still feel the same way about marriage, it’s pretty obvious that most people have a different idea, so we’ve got to structure family law in a way that provides incentives to parents to stick it out and disincentives for family-wrecking.

    By allowing men to walk away from their marriages with no consequences.

    Come now. You must know I’m not that stupid.

    I think it’s fair to assume that males are an order of magnitude more likely to kill a lover’s unrelated children than females.

    One thing I have learned about men: They will use absolutely any fact, whether it statistically favors women or men, to justify shitting on women.

    By the way, how about a racial breakdown on those statistics?

  259. Rosie says:
    @Bill P

    Nope. Out the door and haven’t heard from him/her for quite a while.

    Just to illustrate how profoundly stupid this is, consider that this rule would allow a man (or a woman for that matter) to leave the house on the pretext of getting gas or something, not come back for three days, come home for a couple nights, then do it again. (Yes, I’ve seen this happen).

    And that still wouldn’t be grounds for divorce!

  260. @Rosie

    They were humble because they were monasteries, not because they were poor.

    Again, they were humble out of necessity, not because of aesthetic choice; although it’s quite possible that aesthetics and necessity converged to the convenience of all in rural medieval Europe and the Near East. But that still doesn’t explain the comparative opulence displayed by the Church in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Aachen, and so on. Nor does it sync up with what we know of the state of technology and the international economy during Late Antiquity and much of the medieval period.

    chauvinist

    Quaint word, that. Harkens back to a simpler, sepia-toned time redolent of pressed lavender.

    Lame

    And here we were getting along so well. It looks like I’ve smoked out somebody unable to reply with anything more than petulance in a friendly debate.

    dindu nuffin

    I presume that we’re both grown-ups. Let’s converse like them and dispense with the childish clichés, shall we?

    Of course, you couldn’t divorce your wife, and you were liable for her debts.

    This all depended on the jurisdiction one resided in, as well as one’s personal wealth. Then as ever, the richer you were, the more leeway you had legally. Even if one were flat broke, however, there were manifold methods by one could extract themselves from marriage, legal or otherwise.

    They might still do it, but at least the spouse is protected.

    Legal protections are, ultimately, so much words on paper. As aforementioned, if a spouse is determined to dump another and get away scot-free, they continue to have various ways to do so. How these protections somehow make marriage valuable or meaningful when they didn’t exist before has still not been adequately and convincingly explained.

    Weren’t you just telling me how we should have compassion for young men who can’t find a mate?

    No, my concern for these luckless Don Juans has nothing to do with their age. A growing number of these people are middle-aged, after all. In some parts of East Asia, such as Japan and South Korea, the number of middle-aged virgins are at all-time highs and growing.

    https://grapee.jp/en/110424

    Love is love is love, so we’re often told in these supposed liberated times. If these individuals happen to find a younger partner to reciprocate their love/desire, then why not encourage them? You seem to have a personal bugbear about older men and younger women. I wonder why…

    People keep saying this, but I’ve seen no evidence for it.

    But did you not tell me…?

    I agree that is true.

    Those protections are being dismantled at the behest of “men’s rights advocates.”

    And in which developed nation or alternate universe is this “dismantling” occurring at the behest of the all-powerful “men’s rights advocates”?

    Fortunately, that kind of thing doesn’t persist into adult life.

    You’ve clearly never held a job and/or met other women…

    • LOL: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Rosie
  261. @Rosie

    Well that is generous of you Rosie. If I was a woman, I doubt if I would leave employment for anyone’s sake.- no matter my financial status. But maybe I am just showing my individualistic and selfish male nature?
    Yes Elites will up the feminist ideology because that triggers reaction against women by right wing men Left feminism is a great card for elites. It drives men nuts and then they do stupid things, It drives ME nuts. I’m down with equal pay for equal work and real equal opportunity (not affirmative action) but after that I am vive la difference to use an old saying common back before the revolution. But the thing is that my sexual attitudes are natural and left wing hetero men feel the same things I feel but they can’t keep their jobs and status if they admit it. Our world is deracinated

    • Replies: @Rosie
  262. @Harbinger

    Hey, we could use some resident feminists – old school feminists who want want equal pay for equal work, real economic opportunity and not affirmative action. Otherwise we will continue to be just a small bunch of white guys waiting to be numerically overwhelmed even within our own race.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
    , @Harbinger
  263. I have been coming to Unz for about a year and a half I have been coming everyday for awhile. The commentary above is the FIRST time I have seen men AND women conversing. OK it was mostly an argument and mostly Rosie representing women but hopefully it is a beginning. There is this long time WN named Sam Dickson who I remember saying(paraphrase)”I want to talk about Race. I want to talk abut a white nation, I don’t want to talk about feminism, socialism, capitalism, homosexuality. If your any of those things and your white, come on in.” I think that is the attitude we need to form a movement, not just a male philosophical society

    • Agree: Constant Vigilance
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  264. @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    Women are no less flawed than men. Only difference is they look better.

    Very true, sir, but only up to a certain age.

  265. @Rosie

    Careful, there: your misandry is showing.

    [H]e shouldn’t be able to have your kids the children of the marriage around some other woman for half the week.

    They are not “your” (the mother’s, in the context of your writing) children. They have two parents. In poker, one calls this kind of thing a tell.

    Whether or not children are around “some other woman” – be it their stepmother, paternal grandmothers and aunts, or their father’s hairstylist – has nothing to do with those children’s rights to be with their fathers. Your writing belies an emphasis on jealousy of other women and acrimony toward fathers, rather than the best interests of the children. It is precisely this perverted and selfish perspective that most females have about such situations, and which underlies the travesty of current laws.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  266. Harbinger says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    Any kind of feminism is a cancer Achilles, whether old school or current toxic.
    Fabian Socialism created the suffragettes – upper middle class and upper class women were promoting it, who’d never worked a hard day in their lives – never been a mother, of if they were, had nannies to do their job for them, even breastfeeding.
    People fail to see that there is nothing good whatsoever with feminism. It was created to give women the vote, who could be easily manipulated (lower IQ than the men) simply through propaganda in the papers. Case in point, WW1, after the msm launched their propaganda campaign against Germany, with pictures of babies impaled on the end of German bayonets and nuns being raped, this drove women to walk around with feathers, putting them in the hats of conscientious objectors, to shame them, to go off to murder and be murdered for the bankers. Although, it wasn’t until 1928, when women got the vote, this was a classic example, of how easily it was to manipulate women, through lies in the msm.

    Feminism was also created, to bring women into the workplace and in doing so, not only tax the other half of the population, but bring competition for jobs, resulting in lower wages and an increase in the cost of living. Therefore, housing costs went up, to the point that both parents now have to work today. This results in mother NOT bringing up her children, but instead the state and as a result, we now have the totally, screwed up younger generations, even worse with every successive one, whom courtesy of heavy indoctrination, turn against their nation.

    Added to the above points, women who chase careers either end up childless or as single mothers. Why? Riding the ‘cock carousel’ throughout their twenties, they approach their 30’s and are unable to bond due to dozens of sexual partners. The child is brought up by the state. There is no father in the house to protect neither, so the mother automatically supports a left wing government that will offer her protection for her liberty. The creation of the socialist, totalitarian state is very much the domain of women, who naturally weaker want more police and authority. And because of this, the state knows where its support comes from and backs them, resulting in horrific bias in favour of men over women.

    The bottom line Achilles is that women shouldn’t be having any kind of career, whatsoever. They have a career in life, provided by nature – mothering. That is the most important job, any woman could ever have, but feminism has attacked women who wish to follow nature’s path, instead trying to push them off the path to worship Mammon, the god of wealth and materialism.
    I watched a video with Gavin McInnes (I don’t agree with him on most things but he’s right on the family) and he stated that a friend of his, a woman in her late 40’s, who was the editor of feminist magazine, told him she cried herself to sleep at night, being single and childless. He was angry at her and said; “but you promote feminism, women choosing careers over a family. What a hypocrite! You’re pushing young girls into the same misery you suffer from”.

    Look at the population of the west (European)? You will see that it’s down around 1.3 birth rate. In order for a society to continue, it needs a procreation rate of 2.0, two children to replace the mother and the father, in order to continue the species. At 1.3, it means that roughly, every generation, the European population is dropping by around 33%. In the meantime, look at Pakistan? Since its creation in 1970, with a population then of 60million, It’s now around 180million. The UK population, in the same time, indigenous’ population rose by around 12%.

    Women, who choose careers, over family are killing the western civilisation. Feminism has taught them to have careers, because those behind feminism want to destroy the western civilisation.
    What these stupid women fail to realise is, by promoting this lifestyle, having one child as a single mother, or no children, their population is dropping. At the same time the non white population is growing. More importantly the Islamic, patriarchal one. It means that by 2060, the Muslim population of the west will roughly be around the same as the non Muslim. This means that if Muslims, in said western nation, decide to create a Sharia party, with the current voting apathy (incredibly understandable) with whites, mixed with division between left right and centre, if the Muslims vote tribally (as they always do) then they will win the election, impose Sharia law and instantly end the careers of all women, not forgetting giving lesbians a choice -become heterosexual, pump out babies or swing on the end of a rope.
    Women fail to see that feminism and the choice of careers is literally them sitting on the bough of a tree, above the abyss, sawing away.
    They fail to see the economical implications of their insane choices to be a career woman, instead of a mother. It is damaging society, nay, it’s DESTROYING society. The western civilisation is dying, predominantly because of feminism and the women having the choice to go out, have sex with as many men as they want, drink, party and cast caution to the wind. They end up growing old, miserable at not having had children, with no one to love them and eventually end up as a prisoner, in an old folk’s home.

    What’s really sad about this is how easily they’ve been deceived and accepted it. They have abandoned their femininity to become masculine. They are, today, essentially men with vaginas. And with all the Hollywood promotion of the ‘super vagina’ tough girl, beating the crap out of much larger men, not only does this promote a false reality, but many women actually believe what they see, thinking “we’re no different to men. In fact we’re better than them”. So many will take up martial arts and seek to be Rhonda Rousey. Having done martial arts, all my life, I can safely state that all women, I’ve ever trained with, although given belts, were easily beaten in every aspect by men, with lower grading, or no belts. They aren’t built to fight and when they come up against a male fighter, they’ll lose. However, the msm is stating the exact opposite and it’s now creating a divide between men and women. From reading many comments on forums, younger men are now, sadly beginning to show hatred and loathing for women, so much so that they wouldn’t not only think twice about hitting them, should they be attacked (which really women shouldn’t be doing anyway) but not come to the aid of women in need of help. They simply shout “‘equality’, get on with it”.

    The divide, was created between men and women, the day the first suffragette started campaigning for votes for women. This like the legalisation of homosexuality, the first steps to the legalisation of paedophilia, was the first steps for the destruction of the family unit.

    Because of all of this, women will rue the day they decided to choose career over family, not only for individual misery, destined for them in the future, but the fact they’ve helped destroy their civilisation, drastically reduce their population, help towards the feminisation of men, resulting in a country, that will be incredibly easy to invade by a larger force, with much stronger men. In other words, women have dug their own grave.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Achilles Wannabe
  267. Harbinger says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    I should also note as well about ‘equal’ pay:

    1. Women tennis players are paid the same as men for playing the best of three sets compared to the men’s 5. This is equivalent to a man working 5 hours a day compared to the women’s 8 doing the same job. Could you imagine the outcry in public life? Yet nothing is mentioned regarding women’s tennis.

    2. Women footballers (soccer) are demanding the same pay as their male colleagues, even though, female soccer brings in low millions in revenue compared to the male billions. Added to that FIFA pays women 8 times more than men in relation to percentage of overall revenue taken. Women in all sports especially basketball are seeking equal pay to men, when their customer base is bit a fraction to mens.

    3. Female models are paid far, far more than their male counterparts. The sisterhood remains silent.

    4. Female porn stars are paid much more than the male. The sisterhood remains silent.

    Feminism had nothing to do with equality. As stated it was deliberately created to drive a wedge between the sexes. Second wave feminism was predominantly driven by misandrist, lesbian Jewesses, who have a working friendship with homosexuality males, but generally dislike heterosexual males for obvious ‘competition’ for partners and a threat as they’re far stronger reasons.

    Nothing good has come out of feminism or ever will. It has masculanised women and feminised men, attacked the natural, civilisation of patriarchy and brought doom to it through the unnatural installation of the matriarchy within the animal kingdom. Sue there are matriarch ices within the insect kingdom which anyone can see are hives, slave filled matrixes the very plan of the new world order. Women are their avant garde, the feminists that is, too stupid to realise what they’re doing and whom they’re really serving. “Useful idiots”, as the communists said, before lining them up against the wall and shooting them, shooting the very people who brought in their communist state.

  268. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon

    Whether or not children are around “some other woman” – be it their stepmother, paternal grandmothers and aunts, or their father’s hairstylist – has nothing to do with those children’s rights to be with their fathers. Your writing belies an emphasis on jealousy of other women and acrimony toward fathers, rather than the best interests of the children. It is precisely this perverted and selfish perspective that most females have about such situations, and which underlies the travesty of current laws.

    The problem with your analysis, Autochthon, is that parents’ rights are

    prior

    to the best interests of the child. In theory, the best interests of the child would dictate that a parent’s rights should be terminated if a billionaire is interested in adopting them, since by necessity being raised by a billionaire would be in the best interests of the child.

    Now, does shared custody diminish parent’s rights. Yes, by about 50%, maybe more. A guilt parent who separates a child from their other parent for half the week without a damned good reason, is morally unfit. I thought that was something we could all agree on, but this conversation has been very revealing indeed. The manosphere should bug off to the libertarian left where it belongs.

    As you well know, we’re not talking about just “any woman,” but rather a woman who has stolen another woman’s husband.

    Careful, there: your misandry is showing.

    That’s ironic coming from you.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  269. @Harbinger

    Second wave feminism was predominantly driven by misandrist, lesbian Jewesses, who have a working friendship with homosexuality males…

    You got the first half partially right, but you’re way off on the second. The mutual distrust and even disdain between gays and lesbians is well-known. Aside from each being sexually attracted to their same sex, these two interest groups tend to have little in common.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  270. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    As aforementioned, if a spouse is determined to dump another and get away scot-free, they continue to have various ways to do so. How these protections somehow make marriage valuable or meaningful when they didn’t exist before has still not been adequately and convincingly explained.

    I explained it perfectly. Marriage has always been a binding agreement where a husband undertakes to financially support the wife. Your claim that people could find ways to finagle out of this obligation, even if true, proves absolutely nothing about the desirability of making it easier for them to do so today. Of course there was no alimony in the past, because there was no divorce.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/19/divorce-law-history

    Love is love is love, so we’re often told in these supposed liberated times.

    Well, there, now at least you admit you’re a liberal.

    And in which developed nation or alternate universe is this “dismantling” occurring at the behest of the all-powerful “men’s rights advocates”?

    Do you know how to use google?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/10/29/an-end-to-alimony-is-good-for-women/#6f01cfb43eca

    Take alimony out of the career-planning equation and we force women to take full responsibility for their careers and finances from the beginning of adulthood. This is critical if we are going to close the pay gap, which has little to do with workplace sexism, and more to do with women choosing lower-paying professions and stepping away from careers to devote to family life. This will also address the issue of female financial literacy.

    Note that, at the very least, this radical feminist has an honest, consistent, and fair (in a way) point of view. The manosphere, on the other hand, is so morally bankrupt, that some of them actually advocate an end to alimony and women’s right to work, in whatever field they choose, with protection from sexual harassment (which can devolve into forced prostitution). Of course, this would leave women totally powerless and helpless, and that is, of course, precisely what is wanted. All this is about is the simple fact that men resent any power or wealth-sharing.

    What does one even say about that? It’s pathetic, really, and it’s a very dangerous road to go down. When women are totally powerless, they’re not much use to their parents, and eventually, you start getting this:

    https://www.ippf.org/blogs/its-girl-three-deadliest-words-world

  271. Harbinger says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    We’ll again have to disagree. Not only did I work on the doors, in London, for 16 years, including many homosexual venues, but now having left London and back in my home city, it’s the same. Homosexual bars are filled with male and female. Lesbians associate with homosexual men and vice versa. The mistrust is and always has been between lesbians heterosexual masculanised reasons explained.

  272. @Harbinger

    Maybe, maybe not. My personal observations, again, don’t confirm yours. Then again, things may be a lot more amicable across the Atlantic. Here is but one of many articles on the purported infighting/mutual wariness between gays and lesbians.

    https://www.out.com/entertainment/michael-musto/2014/06/30/why-don’t-gays-and-lesbians-get-along-better

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  273. @Rosie

    Marriage has always been a binding agreement where a husband undertakes to financially support the wife.

    The agreement goes both ways, of course. Traditionally, it also means that the wife undertakes to sustain the household, support her husband emotionally, provide children, and (tacitly) will generally be sexually available for her spouse.

    Your claim that people could find ways to finagle out of this obligation, even if true, proves absolutely nothing about the desirability of making it easier for them to do so today. Of course there was no alimony in the past, because there was no divorce.

    It is true and it proves that marriage is not dependent on alimony in order to make it “meaningful”, as you say. In fact, for most of its history, marriage thrived along just fine without need of alimony. Personally, I’m not invested in the matter one way or another: Alimony is a legal reality and it must be accepted. That said, you really haven’t demonstrated, irate assertions notwithstanding, that it adds any value to marriage. If anything, it merely replaces one unjust incentive (allowing a husband to drop a wife no questions asked) with another (allowing a wife to drop a husband no questions asked and extract a sizable cost from him besides).

    Well, there, now at least you admit you’re a liberal.

    r/woooosh

    Do you know how to use google?

    Do you know anything about reading comprehension? The article you cited actually contradicts your point. For one thing, it’s not written by a “men’s rights advocate”, it’s written by a woman. And her argument for the abolition of alimony isn’t so much to save any grief for men, but to liberate women from their emotional and financial subjugation.

    Note that…

    You’re answering the wrong person, dear. The quote you attributed to me belongs to another commenter.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  274. Rosie says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    Well that is generous of you Rosie.

    The problem with these boys v. girls simpletons is that they don’t understand that women have real conflicts of interests among ourselves, and we don’t agree on everything. Phyllis Schaffly didn’t organize women to defeat the equal rights amendment because she didn’t care about women’s rights. She did it precisely because she did care about women’s rights, and she represented traditional housewives. Her concern was that the ERA would lay the foundation for the subsequent abolition of alimony. Because if women can just as well support themselves, even if they have children, then what is the moral argument for alimony?

    Of course, she won the battle, but lost the war. She defeated the ERA, but alimony is under attack anyway.

    https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/melinda-henneberger/article229556944.html

    So yes, I am willing to concede some degree of priority for men (at the expense of married women, only) in the workplace in exchange for homemaker protections.

    I think the problem of “having our cake and eating it, too” is less of an issue than it was believed to be in Schlaffly’s day. Women continue to avoid the most male-dominated fields, much to the chagrin of the radfems, so we’re seeing some degree of specialization that limits competition. For example, female doctors dominate pediatrics, while male doctors dominate orthopedic surgery.

  275. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    . For one thing, it’s not written by a “men’s rights advocate”, it’s written by a woman. And her argument for the abolition of alimony isn’t so much to save any grief for men, but to liberate women from their emotional and financial subjugation.

    Good grief. Let’s say you’re right that “powerless” MRA have nothing to do with it, and it’s the radfems who are behind the mischief, how does that change the facts on the grou d for women considering trusting a man with their financial future by choosing stay-at-home motherhood?

    Answer: it doesn’t.

    And by the way, who do you think has an interest in getting rid of alimony? Men of means, hardly powerless little people.

    . If anything, it merely replaces one unjust incentive (allowing a husband to drop a wife no questions asked) with another (allowing a wife to drop a husband no questions asked and extract a sizable cost from him besides).

    You’re going to have to do better than that. I’m not advocating alimony for wives who leave their husbands for no reason. I seriously doubt that is happening, but go ahead and protest that if you wish. I have no interest in going to bat for guilty spouses.

  276. Harbinger says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    Heterosexual women like nothing more than to associate with homosexual men, well most of the younger generations because firstly they do not feel threatened by them. Secondly they know they won’t chat them up. And thirdly they have the same likes when it comes to fashion, celebrity and all the other nonsense in today’s world.

    Lesbian women do not like heterosexual men, because firstly, they are a threat, because they will be hit on, even if they don’t look like a lesbian, by heterosexual men. Secondly, they chase the same sex. Sure, I know, so do homosexual men, but in reality, the prize for the homosexual male is to get the heterosexual man into bed, whereas, most younger generation women today are happy to scissor it up with another woman and ‘explore’ their sexuality. Heterosexual men, not so. Lesbian women also tend to have higher testosterone levels and thus naturally more aggression within them. This is why lesbian relationships have exceptionally high violence within them, with the ‘bull’ dyke (male pretender) and the ‘cow’ dyke (submissive female). The ‘cow’ dykes are also known as the ‘lipstick’ lesbians, as they tend to not look like the bull dykes, who will very likely have shaved hair and do their best to look masculine to attract the ‘cow’ dykes.

    What there is, most certainly happening today, is a war going on within the LGBTQ+ with the LGB and the TQ+. The transgender men, many pre op, are attracted to the lesbian women. The lesbian women are not attracted to the transgender men for obvious reasons. The transgender men are now calling them out as transphobes, as well as the homosexual, transgender men who call out the heterosexual men for not having sex with them. It’s all incredibly crazy.
    Then of course the feminists are anti transgender men, seeing today that they’re moving into women’s sports and dominating, along with other avenues of life.

    The whole thing is absolutely screwed up.

  277. @Rosie

    Let’s say you’re right that “powerless” MRA…

    Good grief indeed. I suppose those were pink “weenie hats” that thronged the streets of our major cities long ago, braying for “justice” or whatever. Next thing you’ll be telling me about your fright over the equally powerful demographics of bogeymen and goblins lurking beneath your bed. Keep the night light on and say your prayers.

    I also think it’s adorable—in an inimitably womanly manner, may I add—that you completely avoided responding to the fact that, whether out of intention or mere ignorance of the English language, you misread the very article you cited as “proof”.

    I seriously doubt that is happening…

    Again, you assert and assert, but fail to make a convincing argument or cite any evidence to back your claims. Goodness, I knew women were terrible behind the wheel, but behind the keyboard too?

  278. Rosie says:

    I also think it’s adorable—in an inimitably womanly manner, may I add—that you completely avoided responding to the fact that, whether out of intention or mere ignorance of the English language,

    That’s because you’re a pig. In any event, I didn’t misread anything. I posted the article to show that alimony is under attack. By whom is totally irrelevant.

    And if it makes you feel better:

    https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/reject-unneeded-unfair-state-alimony-reform-legislation/article_32a36134-5072-5575-a5a2-e3712fd79c30.html

    “A woman is not a breeding cow to be nurtured during her years of fecundity, then conveniently and economically converted to cheap steaks when past her prime…This has nothing to do with feminism, sexism, male chauvinism, or any other trendy social ideology. It is ordinary common sense, basic decency and simple justice.”

    — In re Marriage of Brantner, 136 Cal. Rptr. 635, 637 (1977)

    I suppose those were pink “weenie hats” that thronged the streets of our major cities long ago, braying for “justice” or whatever.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

    I’ll just note for the record that you claim to be a powerless victim while you support the same policies an MSM feminist.

    Again, you assert and assert, but fail to make a convincing argument or cite any evidence to back your claims. Goodness, I knew women were terrible behind the wheel, but behind the keyboard too?

    I don’t have to disprove your claim that “the system” is biased against you or whatever. That is your burden. I will note, however, that it is very revealing that you and your sympaticos are so resistant to the idea of a true and thoroughly fault-based system. I suspect that’s because you know perfectly well who would and would not benefit from that.

    Of course, there’s an argument to be made that marital breakdown should be presumed to be the man’s fault, based on your very own premises. The manosphere claims that women grow less desirable as the years go by. Indeed, many say that a woman who isn’t married by X age is “past her sell by date.” Yet for some reason, they ditch their husbands thinking they can do better after five or ten years of marriage. Or they run off with a richer guy and the court awards them alimony anyway or something. Again, if you’re going to make patently counterintuitive claims like that, you are the one who needs to come up with some evidence.

    Nonetheless, I like to be fair and reasonable, so I’ll say let’s just look at each individual case on its own merits, m’kay?

  279. Rosie says:
    @Harbinger

    I’m getting tired of Harbinger’s meritless walls of text, so I didn’t read this, but after skimming, I noticed:

    who could be easily manipulated

    God only knows how many more young White men would be dead or maimed but for women voters. You’re welcome.

    And with all the Hollywood promotion of the ‘super vagina’ tough girl, beating the crap out of much larger men

    I’ve noticed a lot of moaning about this lately, so here’s how I see it FYI.

    I just figured that buttkicking women on television were outliers. Kind of like how Judit Polger can’t beat Magnus Carlsen at chess, but she can beat the daylights out of what like 99.999% of men on the planet? How many 9s would we need?

    I figure women are needed for certain espionage/security/law enforcement roles and then some of them are elite fighters. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there’s not a single woman on the planet who can beat up an average man. I couldn’t GAF less, but I can most assuredly state that average girls are not assuming based on these movies that we can beat guys up.

    This very poster implies elsewhere that women like the police state because “we know we’re weaker.” That statement is half true.

    Feminism had nothing to do with equality. As stated it was deliberately created to drive a wedge between the sexes.

    Logicians call this the Genetic Fallacy. The argument is that if a thing comes from bad people with bad motives, then it has no merit I. any respect whatsoever.

  280. @Rosie

    That’s because you’re a pig

    Pigs are quite smart creatures. Your inability to read or sort out your own thicket of contradictory “logic” would suggest that you belong to a rather lower order of animal.

    Oink, oink.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

    But you claim that the MGTOW nerds are somehow a powerful enough force in our democracy to effect drastic changes in the station of Western women. Where are they then, and why haven’t they also taken to the streets in the millions to make themselves heard?

    I’ll just note for the record that you claim to be a powerless victim while you support the same policies an MSM feminist.

    Please feel free to quote and share for all where I claimed such a thing. In fact, I’ve repeatedly stated that I don’t care about these issues one way or another. But we’ve already at least proven that English comprehension isn’t your strong point.

    I don’t have to disprove your claim that “the system” is biased against you or whatever.

    Oh my, there you go being petulant again. So much hyperbole and paranoia. You really do sound like—just another hysterical woman.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  281. Harbinger says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    Let me give you a word of advice.
    There is a saying in the internet community – DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
    Feminists are trolls and you need to realise this.
    Debating with Rosie on life is like debating with a hasbarat troll on Judaism. It’s a complete and utter waste of time, because anything that criticises either, both will always instantly attack, regardless how many truths you present before them.
    Interesting as well that Fabian Socialism is Marxism and those behind the Suffragettes were Fabian Socialists.
    If you know anything about Marxism, you will know that it was created to completely destroy the very fabric of western society, destroying every tradition and way of life. Fast forward, past the Suffragettes, to 1933 Germany and the Marxist School of Frankfurt Critical Theorists, fled when Hitler got into power, straight into the west, attained positions in top universities and the rest, they say, is history.

    Do not waste your time with Rosie. There are thousands of videos on YT, that destroy every silly argument she’s got herself into giving you the time to ignore them and let others show her for the silly feminist she is. It is just pointless arguing with feminists who will argue until they’re blue in the face that women are completely exempt when it comes to the destruction of the western society, low birth rates, out of control young men, from single mothers. They will always blame the patriarchy/men. It’s their modus operandi.

    To show you the insanity of feminists (not that everything Rosie writes proves so) upon the women’s tennis ‘equal pay’ reality I wrote of above, my sister a feminist, upon being asked how she could merit paying a woman, the same as a man, who played more sets and the revenue for female tennis far less, than the men’s, her utterly insane reply was – “it’s got nothing to with do that, but all the effort that the women took, the time and practice to get to the finals”. Yup that was her answer.
    Because of the madness of feminism, forget how many hours you actually work, forget the skill of the job, forget whether it’s dangerous or not, because regardless if a man’s getting more that you, when he works more hours, works harder, has more skill and the job is far more dangerous, it’s blatant sexism, because women are getting paid less, instead of the same as a man.

    DO NOT DEBATE WITH MAN WOMEN (feminists).

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  282. Adûnâi says:
    @John Johnson

    What the he-man woman haters club doesn’t get is how bitter you guys come across in practically everything you write. It’s no different than feminism where some lonely lib spends her time writing articles about how men aren’t worth the effort and how she is really truly happy drinking wine with her cat.

    And what’s wrong wit being bitter and resentful? Yes, we are those things. I am not afraid to call myself those epithets. Because I hate the modern world and would like to change it. Unlike a centrist such as you.

    But of course, you consider your opponents similar to those poor souls shouting about muh’ SJWs infringing on muh’ liberty. Those same people who would consider “bitter” as much of an insult as a “bigot”. I doubt Robert Morgan is one of them.

    Might as well let the aggressive men that aren’t afraid of rejection pass on their genes.

    In ages past, men were rejected by other men (no homo), not by the flimsy womenfolk.

    • Replies: @anon
  283. Harbinger says:
    @Harbinger

    Correction:

    DO NOT DEBATE WITH MAD WOMEN

  284. @Harbinger

    Honestly, I am at a loss Harbinger. My problem may be that I am stuck or have stuck myself, with this term “feminism” – a movement of which which I may be as opposed to and as critical of as you are though for somewhat different reasons. Much of feminism went wr0ng because it was manipulated by Plutocrats and Jewry, I just don’t necessarily fault women’s nature for feminism as Plutocrats and Jews divested the racialized white males who at one time controlled our Euro Nation States and yet we haven’t lost confidence in white men’s ability to rule

    But ok, maybe I should say that, instead of “feminists”, I want to see a lot more Red Pilled women in the movement. Otherwise I don’t see how we will ever really BE a movement. Philosophical societies like Unz are great. I enjoy it. But we need NUMBERS desperately if we are ever going to change anything. We need the other half.

    Now you and others are going to say women are not constitutionally capable of the right kind of politicization. Actually I confess to not knowing what women are constitutionally capable of. I do know women are not like us in many ways and I would not posit any union based on the assumption that they are. On the other hand they are human so not THAT different and can make contributions in line with their natures. Patriarchy made evolutionary sense but the thing about evolution is that it evolves. Much has changed since the good mother and wife thing. Women have always been as smart as we are and now they don’t have to live chained to their reproductive capacities In a world of contraception and safe abortion, I don’t think they or we are ever going back to Patriarchy. It is not as if I don’t want to myself in some ways at some times. There is nothing particularly female friendly about me If I could have MY way with women, I might do nothing but have my way with women. But that is out. And right now I am dominated by a regime of Plutocrats and Judocrats who create and/or exploit every difference among and between we Euro goyim.

    Unless we mass, we are done. I don’t see how we mass without OUR women

    • Agree: Constant Vigilance
    • Replies: @Harbinger
    , @Anonymous
  285. @Rosie

    [P]arents’ rights are prior
    to the best interests of the child. In theory, the best interests of the child would dictate that a parent’s rights should be terminated if a billionaire is interested in adopting them, since by necessity being raised by a billionaire would be in the best interests of the child.

    You combine female selfishness with flawed reasoning. Children’s rights and their best interests most certainly are not subservient or secondary to those of their parents, and all loving parents appreciate this principle.

    The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”

    Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”

    The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”

    But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”

    Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”

    Furthermore, every child has a right, and it is in every child’s best interests, to be raised by his parents, so long as those parents are willing and able to care for him. Wealthy strangers exercising some hypothetical prerogative to snatch children from their parents, and governments’ all too real zealotry in doing so, is decidedly not in those children’s best interests, as the most rudimentary understanding of human nature and psychology demonstrates, and as empiricism confirms again and again.

    Of 54,814 individuals with complete data, 388 (1%) were first [taken from their parents by the government] at ages 2–6 years; matched controls were identified for 386 of these children. At ages 18–25 years, those who had been [taken from their parents] had greater odds than never-placed controls of substance-related disorders (odds ratio 2·10, 95% CI 1·27–3·48), psychotic or bipolar disorders (3·98, 1·80–8·80), depression or anxiety (2·15, 1·46–3·18), neurodevelopmental disorders (3·59, 1·17–11·02), or other disorders (2·06, 1·25–3·39). Participants who were [taken from their parents] had more psychotropic medication prescriptions (1·96, 1·38–2·80) and higher rates of criminal convictions (violent offences, 2·43, 1·61–3·68; property offences, 1·86, 1·17–2·97). —The Lancet

    • Replies: @Rosie
  286. @Rosie

    What has kept me somewhat sane over the past decade or so to avoid endless internet arguments is my philosophy (quite probably related to my ADHD) that anything worth saying is worth saying in only a few sentences.

    There is no point in writing essays back and forth with someone who is so far-removed from your position. Certainly, no emotional investment should be made if it can be avoided.

    Who is Harbinger, and who cares what he thinks?

    Really, there is no more to be said to someone who does not believe in your agency or intelligence, really, than a big “fuck you.”

    Let it go.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  287. @Harbinger

    I’ve read through the thread up to this comment, Harbinger, and it’s one of the best I’ve ever read on this subject. Nice job!

    BTW, Mr. Stryker’s solution is a pretty rational one for a young American in this day and age.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  288. @Rosie

    Rosie, I was trying not to respond to the feminist stupidity herein, but just one question: How many Oxygen Channel movies do you watch each day?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  289. Harbinger says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    “Honestly, I am at a loss Harbinger. My problem may be that I am stuck or have stuck myself, with this term “feminism” – a movement of which which I may be as opposed to and as critical of as you are though for somewhat different reasons. Much of feminism went wr0ng because it was manipulated by Plutocrats and Jewry, I just don’t necessarily fault women’s nature for feminism as Plutocrats and Jews divested the racialized white males who at one time controlled our Euro Nation States and yet we haven’t lost confidence in white men’s ability to rule”

    With all due respect Achilles, feminism was never manipulated by plutocrats and Jewry. Feminism IS and always WAS the Plutocrats and Jewry. As stated in my previous reply look to whom it was who created feminism and you will see it was the Fabian Socialists. If you don’t know who they are then I suggest that you read up on them, but suffice to say, they did not have women’s best interests at heart, quite the contrary.

    “But ok, maybe I should say that, instead of “feminists”, I want to see a lot more Red Pilled women in the movement. Otherwise I don’t see how we will ever really BE a movement. Philosophical societies like Unz are great. I enjoy it. But we need NUMBERS desperately if we are ever going to change anything. We need the other half.”

    I’m confused as to what movement you’re speaking of? I presume from what you’ve written that you mean the anti NWO movement, correct? If so, there are. There’s one on this forum and she goes under the pseudonym of ‘Kali’. She is clearly a red pilled women. In fact, she’s more than red pilled, she’s black pilled. Do not ever look to feminism for red pilled women. Feminists are blue pilled. They haven’t a clue about anything, for if they did, they wouldn’t be feminists.
    I agree, we do need the other half, but sadly, the overwhelming majority of them are lost and absolutely no use to us. And the same goes for the many men as well. Civil war is the ultimate inevitability of blue pilled idiots.

    “Now you and others are going to say women are not constitutionally capable of the right kind of politicization. Actually I confess to not knowing what women are constitutionally capable of. I do know women are not like us in many ways and I would not posit any union based on the assumption that they are.”

    They’re not. They never have been, nor ever will be.

    “On the other hand they are human so not THAT different and can make contributions in line with their natures. Patriarchy made evolutionary sense but the thing about evolution is that it evolves. Much has changed since the good mother and wife thing. Women have always been as smart as we are and now they don’t have to live chained to their reproductive capacities In a world of contraception and safe abortion, I don’t think they or we are ever going back to Patriarchy.”

    The contribution to society, of women, is and always should be childbirth and child rearing. That is their job. Now the feminists will instantly shout out sexist, misogynist, bigot etc, as they’re programmed to, but these morons fail to understand one thing and it’s incredibly simple – they are hear because of the sacrifice of men, not women, throughout history. Their continuing choosing to chase a career, sleep around and either birth bastards, or worse abort them is greatly damaging society. This is feminism. This is what feminism has always been about and why it was created. Do you really not think that the Fabians knew exactly where giving women the vote and careers would lead?
    Onto contraception and abortion – why?
    Why would a man need to wear a condom, or a woman take the pill? Why is there any need to have sex other than to procreate? This is the ultimate question here Achilles. There is no need for coitus, other than to create life. The sad reality, today, is that heterosexuals are now practising homosexual sex. Yes, other than the fact that men now sodomise women (straight from porn and we know who’s behind that) the very fact that men and women are now rutting like rabbits, with an obsession for sexual intercourse, proves how lost western man is today.
    Masturbation, as described is self pleasuring oneself to orgasm. Sadly, this is now what sex has essentially become. Sexual intercourse, between men and women, men and men, women and women is now masturbation – seeking sexual pleasure. “But there’s the concept of people making love” again a convenient lie. Not such a thing, again, it’s sexual pleasure. That’s why people have sex. They seek the orgasm. And worse, women have lost so much connection to themselves that they don’t even comprehend that when they go down to the clinic to have an abortion, they’re murdering the future generations. I do not speak to my eldest sister – a feminist, socialist, msm journalist. She’s had quite a few abortions.

    If people are not rutting like rabbits, they’re out in bars chasing the opposite/same sex to rut with. If they’re not doing that they’re at home watching TV. They’re doing everything but be concerned with the world around them. Their life is one of simply consumerism and debt. That’s it – get up, go to work, come back, have dinner, go to the pub, come home, watch TV, bed, rinse and repeat. And throw following some sport into the mix for good measure.

    Everything that’s going wrong in the west is ALL connected to feminism, abortion, careers for women, the LGBTQ+ etc. Everything is working in tandem with one another to divide and conquer.
    You state:

    “I don’t think they or we are ever going back to Patriarchy.”

    And if we don’t then I can safely state that the western civilisation is truly finished.
    While feminists rant and rave against the patriarchy, men, shouting rape, promoting #MeToo and every other insanity within them, the west is being flooded with immigrants. Even if we stopped it today and closed the gates, simply through procreation of those who came into the west pre millennium, they will become the majority by 2070. Feminists have failed to cotton onto this simply reality. Islam (of who the largest population of immigrant peoples living in the west) will become the religion of the west. When that comes, then it will be following the teachings of Muhammad by the book. Feminists do not quite seem to understand the implications of this. Unlike the west, which has murdered itself through liberalism, Islam does not adhere to foolishness. It sees things, correctly as black and white –

    1. No feminism
    2. Women’s job is to birth children and raise them
    3. No usury
    4. No homosexuality
    5. Pray to Allah 5 times a day
    and so on….

    The comforts and the freedoms that women have in the west will instantly disappear. Lesbians will be given an ultimatum – marry a man and have his children or swing from a rope. Homosexual men will simply swing from a rope. Feminists will of course be married off to some mullah to pump out his progeny and raise them. No careers for them.
    They also fail to see that there will be no United Nations, no international courts on human rights. That’ll be gone.
    “But what about the men? Will they not fight for their women and their nation?” – would you want to protect these women? I sure as hell wouldn’t. I wouldn’t go to the aid of any feminist regardless how dire her situation. When I read of Swedish women being raped and murdered I don’t bat an eyelid. They created the environment that they now suffer under. 50 no go areas alone in Malmo and the msm remains silent. Sweden is has now taken over from South Africa as the rape capital of the world, all courtesy of the matriarchal governments. Sweden is the canary in the coalmine of Europe. This is what’s coming to the rest of the west, that is western Europe. Eastern Europe has the common sense to repel it. Feminism has been solely responsible for the mess in Sweden. And the med are too feminised, too cuckolded, or simply won’t fight back, for obvious reasons and are probably migrating to Poland, Hungary or Romania.

    “And right now I am dominated by a regime of Plutocrats and Judocrats who create and/or exploit every difference among and between we Euro goyim.”

    And you have feminism to thank precisely for that.
    Why?
    Had women never voted, nor had career there would have been no division within the family politically, or would there have been division in the workplace. Women who stayed at home and raised children, raised the next generation of men to protect their lands. Women who stayed at home, never got into politics and psychology to write papers on allowing homosexuality, transgenderism and now paedophilia. And because of that women were responsible for bringing in immigrants and allowing them to live by their way of life.
    What utter nonsense” Really?
    The natural psyche of the female is to nurture and care for, hence why throughout history the nurses were always the women, to lend a friendly ear and to comfort. In the past governments were full of men, there to do what was best for the PROTECTION of the nation. Hence why there was war and no immigration. They had the common sense to see where that would inevitably lead. How do you therefore change government and their concerns of the defense of the nation above all else? You bring women into it. You give women political power and influence.
    Take a hypothetical example of some village. Disease has ravaged neighbouring villages and this one remains. A group of people arrive outside the village, stopped from entering by bowmen at the outskirts. The villagers beg to come in for food and shelter. The chief, a male, sees them to be diseased and knowing so, will not allow them entrance. He has some food prepared and sends it to them, telling them to be on their way or his archers will open fire. Now take the same scenario but with a woman chief. She would have let them in, the minute she saw young children crying and starving. In doing so, she would have infected the village and more people would have died. This has nothing to do with stupidity (although it was) but everything to do with the natural desire of women to help those in need. ‘Motherly instincts’ so to speak and the Jews realised that if they can get women into power, they can bring about the destruction of the western civilisation, through immigrant colonisation, under the mask of ‘helping’ those less fortunate, especially with the refugee status added on.

    The downfall of the western civilisation has been solely the work of the feminists. They have destroyed, in 60 years, what took men thousands to build. This is why, throughout history women have been in the place they were and never allowed authority. When they get it, they destroy everything around them. Again, it’s about ‘motherly instinct’ within the very genetic makeup of women, to raise and care for their young. Had women never been in positions of power and influence, there would never have been 100 people coming into the UK yearly, let alone 500,000+ today.

  290. Harbinger says:
    @Harbinger

    P.S.

    I would like to make it clear that I have no hatred towards women (just feminism in all its shapes and forms) and realise, overwhelmingly that there are some great women out there, doing their best to see that the western civilisation survives. Women, like Kali, who posts here I have nothing but the utmost respect for. Not only do I agree with almost all that she has written, of the state of the west, but I was a frequent visitor to her websites, especially fmotl.com and am glad to state she has incredible understanding of the law system and more importantly the merging of admiralty law, with common law in order to deceive the public.I have no doubt in my mind that any council she has to give, on the survival of the west, would be much warranted and practical. They broke the mould when they created women like Kali. They’re one in a million.

    H0wever, amongst the great women, in our civilisation, they are merely a minority within the many ‘not so’ great women, who have done and are doing their best to destroy this great accomplishment of western man. And yes, it WAS western man who built this civilisation, through sweat and tears, along with sacrifice on the battlefield to ensure their loved ones and progeny would survive. Women owe men a great deal, in fact for their very existence and their gratitude is the feminist movement? Enough stated really.

  291. @Mr McKenna

    IME, the strongest and securest marker of Toxic Wokeness is the amount of television watched. If your wife or gf is glued to the TV set every night, all is probably lost.

    This x 100.

    Modern women feel an incessant need to have the television on in the background of almost everything. I’ve quizzed a few about this annoying habit, and they all responded the same: they didn’t want silence because it left them alone with the worries and thoughts in their heads.

    Chalk it up to modern female mental issues if you wish. I chalk it up to lack of children; all those worried/paranoid thoughts would be turned on protecting their young if they’d gotten married and pregnant a few times in their early 20s. Middle aged women with large broods are almost never paranoid or suffering from such problems.

    Thanks to Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu/other streaming services, women can mainline all corporate proaganda 24/7. That means they are continuously under the guise of the oppressed black genius scientist, the slutty female whose past doesn’t define her, the weak white beta male rapist, the minority best friend, the diversity-is-our-strength, racist-whites-cause all-problems propaganda. All on their smart phones and computers while commuting, going to brunch, “working”, or in bed.

    24/7. Not just at 8pm when you want to watch a movie. Instead, constant, continuous propaganda. And they are choosing to mainline it.

    What chance do you have to break her of this, in your few minutes of interaction per day with her? Its like trying to stop a heroin addict by stopping them from shooting up for just a few minutes a day.

    It’s no wonder it was men invented libraries and studies: places of absolute quiet and repose for thought. Men need silence for great thinking, women, as they seldom think great thoughts, need their thoughts drown out.

    Harrison Bergeron, anyone? Or even Fahrenheit 451?

    • Agree: Harbinger, HammerJack
  292. Harbinger says:

    “Modern women feel an incessant need to have the television on in the background of almost everything. I’ve quizzed a few about this annoying habit, and they all responded the same: they didn’t want silence because it left them alone with the worries and thoughts in their heads.”

    Women, in society, predominantly suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder about 75% compared to men. They say that 1.6% of the US population suffer from it, but then, that’s those who have been diagnosed. What are the symptoms?

    1. Emotional instability – the psychological term for this is affective dysregulation
    2. Disturbed patterns of thinking or perception – cognitive distortions or perceptual distortions
    3. Impulsive behaviour
    4. Intense but unstable relationships with others

    Wow! Therein, you’ve pretty much described the modern female under the age of 50! I can safely state that most women I’ve ever met in my life certainly have most, if not all the symptoms. It can safely be stated that every female, who’s left wing, is clearly BPD.

    Now wonder women don’t want to be alone in their thoughts? Imagine the woman, who’s had umpteen abortions and who’s seen a video of just what happens with abortions, as fetuses are ripped apart, their heads, arms and legs torn off while inside the womb. Imagine how they feel, when older, childless, unable to have children (and rightly so) seeing little children playing in the park, knowing that by now, that child could be their grandchild or child? And then the haunting of the abortion procedure would come flooding back in, a procedure they chose have done, because they didn’t want a child getting in the way of their career. Horrible people. They should be arrested and imprisoned for murder, because that is what abortion is, however you look at it.

  293. @Harbinger

    Women, in society, predominantly suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder about 75% compared to men.

    I believe that. The fat woman that became a martyr a few years ago in Charlottesville comes to mind. My wife and I were reading an Associated Press article a day or two after her death, a maudlin elegy to her shambles of a life; and an inadvertent showcase of the evident mental illness symptomatic in her obsession with the news, her wailing over events and peoples that had nothing to do even tangentially with her. We both were horrified.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  294. @Rosie

    “Logically sound arguments which take five minutes to read are faggy walls of text. Look at the picture I found!”

  295. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon

    You combine female selfishness with flawed reasoning. Children’s rights and their best interests most certainly are not subservient or secondary to those of their parents, and all loving parents appreciate this principle.

    This is legal and moral nonsense. Legally, parents rights are absolute. Grandparents, for example, cannot sue for visitation no matter how much it can be shown to be in the best interests of the children. Parents rights come first. Sorry.

    And I note that by your reasoning, a woman ought to be able to leave a man for nothing and take his children from him for half the week, undermining his authority as a father and quite possibly his relationship with his children. If you don’t see that as an outrage, then there is something wrong with you.

    Again, it is very telling that you’re not particularly worried about that. You know perfectly well that women aren’t leaving men for nothing. Hence, your cavalier attitude about parents being separated from their children for half their childhood.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  296. Rosie says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    Really, there is no more to be said to someone who does not believe in your agency or intelligence, really, than a big “fuck you.”

    If I may, when I first started coming to this site, the misogyny was almost unbelievable. I have reined pigs like Autochthon in quite a bit since I’ve been posting here, and frankly, I kind of resent having to do it alone. I particularly hold our leaders chiefly responsible. They should have put a stop to this nonsense long ago. Instead, they have allowed misogynists to hijack this movement to the extent that some will come right out and say they’d rather have a mongrelized patriarchy with a rainbow coalition of bros before hoes. It’s a disgrace, really.

    Many thanks to John Johnson and Achilles Wannabe. They have said some of the nicest things about women that have ever been said. Not so long ago, a troll army would have ganged up on them and bullied them off the site.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  297. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Rosie, I was trying not to respond to the feminist stupidity herein, but just one question: How many Oxygen Channel movies do you watch each day?

    What “feminist stupidity” are you talking about, Achmed? The feminist stupidity about abolishing alimony that my male interlocutors overwhelmingly support?

    And I haven’t the slightest idea what the Oxygen Channel is.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  298. @Harbinger

    Well I am especially at a loss now Harbinger. Unlike you. I have never written books from which I can extrapolate responses to comments. You are awesome in the breath of your commentary. I am not being sarcastic or ironic.

    And after reading your commentary I am wondering how I could possibly think women’s initiative and genuine natural dissatisfaction with their place in the Patriarchy had anything to do with the creation of Feminism How deluded of me. But now thanks to your disquisition I realize Feminism was all the work of rich Fabian Jewish males. I shall definitely have to read up on Fabians and further divest myself of my false consciousness.

    Of course now I AM being sarcastic and ironic. Come on Harbinger. Give it up. Your commentary is ideological in the old Marxist sense: you have an idea about women’s nature which is somewhat credible – particularly at an earlier stage of evolution – but then you reduce them to that one dimension of their nature, embed this reduction in your version of history and then dismiss other viewpoints on women as false consciousness conjured by the explorer class of Jews and Plutoes for their benefit. Your smart. You can make it work on paper But in real life and history, it ain’t true

    I am not going to try to divest you of your ideologized consciousness. I know my limits. But I will say that if White Nationalist men view women YOUR way, all the red pills in the world aren’t going to get OUR women into our movement. We will end up just being a bunch of guys bitching. I can hear the Jews laughing all the way to the bank and Israel

    • Thanks: Constant Vigilance
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Harbinger
  299. @Achmed E. Newman

    My college girlfriend, who split with me when I moved to Phoenix, did me an enormous favor in life. By breaking up with me I did not end up with two kids I had to support by my mid-twenties, at the mercy of the indifferent post-industrial rust belt economy, working my heart out to pay for some mortgage on some awful wooden clapboard house, sending my kids to lousy public schools where the blacks would terrorize them, fearing crime from minority groups…

    That would have been my life by age 26 if I had married my college sweetheart and had kids. Instead, I spent the Christmas of my 26th year on a beach in Goa, India. I traveled to many fascinating countries and held better jobs overseas than I could have ever done in Michigan because the economy is so lousy.

    She later married and divorced some other guy.

    Thinking back they were typical Gen X-she was born in 1975 and a year younger than I-who endured all the unpleasantness of the Bush era and the Great Recession and the Flint water crisis and collapse of Detroit and black crime and now her kids are just about old enough to serve in Iran.

    Me…I went my own way back in 1999 and I owe it all to her breaking up with me. Nothing stopped me from moving to Dubai.

    I might be sitting divorce-raped in Southeast Michigan right now in some lousy clapboard wooden house worth zero on the property market because nobody wants to move to Michigan and you could pay people to live there.

    My teen son could be a whigger by now.

    I would have never enjoyed the red hills of Goa. I would never have swum in the warm Pacific waters of the Philippines or the Indian Ocean. I would have never experienced the vastness of Oman’s Empty Quarter. I would have never spent a summer in UK.

    Thank goodness for my college girlfriend. Bless her.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  300. @Jeff Stryker

    MGTOW

    …Its obvious that the plutocrats don’t care about working middle class or blue collar whites unless like (Epstein) they want to exploit their poverty by turning a local public high school into their brothel to impress their (Other) plutocratic friends. (Epstein) summarized the respect and concern they have for average whites who are trapped in poverty due.

    …Who wants to send their kids to poor public schools because they cannot afford private ones? My own brother had to leave California because he could not afford private school and he is an urban planner with a PHD who makes a decent salary. His wife is a social worker who worked with Mexican gangs. But none of this mattered and he had to haul ass out of California when his daughter turned five years old.

    …America has gone downhill since I left in 1999. We are dealing with the decisions an alcoholic bum made 20 years ago…a situation in Iraq we cannot get out of. And if the Iranians decide to turn the straits of Hormuz into a war zone and oil prices rise 3000% the US will collapse.

    …No matter where you move, by the time you pay off a 20 year mortgage the Federal government will have built subsidized housing.

    …Who wants to live in the wilderness like Jason Voorhees?

  301. @Rosie

    The whole feminism idea is the stupidity, Rosie, lock, stock, and barrel.

    I am behind by a couple of decades as far as the idiot plate goes, but the Oxygen Channel was like Lifetime, and maybe Hallmark, with 24/7 white man beats up woman, who has to take the kids and get restraining orders and we’ll see what happens next after the douche commercial.

  302. @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    We both were horrified.

    You and your wife are compassionate people, Nick, compared to me, I guess. I was horrified more about the paint and body damage to that beautiful retro muscle car.

  303. Rosie says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    But I will say that if White Nationalist men view women YOUR way, all the red pills in the world aren’t going to get OUR women into our movement. We will end up just being a bunch of guys bitching. I can hear the Jews laughing all the way to the bank and Israel.

    I don’t know if Jews are paying Harbinger for his efforts here or not, but if they are, I’d say it’s money very well spent.

    He says:

    And yes, it WAS western man who built this civilisation, through sweat and tears, along with sacrifice on the battlefield to ensure their loved ones and progeny would survive. Women owe men a great deal, in fact for their very existence and their gratitude is the feminist movement? Enough stated really.

    He wants to talk about who owes whose existence to whom?

    OK

    Here’s a portrait of the Mozart family:

    Mrs. Mozart had 7 children. Only two survived. One might suppose that women are equally entitled to the benefits and privileges of this civilization that our pain, labor, and perseverance has sustained over the centuries.

    Granted, we were too busy to demand any share in the glory work. Now that we don’t have to give birth to seven children just to keep the population stable, one might suppose that it would be fair and reasonable for women to have a bit more freedom for well-development just now.

    But no, we get this instead:

    “You owe me. Go make me a sandwich.”

    Given our current demographic predicament, I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to a period of high fertility expectations and demographic replenishment. I mean, if White men said,”Sorry, we’ve been greedy and let in too many foreigners for cheap labor. Now our race is in danger of extinction. How about we make more babies until we stabilize the situation?”

    Then I could understand and perhaps there would be some discussion to be had. But no, they want to blame everything on us and demand a permanent, draconian backlash.

    What a sick bastard.

  304. @Rosie

    Expat Memo From a Man Who REALLY Went His Own Way

    …If white women want to end up childless with no house left to them by a husband who worked for 40 years to pay a mortgage on and end up at the mercy of minority groups on the street who have no qualms about raping homeless 80 year old women because they are accessible…what can I do? When it happens I will be enjoying a cool drink with a younger woman on a tropical beach in Southeast Asia.

    …If white women feel they can reverse the unfairness of slavery and be progressive by having babies with black thugs or whiggers who will never hold a job and end up working two jobs or on welfare that is their business.

    …If white women want to have a bunch of random partners and end up feeling badly used then that is their business.

    …What is going to definitely happen in the next 20 years as Gen X reaches retirement is that millions of Generation X men will retire to enjoy life on a beach in the Philippines or Thailand. They can simply take their savings and sales from the house they inherited and spend their golden years in a warm climate while single white women grow old in terror.

    …The remaining WASP elite will continue to marry wealthy connected men and like Brazil, a small white plutocracy will sit atop the mass of penniless mixed-race people living in Favelas.

  305. @Rosie

    Harbinger as an agent of the Jews! That is funny. But no, what I meant was that Harbinger’s attitude towards women enables the Jews to characterize WN’s as REACTIONARY which then works for the Jews because most white women don’t want to go back to Patriarchy and won’t associate with a movement that does.

  306. Anon[844] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson

    Wonderful post. It’s a great contrast to the impotent women hating nerds who use this website as an outlet for their sexual frustration instead of starting their own blog, WeHateWhiteWomen.org.

    Rosie, Alden and the other women who comment on UNZ have more balls than any of you wimp nerd icky porn addicted women haters.

    “Women reject me because they’re dreaming of celebrities. “

    What a loser. Only thing he’s ever made love to is his hand.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  307. @Rosie

    I point out children’s rights are more important than parents’ rights, and your ostensible refutation is that grandparents’ rights are not more important than parents’ rights.

    I won’t address the other silliness. You are either evil, stupid, or both. As others have noted, there’s never any point engaging with you. You make illogical statements, you change the subject when the discussion does not go your way, you admit you cannot be bothered to even read the other fellow’s argument if it exceeds two or three sentences, and on and on.

    In short, you are a typical female. You should be changing diapers and making sandwiches, not pretending to engage in online salons for discussing important sociopolitical questions.

    I bid you good day.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Rosie
  308. @Anon

    Do you realise Stryker, Navarro, and I are all happily married with children? Are you so unobservant? I think Achmed has a family as well. The Harbinger has children, though he seems to be separated or divorced. All of us detest pornography and write against its evils. How you reckon our lot are all addicted to porn and unable to attract women I cannot know.

  309. @Jeff Stryker

    I agree with this idea of a better life for a young man, Jeff, but with a caveat that applies still to you too. I tried to tell Senor Fredrico Reed about his, but he’s one dense mofo, it turns out.

    Look, one can live cheaply and easily in places like the SE Orient and South/Central America, etc, only because the US dollar is still the reserve currency. It goes a long way in the “3rd world” (not saying that as a slur this time, Jeff, but just a description of the locations in question). There’s gonna be a day when the debt burden of the American Feral Gov’t and most Americans themselves, gets called due. It’s like a guy paying off 5 maxed-out credit cards with 2 new credit cards – after a while there are no new offers in the mail (well, actually, the corporate idiots’ computers still send them, but your app will be turned down)

    My advice for you and prospective MGFA (as in, .. Far Away) is to not save assets in dollars, and build up your skills. It sounds like you are not depending on any monthly checks out of the US like royalties, SS, etc, like some might be, or expect to be. You need to be someone who is valuable even when America and its currency has no clout anymore. I’ll give you this – I think many foreigners and foreign companies should appreciate honest, hardworking white guys…

    …ohhh, and the point of the whole argument here, decent girls who know how to be women will appreciate you.

  310. @Autochthon

    Rosie is just plain a feminist, Autochthon, but she’ll only admit it once in a while (wish I could find that comment – like a needle in a hay stack). It’s not easy to get back from that mind-set after 13-20 years of educational indoctrination, and the rest of one’s lifetime of indoctrination from the idiot plate on the wall.

    I gotta say, I’ve never heard the men’s side of this argument done as well before in bunch of writing as here in Harbinger’s comments.

  311. Harbinger says:

    It’s really quite irrelevant what you think about in regards to getting women into the white nationalist movement.
    Why? Had women not chosen feminism, the indigenous population of the UK would certainly be double its size. There would have been no need for immigrants. The only way to defeat the inevitable, as explained, the procreation of Muslims, is to match it. That means women, not having careers but instead pumping out babies.
    They’re not going to do that.
    They choose careers.
    They choose the same lifestyle as men, not women, for the role of women is not in the work place but raising children.

    You can think whatever you will, throwing my explanation of the creation of feminism in the bin, for all I care. I tried to enlighten and I failed. I clearly see where you stand. I clearly see where you’re at with reality.
    Feminism and careers for women will not stop the inevitable population takeover of Muslims in the west. The few remaining nations of whites, in Eastern Europe, will NOT take these feminists in, when the feminists try to flee, seeing a future of hijabs, babies and patriarchy.

    Whether you like it or not the patriarchy of Islam will smash the matriarchy of feminism. You will also find that white nationalists loathe feminism, for they brought the problems they face in the west.

    Finally, all you need to do is look at Sweden to see where the rest of the west of the west is headed. This is what happens when matriarchal society is imposed allowing immigration from patriarchal nations. It’s a pre planned takeover agenda. Sweden will be an Islamic state within 20 years. Europe in 40.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  312. Harbinger says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    I’ve continually written that women fail to see that their toxic feminism is driving a wedge between the sexes. When I broach the subject I’m automatically attacked, lambasted and told I’m just a INCEL who hates women.
    Men are beginning to have enough of gynocentrism. There’s no longer a level playing field. The game is rigged, marriage rates have plummeted. And because of this men are now avoiding relationships because courts are now beginning to view them, regardless of length, no different to marriage.

    The system is rigged heavily towards women because they are incredibly easy to manipulate to bring about the changes within society. The state, to women, is their friend. Its the husband, father, bank and bodyguard they never had. They knew that the minute they started tightening the screw, allowing women to rape men of their assets and finances through divorce, men would stop marrying and just decide to have a relationship. Women fail to see that the system does not want relationships between men and women. Relationships create babies and families. Families will always really against authoritarian states.

    A matriarchal society is a weak nation, controlled by a hidden elite, prepping it for foreign takeover. Unless women abandon it, submit to the patriarchy, in 50 years they’ll be submitting to Islam. This is a simple fact they fail to see.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  313. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon

    I point out children’s rights are more important than parents’ rights, and your ostensible refutation is that grandparents’ rights are not more important than parents’ rights.

    More stupidity. If children’s rights were more important than parents’rights, a child could choose for themselves whom they live with, could they not?

    Yet, I’m sure that’s not your position.

    You, about a year ago:

    Often children of divorce are places in the primary physical custody of their mother, despite the mother’s being patently unable to care for those children absent a crushing appropriation of the father’s resources, even as that father is entirely willing and able to care for those children himself. The obvious solution to the conundrum is to place the children under the primary physical custody of the father and allow them equitable access to their mother. Instead, the most common outcome is for the otherwise solvent man to pay most of his income to the (often unemployed though entirely capable of working) mother, and be reduced to impecunious homelessness. I could provide endless such examples of the horrors of the current state of affairs – family [sic] law is but one aspect of it, yet volumes and volumes could be written about the horror-show of modern family [sic] law all by itself.

    The natural state of affairs is for women to be dependent upon and loyal to men, and to abandon those men at their peril and the peril of their children – hence the guardianship of women which caused Rosie to have a litter of kittens at the outset of this discussion.

    Comment number 256 from this article:

    https://www.unz.com/article/shhh-men-can-judge-female-faithfulness-from-faces-dont-let-cultural-marxists-know/?highlight=equitable+access

    So there you have it. Autochthon thinks mothers should get “equitable access” to their children, apparently without regard to who was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage.

    Your husband dumps you for another woman and gives her your children to raise. Ah well. Your job is to be a good sport and graciously accept your weekly visit.

  314. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Rosie is just plain a feminist, Autochthon, but she’ll only admit it once in a while (wish I could find that comment

    You don’t need to bother. I’ll freely admit to being a feminist according to your definition, which, so far as I can tell, is just a woman who cares about women’s wellbeing and doesn’t agree with the manosphere’s cynical view of “women’s nature.”

    If that isn’t your definition, go ahead and tell me what you think feminism is. People like you, I have noticed, are a great deal more willing to call people this name than you are to commit yourself to a definition of it. Vague terms, like “racist,” are much easier to use as weapons.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  315. Harbinger says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    Reply 317 is for you Achilles.

    “And after reading your commentary I am wondering how I could possibly think women’s initiative and genuine natural dissatisfaction with their place in the Patriarchy had anything to do with the creation of Feminism How deluded of me. But now thanks to your disquisition I realize Feminism was all the work of rich Fabian Jewish males. I shall definitely have to read up on Fabians and further divest myself of my false consciousness.”

    Your attempts at sarcasm are sadly mirrored by your inability to actually see that what you’ve stated is actually the truth.

    Firstly, if you care to go back to the Suffragettes, you’ll find that it wasn’t made up of angry, working class women, who resented the patriarchy, quite the contrary. It was full of upper middle and upper class women. These women, unlike their working class counterparts hadn’t worked a day in their lives. Other than a quick breastfeed after birth, they would employ a breastfeeder for their child. Nannies would then take the responsibility of mothering thereafter, while mummy would socialise with her fellow feministas. The working class women, knew very well their place in ‘patriarchy’. They respected it. They were instrumental to its survival and knew that their husband ‘built the house’ while they ‘built the home’. The contract of marriage and family was respected very much by the working class women, who worked hard to maintain it. There was a natural bond between the men and women of the working class. They were the nation, its lifeblood, the arteries and veins that pumped that blood, the muscles, tissue, tendon, heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, stomach……
    The women knew they were women. They knew they had a place within that society, behind the stronger male, whom they sought for protection and offspring. And they played their part mothering and caring, while the husband worked and warred.
    And this is what the ‘elites’ wanted to destroy. They had to destroy the working class to destroy the nation. And they succeeded. Feminism, basically, is the rebelling of upper middle/upper class women, who’ve never worked or mothered and thus bored with their lot in society. Working class women didn’t have time to be bored. They had a family to raise and a house to run. The very takeover of western society was instigated by the Fabians, who used these stupid, ignorant women as their proxy warriors. They essentially brought identity politics to the fore, as the ‘soft’ communists that they were.

    Secondly, as for the Fabian society being full of rich Jews, I’m sure there were Jews within but it was established by George Bernard Shaw, a truly vile individual who promoted the authoritarian state. Author of ‘Pygmalion’ (My Fair Lady) he foresaw the socialist, totalitarian state, where everyone had a place. He believed every 5 years people should come up in front of a board and ‘justify their existence’. The motto of the Fabian is a wolf in sheep’s clothing along with another of two men hammering a globe (the earth) into shape. The Fabian socialists were change agents, to bring about, what Tony Blair spoke of, the ‘Big Society’ or the Third Way which is the totalitarian, authoritarian state or to put it bluntly, Orwell’s 1984.

    For you to believe that one day, women just ‘awoke’ to thinking how bad their life was, truly shows a great lack of understanding of history and the status quo Achilles. You somehow seem to think that ‘we’ve evolved’ when you couldn’t be more wrong. Technology evolves. I would like to state that humanity does too, but we can clearly see that IQ’s are dropping, due to many reasons. Humanity is devolving. A classic case of IQ drop is your acceptance of propaganda, when it comes to women, thinking the ‘fight for women’s rights’ all came by happenstance. The very purpose of woman is to procreate. That’s her raison detre in life. I’m utterly perplexed at people who think that societal constructs, in this case the pursuit of material gain, is somehow one’s purpose in life? The Jew seeks wealth in order to control. And he has managed to persuade the majority that the pursuit of wealth, to become debt slaves is their be and end all in life.

    When women stop being women and men stop being men then society will no longer be healthy and prosperous. Women now chase money. They jump up and down on the ‘cock carousel’ throughout their teens and twenties, tallying up dozens of sexual partners, catching and passing on STD’s, which have now evolved into super strains that medicine cannot cure. They get broody towards their thirties and seek a man to have children with, but men are cottoning on. Men don’t want women who are incapable of bonding due to many sexual partners. They don’t want to be the ‘sperm donor’ to women who have no intention of family. They don’t want to be chased by the state, for child support, after the woman’s kicked them out, having had no intention of a relationship from the start. So now, women are ending up single, lonely and childless. They realise that the career isn’t what they really want, because they were created solely to give birth and raise the child.
    The very psyche of women has been altered, courtesy of feminism, which will lead women to one place and one place only – the abyss.

  316. Rosie says:
    @Harbinger

    Had women not chosen feminism, the indigenous population of the UK would certainly be double its size. There would have been no need for immigrants. The only way to defeat the inevitable, as explained, the procreation of Muslims, is to match it. That means women, not having careers but instead pumping out babies.

    This must be an example of that compelling logic that Achmed and company find so impressive.

    Note the unsupported assumption that the UK “needs immigrants” as the plutocrats say.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  317. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    On the “need” for immigration”

    In 1997 the average home in England and Wales cost 3.55 times average salaries, the most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics show. Twenty years later the house price to income ratio had risen to 7.8 times.

    Thanks, Mr. Blair.

    I wonder how many White babies were never born because of this fiasco.

    https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/uk-house-prices-affordability-for-home-buyers-is-improving-at-the-fastest-rate-in-eight-years-a128036.html

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  318. Harbinger says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    “Rosie is just plain a feminist, Autochthon, but she’ll only admit it once in a while (wish I could find that comment – like a needle in a hay stack). It’s not easy to get back from that mind-set after 13-20 years of educational indoctrination, and the rest of one’s lifetime of indoctrination from the idiot plate on the wall.

    I gotta say, I’ve never heard the men’s side of this argument done as well before in bunch of writing as here in Harbinger’s comments.”

    The minute she started there was absolutely no doubt, whatsoever, she was a feminist. You don’t need to look, through past comments, to find where she called herself one. Trust me, both my sisters are feminists and I’ve been a MGTOW now for 12 years, reading and understanding what feminism is and able to spot a feminist within the first couple of sentences of their rhetoric.
    The minute women and men start attacking MGTOW, that is the natural choice of men choosing to stay out of relationships, courtesy of heavy bias towards women, from the state and subsequent persecution of them, should they get into relationships and/or marry, is when you realise you’re dealing with feminists and weak, beta males/ignorant men.

    Maybe some men, are happy, giving up half their savings and assets and paying women a monthly wage, after divorce, all for being allowed to ‘use’ their vagina, that’s fine, but many men are cottoning onto the fact that it’s daylight robbery, not only condoned but enforced by the authoritarian state. And added to that, although I don’t prescribe to this, there is the saying – “why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free” in relation to simply having one night stands with women? I warn men off of this, stating that if they want sex, then they should see an escort. You’ll get what you pay for and more importantly, she won’t scream rape (obviously she will if you do). Many women today know that it’s incredibly easy to scream rape and many do. A man who has a one night stand with a woman, today, has a very high chance of either catching an STD, attracting a psycho bunny boiler, with BPD & BPD (Borderline Personality and Bipolar Disorder) and/or ending up on a false rape allegation. All men have to do is simply control their urge for sex. Either masturbate, pay an escort or simply stop having sex and you then no longer have the need for it, as I have for 12 years now (albeit with a lapse 6 years ago).
    The worst thing for me is that I do attract women. You can bet your bottom dollar that people on here will automatically assume that I and other MGTOWS are hateful, misogynists who despise women, when in reality we’re very polite and courteous in the company of women. We just don’t suffer feminists and their soyboy, beta male, weak, white knight defenders. It’s the same with white nationalists who are branded racists, xenophobes and nazis, because they want their land to live in under their own culture with their own people. They have the utmost respect for other peoples and their desire for nationalism and their right to exist as an ethno group.

    And as for enjoying what I’ve stated on MGTOW it’s simply fact Achmed. There’s no hate, simply an understanding of history, putting the pieces together, dissecting the reasons behind feminism and why it was created and taking it from there. Far too many people wrongly promote MGTOW as masculinism. It isn’t. It is not a movement and the male version of feminism. John Johnson proves his ignorance in his assumption of it being so.
    I have sat in the company of women, who truly do believe that because men desire them, that’s all they need for a relationship, other than rationing their sex, when they see fit. And in the mean time, their partners can take them out for meals, on holidays, pay this and that for them, put up with their tantrums and be an emotional and physical punchbag, when they decide to let off steam. If the women work, the money they earn is their money, but so to is their partners. They pick and choose the best bits from patriarchal society. They promote equality and will offer their credit card, when out on a date, but should you accept, you won’t be seeing her again.

    Feminists are simply lost, confused, self entitled, spoiled daddy’s little girls. They are an exceptionally privileged section of western civilisation who are destroying it. They pursue a life of materialism, living as nothing more than men with vaginas and demanding equality on everything, of course, unless it won’t benefit them. You’ll never see a female sewer worker, deep sea fisherman, deep sea diver on an oil rig. No, the feminists also won’t create their own companies (and if they do they don’t succeed if the staff’s all female) they want top floor entry level, into the businesses men have built from the ground up.
    Bottom line is they want to be worshipped and desired and men have simply said, “ok you do that, we’re off down the pub” and are choosing to either remain single and celibate or go off abroad and find a foreign bride.
    And lastly, because of feminism, there are more and more single, older women. Hollywood now makes films and the msm promotes ‘dating the older woman’ laughably thinking that young men would be interested in having a relationship with a woman, who can’t give them children, who hit the wall years ago and have been ridden more times that Shergar. Women are attracted to older men (hypergamy) and men younger women (procreation). If a woman’s in her 40’s and single then she’s most certainly ‘cuckoo’ loco, a single mother/grandmother/great grandmother that no one wants. This is a problem that’s going to continue growing more and more.
    And sadly, suicide is also going to grow when women realise that they’re old has beens no man wants, because they chose a career over family. What man wants a woman, with more skeletons in her closet than the local graveyard? They fail to see this.

  319. @Rosie

    I’ve written 1,000’s of words (in Ron Unz parlance) to you on what I think about it. Let’s see, as a quick definition it would be anyone who denies, or more importantly, makes efforts to undermine, the traditional roles of men and women as set by Mother Nature. As I wrote long ago in a post title – “Feminism 101”” It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!”

    Yeah, and that phrase “people like you”, I feel that’s kinda racisss, Rosie! ;-}

    • Replies: @Rosie
  320. @Rosie

    I’m not sure that you get the big-picture economics, here, Rosie. EVERYTHING goes up when there is more money to spend on the same production. Women’s salaries have done nothing but give the tax man another big dose of cash, while making it harder for a working man to make a living to support that family. Most women’s jobs are not part of the productive economy, face it.

    The government LUVS, LUVS, LUVS (in Scotch “Whiskey” parlance) this set-up for a much more important reason. Socialist Big Gov does not at all like the nuclear family. Nuclear families teach kids stuff that is contrary to what is indoctrinated to them , uhhh, taught in the government propaganda camps I mean, schools.

    Taking the children from home for 7 to 10 hours a day must start earlier and earlier. The big push is for mandatory pre-K. It’s great for Big-Ed, great for Big-Gov Socialist Indoc., but may raise property taxes just a bit, so it’s a WIN/WIN/Who-gives-a-shit? for everyone!

    • Replies: @Rosie
  321. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    makes efforts to undermine, the traditional roles of men and women as set by Mother Nature.

    So there you are. I’m not trying to undermine women’s traditional roles. I want to encourage more women to follow a traditional path of stay at home motherhood by defending their rights in marriage.

    If you want to call that “feminist,” go ahead, but your obviously not making a serious, substantive argument. You’re just indulging in semantics.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  322. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Most women’s jobs are not part of the productive economy, face it.

    Says Achmed from the comfort of his own armchair. If you have a problem with particular women in particular roles, go ahead and kvetch about waste all you want. When you decide to attack women as a whole, Imma go ahead and assume it’s just a pretext for your desired backlash against women.

    Taking the children from home for 7 to 10 hours a day must start earlier and earlier. The big push is for mandatory pre-K. It’s great for Big-Ed, great for Big-Gov Socialist Indoc., but may raise property taxes just a bit, so it’s a WIN/WIN/Who-gives-a-shit? for everyone!

    I get it. You want women to do unpaid work in the home without giving them a fair share in marital equity. You want them to have nothing. No income of their own and no right to a share of their husband’s income.

    If opposing that makes me a “feminist,” then as I said, so be it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  323. @Rosie

    The “rights” in the contract of marriage as enforced by modern family courts are an extremely bad deal for men, as a number of commenters here have tried to explain to you. Being not just a woman, but a feminist, you just don’t want to hear it. That doesn’t make the problem go away, though.

    Marriage is a real gamble for a man. The real worst of it is not the loss of years of his life (in the from of labor-produced savings and assets). It’s the fact that his own kids can be forced away from him, and he will not be able to raise them to be decent people, as he planned from the time they came out of the womb.

    Until this is fixed, yeah, MGTOW is a pretty sound idea for a lot of guys. Mr. Harbinger’s advice is spot on.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  324. @Rosie

    It’s incredible to think of the number of young men who believe they may fight in a race war one day who also cannot prepare a simple meal for themselves *shrug*

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  325. @Jeff Stryker

    …If white women want to end up childless with no house left to them by a husband who worked for 40 years to pay a mortgage on and end up at the mercy of minority groups on the street who have no qualms about raping homeless 80 year old women because they are accessible…what can I do? When it happens I will be enjoying a cool drink with a younger woman on a tropical beach in Southeast Asia.

    Are you upset that women can buy our own houses now, Jeff? I am on my third home myself. My ex-husband threatened to take half of what I had worked for and in my state, he could have, but he had sabotaged himself by following me around the house with a gun for 45 minutes.

    It is no great loss to the white race that you run off with Asian women. Just don’t bring them home.

  326. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Most women give up after a few months of Harbinger and the rest. It’s Ron’s site. If he wanted, he’d do something about the typing with one hand women haters.

    Remember about 4 years ago when a Muslim bombed a concert in England and women and teen girls were killed and injured? Not a man on UNZ expressed any sympathy for the dead and injured and their families.

    It was just women and teen girl hatred posted again and again for days.. The girls deserved death injury and life long disability for being girls and women. The Muslim fanatic on lifelong benefit was a hero to the UNZ men who hate women and girls.

    Recently there were the endless posts about Epstein’s teen sluts and whores. Some posters proclaimed that as soon as a 10 or 11 year old girl menstruated she is ready for sex childbirth and motherhood.

    It was only my respect for Ron UNZ that stopped me from notifying the FBI about some of those posts proclaiming that 10-12 year olds are ready for sex and pregnancy.

    The UNZ men are a lost cause. It’s a total waste of time to refute their hatred. Let them live with their porn, hatred, loneliness, frustration, and womenless, childless misery.

    Let us enjoy our husbands, children, and homes. Let us continue to work so we can lift some of the financial burden from our husbands, contribute to the household and help care for our children.

    Leave the UNZ men to their porn and loneliness.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Harbinger
  327. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Boo boo, men have to support their children. You UNZ men want to be niggers. Squirt and scram leaving the mothers and or welfare to support the kids.

    White men take care of their children. Niggers don’t.

    What’s this thread about anyway? I forgot the article just reading all your wimp nerd women hating crap. No matter what the article , every UNZ comment thread turns into endless posts by the losers proclaiming their hatred of women.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  328. Ron Unz says:
    @Anonymous

    Most women give up after a few months of Harbinger and the rest. It’s Ron’s site. If he wanted, he’d do something about the typing with one hand women haters.

    Well, this fierce dispute was brought to my attention, and I’m rather skeptical. Our webzine certainly publishes exceptionally controversial articles, but almost all of those deal with political or racial topics, and I doubt whether even 3% of our pieces focus on relationship/gender issues, with this particular thread obviously being a notable exception. I suppose if you spend all your time on that small slice, the website will seem a different place.

    It was only my respect for Ron UNZ that stopped me from notifying the FBI about some of those posts proclaiming that 10-12 year olds are ready for sex and pregnancy.

    Well, our comment-threads are very lightly moderated and we regularly publish 150,000 words of comments per day, so I suppose it’s possible, though personally I don’t remember seeing anything like that. Maybe it was some of the trolls defending Epstein, and some of the other commenters who forgot the important rule about “feeding the trolls.” Anyway, aren’t rightwing websites always endlessly focusing on the age of one of Muhammad’s wives or something?

    As an ironic aside, there was a big story in my morning NYT about a major controversy in France over the fact that for decades many of the country’s most prestigious publications and leading public intellectuals had explicitly defended pedophilia….partly because some of them were themselves pedophiles! I wonder what the comment-thread on that article is like…

  329. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Problem is, no matter what the subject of the article, the women haters jump in. Whiskey is OK, he’s a joke. Paul Kersey’s articles get the most women hating posts because he specializes in black on White crime.

    When it’s a White man victim of black crime, the comments are reasonable. But when it’s aWhite woman victim of a black criminal it’s just a blast of hatred of White women and enjoyment that they were attacked, injured or killed by blacks.

    The article could be about anything and the women haters would chime in with their hatred and stupidity and ignorance.

    It’s your site. If you want to run a women haters gripe session, go ahead. I just believe it’s futile for Rosie and others to try to defend women against the haters.

  330. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Constant Vigilance

    What’s worse is the fact that they have no idea of how wars are won. It’s not misogynist losers holed up in hillbilly holler with hunting rifles and reloads who will win a war.

    Wars are won when the winning side conquers the Capitol, sea ports, major cities and fortresses. But these moron assholes think they’ll fight a revolution or race war 500 miles from the nearest city or army base.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  331. @Rosie

    I’m on a couch right now, not an armchair. Anyway, you avoided the subject of the very part you excerpted from my comment. What’s up with that. Do you agree or not?

    What the hell are you afraid of? Is it those Oxygen Channel shows where the guy just up and leaves, each movie, around 15 minute in? What women did back in the past was make VERY CAREFUL decisions on the most important move (by their own admission) in their lives.

    Now, they make willy-nilly decisions because there is an easy out. What this does is screw over the honest, hardworking, non-bullshitting guys, as the women that would have picked them in the past go for those “Alpha” bullshitters, like the owner of the 5 used-car lots. Now, we’re supposed to marry them as sloppy seconds when they’re getting saggy and maybe raise kids that aren’t ours. Really? Fuck that shit!

  332. @Anonymous

    Ahahaa, actually, I was wondering what the thread was about too, a few hours back – I didn’t feel like scrolling all the way up on this device! You tell me, #186.

    The rest of your post shows a real lack of reading comprehension. Most men don’t want to take care of OTHER people’s children with their hard-earned labor, meaning years of their lives. It’s a big blow to raise your children right, through 4, 8, 12 years old, I dunno, and have them taken from you by some dipshit asshole family court judge that’s not a whole lot brighter than you, Sir.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  333. @Ron Unz

    That sounds like a veiled empty threat from Anonymous #186. It’s one thing to be upset about a thread going off into a different direction* (you could, GASP, skip it!), but quite another for this guy to decide that sex-role discussions are off the table. Then he goes on about with BS about pedophilia – a load of crap, IMO – but then I don’t read the threads under the Communists.

    As a matter of fact, when I read your 1st paragraph, before seeing #186’s comment that you were replying to, I just quickly guessed someone brought up Mr. Harbinger’s great long comments. This guy has been around and seen the evil effects of feminism. Were he to clean up his paragraphing just a bit and that sort of thing. I think each one his comments here would beat hell out of 60- 75% of the articles from the unz writers as far as truthfulness, relevance to American society and its problems, and probably generate 400 comments apiece.

    Sign up Mr. Harbinger, or at least how about a nice gold star for the guy?

    .

    * Guilty as charged. Sorry.

  334. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Hey asshole, I’m not responsible for your unhappy divorce and legal problems.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  335. Harbinger says:
    @Anonymous

    “Most women give up after a few months of Harbinger and the rest. It’s Ron’s site. If he wanted, he’d do something about the typing with one hand women haters.”

    This is the first post, I’ve commented on really, when it comes to MGTOW and the destroyed relations between men and women because of feminism (nothing else).
    What women give up after a few months of Harbinger? The only women I can think of who give up are those who directly engage with me in debate and subsequently lose courtesy of subjection and nonsense.
    I have written, on UNZ on many topics, predominantly on the New World Order and Judaism. That’s really been about is. What I have done, clearly that you are incapable of doing is shown respect to black people. I have never called one a nigger, which you most certainly like to do. You think it’s perfectly ok to call blacks niggers, but you’re angry that men should challenge women and avoid relationships with them, because they’re getting screwed in divorce courts?
    The problem is that you can’t refute my arguments about MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) because they cannot be refuted. The reason, as explained, why MGTOW is because of:

    1. Marriage leads to divorce, their financial rape, loss of home, half their income, alimony and in many cases loss of children leading to very possible suicide. Many young, male children see their fathers go through this, as well as friends fathers and it remains with them up and through adulthood, pushing them to avoid marriage.

    2. Courtesy of #MeToo with women calling false rape and false sexual assault allegations in the work place leading to men not wanting to have sex with them and those in the work place refusing to mentor, be alone in a room with them, share and elevator and avoid all physical contact whatsoever.

    3. Women not bringing anything to a relationship other than their vagina. Many women choose equality, but they have ‘pick and choose’ equality. That is if they offer to pay their way, when out for a meal, they’ll offer their credit card, but if a man accepts they’re not going to be having another date with them.

    4. Women, many today suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder and are a danger to men.

    5. Women, many today have had so many sexual relations by the time they’ve hit their early 20’s that they’re incapable of bonding with any male and engaging in a loving, long term relationship.

    These are some of the reasons why MGTOW.
    Now, if you can see any hatred there towards women, point it out. You won’t because there is no hatred. There is simply an explanation as to why men are choosing to not engage in relations with women and avoid marriage.
    This is not because of a problem with men, far, far from it. The problem lies heavily within women and they know this. Your anger, you deciding to call UNZ men haters and losers is because we’ve struck a raw nerve and you know we’re telling the truth.
    Women today, most under the age of 50 are utterly toxic and non relationship material. They have, as stated nothing to offer but their vagina and I wouldn’t go near it for the fear of an STD or a false rape allegation. You hate what I state because I speak the truth in that men see no positive in having a relationship with women.

    The bottom line anonymous (or is it the woman who had an argument with me about paedophilia whom I decided to ignore?) is that women are responsible for the massive chasm that’s opened up between men and women. You’ve made yourself no longer appreciated, respected and to be pursued by men. Your menfolk, of your race are leaving you, preferring to date foreign women, if they choose to date at all. You have written yourself off of the menu and you are deeply worried for the younger generations of women, following suit in their indoctrination of cultural Marxism at school and college.

    Because of feminism, the white race will certainly fall. And history books will write about the once mighty European peoples, who died because of toxic feminism, with the menfolk, packing up and leaving their women, who they had no desire of not just being around, but protecting.
    The future for western women, if they continue their feminist ways is to become the wives of concubines of the soon to be Middle Eastern and African majorities in the west. And your men will be off, finding happiness with foreign women, happy to have them.

    You see hatred in any man who challenges your feminism and it’s now clear that the UNZ review has many of those.

  336. Harbinger says:
    @Anonymous

    “What’s worse is the fact that they have no idea of how wars are won. It’s not misogynist losers holed up in hillbilly holler with hunting rifles and reloads who will win a war.”

    Of course not, because they’re not holed up are they?
    Take WW1. Women, after being brainwashed by msm propaganda, showing Germans hoisting up babies on the end of bayonets. So they went around, sticking feathers in men’s hats to go off, face the horrors and to die in the trenches. Yup that’s more like it.
    And why did men fight those wars? They fought those wars to protect the women and children and to see their nation survive. Would they, however have fought, knowing what their nation has turned into? Would they go off and fight knowing what the future generation of women were like? We’re not just talking about misandry here, but FOSANDRY (I think) – the wish for the murder of all men by women.

    MGTOW also sees the futility in fighting wars and they would most certainly not fight to save the women, that’s for sure. After all, we live in the time of equality. To make the presumption that the women need to be protected would be sexist. Therefore, when war comes, the women can go off and fight and the men can look after the children this time. After all, it’s about time really isn’t it? They’ve got a lot of catching up to do when it comes to warfare and protecting the nation. Throughout history that was man’s job. Now, off you go, pick up your gun and kill those invading peoples, whomever they may be.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  337. Harbinger says:
    @Anonymous

    “When it’s a White man victim of black crime, the comments are reasonable. But when it’s aWhite woman victim of a black criminal it’s just a blast of hatred of White women and enjoyment that they were attacked, injured or killed by blacks.”

    Examples please?
    The only time, on UNZ review, when I’ve seen men not bother about attacks on white men, have been articles on Sweden, or other insane European nations that have let millions of immigrants in, welcomed them with open signs, worked in refugee centres, only to be raped and/or murdered by those immigrants.
    There’s no hatred for women here whatsoever. It’s more of a “well, you have been warned about immigration. You ignored us. You sewed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.”

    It’s women, in positions of power who are responsible for the mass immigration into Sweden which has turned it into the rape capital of the world, with a massive increase in rape crimes, as well as, in just Malmo alone, 56 no-go zones, where the police, ambulance, fire and postal service won’t enter. They are of course, immigrant created ghettos. Those responsible for this were women.

    So you see, us men sort of tend to look at the situation logically, you know, we kind of see that if you open the door of the chicken coop and let the foxes in, then you’re going to present serious problems to your chicken population. Swedish women, haven’t quite cottoned onto that simple logic.

    P.S. I’m also thinking that you happen to be none other than Alden, the woman whom I had a spat with about sex through the centuries. You haven’t posted in a while. Probably because I ignored anything you had to write.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  338. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    [Comments filled with crude personal insults are much more likely to be trashed, thereby wasting all the effort of writing them. The same substantive points can be made without resulting to gratuitous insults.]

    I’m a woman. I’m proud to tell you I’m not a conservative. I’m a White Nationalist. The only male White Nationalist I Know is my husband.
    We’ve been White Nationalists since our teens.

    This is a site that like all the others attracts male conservatives asshole losers like you and the rest.

    White Men conservatives ignore the number one blow against Whites; affirmative action.

    White male idiot moron conservatives bloviate and blather about abortion because you all are such hateful ignorant bigots you don’t bother to check the statistics and in your profound ignorance think only White women have abortions. Your logic and reasoning ability are so below normal you don’t realize that if it were not for abortion we’d have a black population of 35 percent now.

    [MORE]

    Your endless personal problems of sexual frustration, divorce, dreaming about actresses and porn models but having to settle for average looking women just like you, baldness middle aged men belly, wrinkled and all the rest are your own personal problems and not caused by feminazis.
    Realize that the women available to you are average looking, just like you. Displeased at baldness and middle aged belly? Hair plugs diet, exercise will help. Afraid to speak with an attractive woman? Your problem, not the fault of feminazis.

    Ashamed you’re a bouncer in a gay club? Get another job but don’t blame feminazis or Rosie.

    Don’t want married women to work? FYI moron, that’s why alimony was invented.

    If you’re anti alimony, be prepared for women to work so men don’t have to pay alimony when they dump the 40 year old in the futile dream of finding a beautiful 20 year old.

    You all are so unbelievably ignorant you don’t even know alimony was abolished except in very cases decades ago.
    And you all want White men to become like niggers and not support your children.

    You’re not White Nationalists as I and husband am. You’re just sexually frustrated conservative losers. White conservatives are despicable losers who obsess about abortion birth control pills, feminism movies TV, anything and everything but the real threats and destruction wreaked upon White Americans for the last 64 years
    You elders are still bloviating about TV and oxygen channel whatever that is you don’t even realize few under 60 even watch TV anymore. Except of course for 150 million White men getting fat on the couch several times a week worshipping black athletes.

    There’s a commenter who’s posted about the White men responsible for the anti White laws and judicial orders made years before the feminazis existed.

    But you all blame Rosie and the few other women who post on UNZ for the affirmative action law lobbied for, passed and signed by elected White men.

    Enjoy the rest of football and beginning of basketball season couch potatoes. I can’t stand even to look at all those black sports team creatures you worship.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
  339. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harbinger

    Read the comments about Tessa Majors, Deborah Scruggs and Agostini and Garcia and tell me it wasn’t White men rejoicing that White American women weren’t attacked, seriously injured and in the case of Majors killed by black men while you misogynist losers rejoiced.

    [MORE]

    Your personal problems with women and being a bouncer in a gay clubs are not anyone’s fault but your own. Find a support group of Women Haters.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  340. @Achmed E. Newman

    Harbinger’s argument is not the men’s side of the argument. I gotta dick just like the rest of you and Harbinger does not represent me

  341. @Anonymous

    No. no. The answer to “women hating” or stereotyping women or virtually any kind of thinking that offends anybody is NOT to curtail speech. Unz is not the ADF or the SPLC. Euro gentiles believe in free speech

  342. Harbinger says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    My argument is the argument of common sense when it comes to relationships with women.
    You disagree. It therefore means, quite simply the following:

    1. You are more than happy to date women, who have a very high chance of Borderline Personality Disorder.

    2. You are more than happy to date women, who’ve had many sexual encounters, proving inability to bond and have long term relationships.

    3. You are more than happy to have relationships with women, who have most likely, had an abortion, or more, during their life.

    4. You are more than happy to marry women, who, at a current rate of 80% are more than likely to divorce you, take 50% of your wealth, a monthly income, your house and worse, your children, leaving you 20% of your monthly income to live on and not see your children. And you’ll most likely spend most of that, on a lawyer, fighting to have access to your children.

    You just happen to be one of the few who hasn’t divorced (yet) but when that happens, your life will inevitabley change.

    Women, today, bring nothing to the table other than sex. That’s it. They may harp on about equality but in reality, they want the men to pay their way, even if they have a career and earn an income. Their money is their money while yours is for both.

    Now, Achilles, if you want to live like that, paying her way, buying her gifts, taking her on holidays, when she won’t cook, clean, iron, sew, darn etc. Then that’s entirely your prerogative. You are known as the white knights, the doormats, the beta males, the manginas and the simps, in the MGTOW community. You are essentially paying for whore, because the only way that she’s paying for all you give her is through sex. And the definition of a whore is a woman who solicits sex for financial recompense. In the past the women paid their way through keeping the house.

    There is a huge rise in the number of ‘sugar babies’ in universities advertised the USA. That is, while in university, young girls are signing up to agencies, to earn money from rich men, to pay their college debt. They are soliciting sex for money = prostitution.

    MGTOW see that women today no longer bring a contract to the table in relationships. They no longer keep the home. They contribute only to the relationship with sexual services. This is why they no longer have them with women as well as all the points mentioned above.

    Are all women whores? No.
    Is a woman who only brings sex to a relationship, who uses that to pay for rent, food, gifts, holidays etc a whore? Again, sadly if you look up the definition you’ll find she is.

    The reason I’m being attacked, on this site is because I’m calling out modern women, feminists that is, for what they are. I’m telling them that a growing number of men see them for the frauds they are and have no intention of having any kind of relationship with them. This has angered people because they see the prospects of a marriage slipping farther and farther away, meaning their likelihood of family diminishing, along with it, the chance to walk away, when they want, with a nice fat pension and home.

    There’s no hate, coming from me to women whatsoever, but there’s clear hatred from women towards me for calling them out for attacking men who simply choose to not have relationships with women. When 80% of divorces are filled by women, today, what man, in his right mind would wish to get married at these odds, where he’s the one who’ll lose everything with her the one to gain?

    Geez, this situation is like casino owners kicking up a stink, calling people pathetic and losers, because they’ve found out that every roulette table, blackjack game and fruit machine is rigged. Sure some lucky people will win from time to time (20% who stay married) but overall the majority are going to get shafted.

  343. @Anonymous

    I’m married, about as happily as I figured it’d get, once I got realistic about it. I do care about other people’s problems, though – otherwise I doubt I’d be on this site at all, or blogging. We could easily bail out of here, if things were to get dicey, but I seem to care to much about this place and people.

  344. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    I’m a White woman radical
    White Nationalist. Why are you losers so afraid to proclaim yourselves White Nationalists? Why use asinine inane euphemisms like red pulled? Husband’s a White Nationalist too.

    Idiot morons. You’re against abortion, birth control and men supporting their children. You don’t think that’s inconsistent? You’re anti black and anti Hispanic yet you refuse to recognize that they get most of the abortions in this country.

    You’re not just stupid but so retarded you can’t figure out that fewer abortions means more and more blacks and browns that White taxpayers have to support through welfare prison special Ed and useless affirmative action jobs.

    And you think women love their jobs. Idiot. I know some women who love their jobs. But that’s only because they make 150-200K a year.

    I finally read the article by my great White Nationalist hero Kevin MacDonald. What Anne and Charles Lindbergh have to do with the personal frustrations of loser men I can’t figure out.

    She wrote several books. She was a princess of the American upper upper class. Her father was a senior partner majority shareholder of Morgan bank. She learned to fly and navigate and navigated for Charles.

    Charles was upper middle class and a heroic pilot who made a lot of money on his own. Politically, he was a great hero of the anti war movement. I can’t see the sense of this article about them.

    I read the book claiming that Lindbergh climbed up a ladder to his son’s room, dropped the baby, it killed the baby, Lindbergh dumped the body in the woods and calmly went back home for dinner.

    The book failed to explain why and how Hauptmann had a pile of marked and listed ransom bills in his house. One of you losers believes that book and brought it up
    With the addition the kid was retarded and deformed

    At least it wasn’t the usual I hate White women post unless it was somehow Anne Lindbergh’s fault for giving birth to a retarded or deformed baby.

    I’ve been a White Nationalist since high school
    and I’m a woman. None of you men UNZ commenters are White Nationalists as my husband is. Quit whining about abortions and man up losers.

    You can’t even write the words White Nationalist. You use the euphemism red pilled

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  345. @Achilles Wannabe

    How much did it cost you?

    .

    .

    ….

    [MORE]

    .

    the operation, I mean? I’ve heard that just the co-pay for an adedictome can get up into the low 5 figures.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  346. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    The article could be about anything and the women haters would chime in with their hatred and stupidity and ignorance.

    Exactly. The price of tea in China, a stubbed toe, or whatever else is reason enough to launch a diatribe about how Mom needs to be reduced to an at-will concubine slash domestic servant in her own home.

    Paul Kersey’s articles get the most women hating posts because he specializes in black on White crime.

    I was unaware of that. And Paul Kersey is one of the few who never speaks ill of women AFAIK. Of course, until a couple of weeks ago, I’d have said the same of Millennial Woes. He broke my heart when he threw us under the bus during his Millenniyule chat with the Distributist. The latest gripe is that university political correctness is our fault because we don’t care about truth as much as we do about feelings or some such.

    Of course, I pointed out on Karlin’s open thread that some degree of sensitivity to the traditions and folk beliefs of the people might have been in order when male academics were busy taking a sledgehammer to Western Christianity. Of course, as per Navarro above, men like to take credit for all of the Western philosophical tradition, but then when it’s pointed out that male-dominated philosophy has culminated in deicide and despair, all of a sudden we helped.

    Anyway, I don’t really read Kersey’s columns, but I listen to him on RR. And as I said, I’ve never heard him say anything nasty about us. I’m very sorry to hear about his threads. I think I’ll spare myself.

  347. Harbinger says:
    @Anonymous

    Find me the link to the article about the women you mentioned and white men hasting on them.

    Why do you state my personal problems with women? I have none. I choose to remain single and celibate. I have no need for sex as I’ve procreated. The need for a relationship is not wanted for obvious reasons. I do not hate women and I don’t love them. I am ‘indifferent’ towards them in that I have no emotional feelings for them. Are you able to comprehend this? This is how many MGTOW feel towards women. They have no emotion towards women. They have no desire to love, to hate, to help, to defend and to protect women. They feel, as they do, because women have made it clear that “they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. Women have shown they don’t need men, are more than capable of living a life without them, don’t need their help and are happy to get on with their lives, pursuing their careers and being without men and traditional relationships.
    We MGTOW said “OK, bye”.

    This is what you cannot understand and that is, unlike the women, you won’t let men make the choice of living their lives without being in a relationship with a woman. If we do, you call us haters, misogynists, losers, involuntary celibate, weak, males with psychological problems. Because we see that 80% of marriages end in divorce brought about by women and choose not to marry you tell us to ‘man up’ and not all women are like that, when the statistics prove contrary.

    And tell me, what on earth has being a bouncer in a gay club got to do with this argument and choosing not to have relationships, due to reasons already given? For your information, when I worked in London, I worked all over, in many clubs with a small percentage being gay compared to heterosexual. I was specifically requested to work on these clubs because of my professional reputation and skill at my job. I was one of the few ‘straight’ people working within. I was trusted by all the doormen I worked with and the venues’ staff and management.
    Believe it or not, I was a doorman because I wanted to help and protect people, to stop bad people ruining their enjoyment.
    And again, I don’t hate women as I’m indifferent towards them. I suggest you try to understand what that implies.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  348. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    This is a site that like all the others attracts male conservatives asshole losers like you and the rest.

    Achilles Wannabe appears to be exception. I don’t blame you, though. It’s easy to assume AMALT when so few ever speak up. I will tell you, though, things are getting better. It’s easy to forget how bad things were a few years ago. At one point, Andrew Anglin actually said that men should be able to buy child brides from their fathers. (I can’t find it now. I guess that site is no longer on the internet?)

    As shocking as that is, it actually follows quite logically from the whole manosphere notion that girls who aren’t virgins are “ruined.” Girls in Third World sh!tholes get married off at 13 to men twice their age so they don’t get “damaged.” Of course, when you’re 13-year-old wife hates your guts, there’s a risk she’ll run away. There’s an easy solution: get her pregnant so she can’t leave, and if she does run away, at least you won’t be “cuckolded.”

    Of course, the consequences can be devastating.

    https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/fistula-a-silent-tragedy-for-child-brides/

  349. Rosie says:
    @Harbinger

    Why do you state my personal problems with women? I have none. I choose to remain single and celibate.

    Our problem with you is not that you’re not interested in women, but that you are determined that other men should do the same. It’s your evangelical zeal we object to, not your “going your own way.”

  350. @Anonymous

    WHITE NATIONALIST See it? I did it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  351. Harbinger says:

    Oh Rosie, Rosie, Rosie…….

    If other men wish to choose the parachute with an 80% fail rate then that’s entirely their prerogative to do so. I, along with millions like me, am merely warning men of the risks of choosing the parachute.

    And I don’t think that you fail to grasp why I state what I do. You oppose what I say because you know I’m right and as a member of the sisterhood, want nothing more than to see men dragged through family courts, financially raped, lose their home, their children and possibly suicide.

    Who now is the real hater Rosie?

    It’s not that men don’t want to marry. You want to promote that within every relationship/marriage there’s the chance of success and failure. I agree. But the difference is at an 80% divorce rate, where men have everything to lose, the game’s rigged and not worth taking any risks whatsoever. Au contraire women at a 20% fail rate they have everything to gain in marrying, not just an 80% chance of remaining married, but should they choose to divorce, that is a ‘no fault’ divorce then they walk away far wealthier than before they married at the expense of their now ex husband now far poorer.

    If you truly think that there’s nothing wrong with men marrying after all the aforementioned, then I hate to have to state it, but you are actually adding fuel to the very fast growing, MGTOW fire, philosophy.
    You are either incredibly stupid if you promote marriage for men, or you’re an exceptionally warped individual, who wants nothing more than the continuing state authorised, financial rape of men in divorce courts.

    As for all the other points, in previous posts, about the state of women today in the under 50 generations, I wholeheartedly stand by everything stated and they are the reasons many men avoid relationships with women.
    It is women, not men, who have created the rift, that’s growing daily between the sexes. You, Rosie (and your ilk) can either accept this irrefutable fact, or continue living in denial, blaming the ‘evil’ patriarchy for the breakdown of relations between man and woman. Either way I couldn’t care less what you think. Your life and those like you have no impact, whatsoever on my life. I have only chosen to reply to you, to bury this argument once and for all and to educate other, silly women on why Men Are Going Their Own Way and for them to change their ways and destroy feminism, in all its shapes and forms, once and for all.

    If you don’t, then you will create such a rift, that not only will men shun you, no longer help, nor protect you, but will become your enemy, as was the very agenda, when the Marxist, Fabian Socialists, sent their proxy warriors, the suffragettes, to cause havoc, in London at the beginning of the 20th century and bring about the destruction of the natural relationship that had evolved between men and women.

  352. @Achmed E. Newman

    No problem. I have great liberal heath insurance. The thing fits beautifully too And it is as BIG as the ones the blacks have. The only difficulty is that because I am a White Nationalist, no white woman will have sex with me; they assume that I have certain reactionary attitudes toward females But I continue to resist going to my hand. It just wouldn’t be Achilles-like.nn Maybe you could tell me what it is like to have sex with a woman?

  353. @Harbinger

    Honestly Harbinger I wish I had as may associations with women as you seem to think I have. I live alone without even a cat. Actually I never said I thought you hated women. I said I thought you misconceived them. Well at least you haven’t called me a trans -man as someone further down the page has. Keep up the high standards

  354. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harbinger

    FYI you moron who knows nothing of the causes of WW1 and European politics of 1900. You are a moron if you blame English women for WW1. Many more countries than England were involved.

    In none of the belligerent countries, Russia, Japan, Germany, Austria Hungary, Serbia France, Italy, Turkey, USA, was a single woman head of state, Vice President, premier, cabinet minister, Vice, deputy, assistant minister of any government department, member of the legislature or sovereign’s council member, or in the military or diplomatic service of any belligerent country. There were a few women government typists and clerks in England and France with no influence whatsoever.

    Every newspaper, magazine news service was owned by men. Men wrote the articles about foreign affairs, politics and pushed for war. Woman in the media wrote about womanly issues like sewing, fashion , recipes and children

    Not one woman was involved in the fighting or the years of machinations that went into starting the war, not one woman, it was men, every person involved was a man.

    It wasn’t women who sent millions of European, Russian Turkish and Japanese men to be slaughtered. It was men who did that.

    And what was the result of what men, primarily English upper elite men did? The takeover of first Russia, then China by communists.

    And you, the historical retard, claim English women were responsible for WW1.

    You have a lot of personal and emotional problems. Find a therapist or support group. You’re a pathetic fool to expect a webzine to be your therapist.

    English women caused WW1. What an idiot you are. And you’re bitter and emotional about that false idea about who caused WW1. Seek help. Get castrated or laid or something. Find a therapy group where you and your fellow losers can commiserate with each other. Nobody wants to hear about your lack of sex life.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  355. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    I’m a ferocious White Nationalist woman and I have sex with my Nordic God White Nationalist husband all the time.

    You losers who can’t get laid by neither man, woman nor beast should get together and form a therapy group instead of writing about your frustrations and problems on the internet. Aren’t you embarrassed?

  356. @Anonymous

    I’m a ferocious White Nationalist woman and I have sex with my Nordic God White Nationalist husband all the time.

    That’s good trolling. LOL. Sex to Wagner no doubt.

  357. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I happened to glance at this thread, and noticed that the ferocious disputes are still continuing, with bitter insults going back and forth (though at least they’ve become somewhat less crude and gratuitous).

    As far as I can tell, all the individuals attacking each other are WNs, or at least would regard themselves more or less as such. This isn’t so surprising, and relates to a point I made a couple of months ago on a completely different thread.

    All individuals are at various points on the quarrelsome vs. agreeable/conformist personality spectrum due to a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

    For the last generation or two, WN views have been enormously demonized by the media and other elites in America and most other Western countries. In fact, given their total ignorance, I wouldn’t be surprised if a good fraction of younger people vaguely believe that WN beliefs were illegal and anyone who followed them should just be tossed into prison.

    Under such an environment, most of the people who follow WN ideas naturally tend to be highly non-conformist, and therefore quite often rather quarrelsome in their disposition. And obviously, people who are quarrelsome on one major matter are much more likely to be quarrelsome on others as well. Hence these disputes.

    I’m sure this sort of analysis may draw considerable fire from the various commenters before they return to attacking each other.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
    , @Anonymous
  358. Harbinger says:
    @Anonymous

    “FYI you moron….. “

    Alden, I ignored you last time we disagreed. This time, although I again disagree, I showed you respect, as I do all on here, but I draw the line at comments like yours. That’s how far I read into your reply. Welcome to my ignore list.

  359. Harbinger says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Under such an environment, most of the people who follow WN ideas naturally tend to be highly non-conformist, and therefore quite often rather quarrelsome in their disposition. And obviously, people who are quarrelsome on one major matter are much more likely to be quarrelsome on others as well. Hence these disputes.”

    And this is precisely why the western civilization has not only always been a thorn in the side of the elites, but the very reason we’re targeted for destruction. We are the square pegs that won’t fit in the round holes. We are the skeptics, the conspiracy theorists, the red pilled who don’t confirm to their ‘hive’ society. Unlike other races we’ve constantly fought amongst ourselves. Look at my country’s history? Clans fought against clans since their creation. And its why the west became the greatest civilisation in the world. Not only did we continually invent ways to kill one another, we had to work out how to survive against them. “Necessity is the mother of invention” as the saying goes. And we did a lot of that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  360. Anonymous[734] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    When I first began paying attention to politics, I was shocked by the intensity of woman-hatred on the right. Nobody wanted us around. Regarding sex, if we kept our legs crossed, we were bitches; if we enjoyed a roll in the hay, we were sluts. In either case, we should stay in the kitchen except when we brought sandwiches to the menfolk.
    A couple of years ago on this site, I posted:

    “November 20, 2017 at 7:47 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Redacted

    Considering the vicious hatred of women expressed by commenters at Unz every day, while any sort of defense of women will not pass moderation, you could call your club G.R.O.S.S. (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS), and your password phrase could be “Our Hero Rodney Alcala” — I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he were posting here.”

    The well-established and popular columnists and bloggers here — Derbyshire, Reed, Sailor, in particular — all sneer at women in the armed forces, even thought two of those never served and Reed was a truck driver whose job was in the rear with the gear. I recall one particular column where Sailor mocked a female who tried Marine OCS and failed — as if no male had ever tried and failed. Well, I went through Navy OCS, which they say is tougher than Marine OCS, after having been deployed to Afghanistan as an HM- 8404, serving outside the wire, even though that was against policy. As a result I earned a CAR — the hard way, with complimentary Purple Heart. But my dad had to contact then-Brigadier General Lawrence Nicholson’s staff for me to be awarded either, after years of delay, because the Corps didn’t want to admit women were in combat at that time.
    Believe me, I know about about misogyny. But I also know there are plenty of good men who only care whether you can do the job, are trustworthy and reliable.
    As far as this thread goes and all the BS, it’s just a lot of water-cooler time wasters and cubicle maggots wearing out their keyboards. It doesn’t matter what they write. You just do your thing. Haters gonna hate, as they say.

  361. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    [Anonymous commenters are always limited to 2/hour, but if you use your Handle you get the usual thread/total limits.]

    If you’re celibate why not join a monastery? At least it might keep you from posting your personal problems on the internet for all the world to read. I think they have decent health care so you’d get the therapy and meds you so desperately need.

    Ron I thought the limit was 3 posts an hour. You cut me off after 2 posts responding to the idiot Harbinger who thinks English woman were responsible for WW1 and uses your webzine as therapy for his personal problems.

    If your new policy is 2 posts an hour then announce it and enforce it for everyone.

    You don’t like my crude personal insults directed at Harbinger? But you do like and approve of his insults about all women and the absolute rejoicing by some of the other women haters about Tessa Majors murder and the serious injuries inflicted on White woman Deborah Scruggs by a black man.

    Did you read the comment about Deborah Scruggs by one of the women haters? He claimed her serious injuries, 25 broken bones were caused by her obesity. When in fact Deborah Scruggs is slender. The poster didn’t look at the video of Deborah. Just claimed she is obese.

    Read the articles about Tessa Majors and you’ll see what kind of frustrated women haters frequent your site. “ She’s a woman, she deserved to be murdered, I m glad she’s dead” was the general consensus among the men of UNZ.

    Men UNZ commenters constantly refer to women “ riding the cock carousal” and that’s perfectly OK with you.

    But I pointing out that the White men against abortion and against Hispanics and blacks are idiots because it’s only abortion that keeps the numbers of blacks and Hispanics low is a crude personal insult.

    They are idiots to want more blacks and browns born. Hispanics and blacks have the most abortions. So it’s either more blacks and browns or abortion. If the women haters can’t see the logic of that, then they are idiots and morons

    I’ll stop my personal attacks against the illogical woman haters when you censor every post that writes about women “ riding the cock carousal” that’s an obscene phrase.

    Harbinger it’s not masculine to endlessly whine about your divorce and child support payments to internet strangers. It’s nerdy and wimpy. That’s what you’re doing. It obscene to write about your sex life or lack of. Your celibacy is your celibacy and not for general conversation on the internet. It’s between you and your therapist something you desperately need.

    The ignorance about alimony is appalling. It’s been abolished in America except in very rare cases. That would be a spouse who had not worked during the marriage and had no skills.

    So the earning spouse would have to support to non earning spouse through a short term vocational course, barber school or something. Another example of the moronic ignorance of the women haters.

    Harbingers personal and sexual problems are his and his therapist’s problems. It’s totally unseemly and unmanly for him to whine about them to strangers on the internet.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
    , @Rosie
  362. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    There are a very few White Nationalists, on this site. Most are conservatives which means nothing and about half the men are women haters. Then there’s Harbinger who thinks UNZ is therapy for his personal problems.

  363. @Anonymous

    I envy your husband. Like I said, I’m not getting anything. Do you think I could watch sometime?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  364. @Anonymous

    It was all a joke I was having with Achmed. Lighten up.

  365. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harbinger

    ⭐️ 🌟 ⭐️

    OMG Harbinger made a comment that wasn’t all about his personal emotional problems. Give him a gold star ⭐️

    Think I’ll go fix my husband a drink and some snacks. In gratitude for him being a normal White Nationalist man instead of a neurotic nerd loser women hater.

    BTW, priss factor, Scandinavians and German
    Teutons are 2 different ethnicities despite Hitler’s ignorant attempts to draw Scandinavians into his Teutonic fantasy.

  366. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harbinger

    Find a therapist. Or get Prozac or another medication or find a hobby or work two jobs or paint your house. Do anything but blather about your emotional problems with the woman who done you wrong.

  367. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Harbinger it’s not masculine to endlessly whine about your divorce and child support payments to internet strangers. It’s nerdy and wimpy. That’s what you’re doing.

    Lol.

    Anyway, he keeps going on about an 80% divorce rate or some such. I do wonder where he gets that figure. From what I’ve heard the first-marriage divorce rate is like 41% or something, with that number considerably lower if the spouses are >25 when they marry. White women have an even lower first-marriage dissolution rate. If they have college degrees, it’s lower still. I don’t know the exact figures, but I would imagine you’re getting down into the 25% range. Then, if you don’t cheat on your wife or otherwise be a jerk, your risk is even lower than that.

    And another thing. Don’t refuse to get your wife pregnant.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3700123/Rise-biological-clock-divorce-s-one-craves-baby-doesn-t-HILARY-FREEMAN-knows-cost-destroys-marriages.html

    How often do women file for divorce because they want a baby, but their husband refuses?

    Yet he carries on with his scaremongering because misery loves company.

    Some interesting factoids.

    Couples with daughters are significantly more likely to divorce than couples with sons. What’s up with that?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2010/07/08/does-having-children-contribute-to-your-risk-of-divorce/#c18f3e737ec8

    Men with higher testosterone are more likely to get divorced, suggesting something like toxic masculinity might be at play.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/head-games/201405/do-differences-in-testosterone-explain-relationship-quality

    This would be very consistent with the Rushtonian life history analysis.

  368. @Achilles Wannabe

    LOL!

    I know what ya mean, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

  369. @Achilles Wannabe

    LOL, say no more!

    Another Monty Python fan? They’re coming out of woodwork.

  370. anon[631] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adûnâi

    “And what’s wrong wit being bitter and resentful? Yes, we are those things. I am not afraid to call myself those epithets. Because I hate the modern world and would like to change it. Unlike a centrist such as you.”

    Good. If you haven’t, you should watch Robert Bresson’s 1977 film, ‘The Devil, Probably’.

  371. Rosie says:

    Before this thread dies, I wanted to post some statistics about marriage and education.

    It turns out that, contra the manosphere, the more education a woman has, the more likely she is to be presently married between the ages of 40 and 45.

    Harbinger wrote paragraph after paragraph here telling us otherwise, impressing the peanut gallery with his “erudition.” Yet, because he couldn’t be bothered to do a Google search and look into the actual facts of the matter, he wasted people’s time and made a fool of himself.

    Moral of the story: It doesn’t matter how impressive someone’s armchair scholarship may or may not sound. All that matters is facts. The pro-White movement would do well to keep this in mind.

    Of course, I’m not so naive to think that something other than a dispassionate search for truth may be driving hostility to women in the dissident right, but there’s nothing I can do about that.

    https://i2.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/smmchart1.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C9999px&ssl=1

    https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/smmchart2.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C9999px&ssl=1

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08/19/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married/

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  372. @Rosie

    ROSIE

    I for one would rather have educated women who have a limited number of children within a stable marriage than poor young uneducated women-white or not-who end up at the County Welfare office.

    I’ve known very nice young white women who made the mistake of getting pregnant by some heel at age 19 and their life was ruined.

    I’m not arguing with you in the slightest. Believe me, I’m in full support of educated women marrying later and having a smaller number of children.

    We’re never going to compete against other races in “victory from the cradle”. Africans start screwing at age 14 and don’t stop until 45 when their youngest baby is younger than their first grandchild. Whites cannot outscrew hyper-sexual and hyper-fertile minority groups. And if they did, Europe and white American would be Africa Pt. 2.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Harbinger
  373. Rosie says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    We’re never going to compete against other races in “victory from the cradle”. Africans start screwing at age 14 and don’t stop until 45 when their youngest baby is younger than their first grandchild. Whites cannot outscrew hyper-sexual and hyper-fertile minority groups. And if they did, Europe and white American would be Africa Pt. 2.

    That’s the future Harbinger wants for us, nevermind the ecological implications.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  374. @Rosie

    If blacks were running things and a bunch of poor whites need the government to feed them, what do you think they’ll receive?

  375. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:

    I can’t understand why the author brought the Lindbergh’s into this article. Reading the diary quotes, Anne fully supported Charles and agreed with him about the Jewish warmongering.

    She was rightly concerned about that might happen to him and their family because the Jews were determined to destroy him. Had he and anti war activists been more successful, Lindbergh might have been killed by the war mongers.

    The Anne Lindbergh diary quotes are definitely not an example of a couple disagreeing about politics or anything. Read the quotes. She fully agreed with him. If the author had read more about the Lindbergh’s he’d know that Charles was very concerned about the damage to his hero pilot public image, his family and even his wife’s family Morgan bank.

    It’s a ridiculous example of a couple disagreeing about politics. Because they didn’t disagree.

    I thought this is a site with interesting and unconventional articles to be discussed.

    But more and more UNZ is some kind of lonely hearts women haters support group. If Ron wants to run a frustrated bitter old man misogynist women haters support group, who am I to complain? . Maybe Ron is a frustrated misogynist too.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Autochthon
  376. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    But more and more UNZ is some kind of lonely hearts women haters support group. If Ron wants to run a frustrated bitter old man misogynist women haters support group, who am I to complain? . Maybe Ron is a frustrated misogynist too.

    I don’t blame Ron. He’s doing what he says he intends to do: create a platform for marginalized perspectives. On the other hand, those who claim to lead White people, half of whom are women, shouldn’t be getting mixed up in manosphere politics.

    You cannot serve two masters.

    I sometimes ask myself if there is some 3D chess strategy that explains why movement figures think it is a good idea to pander to these people. Is that the only way they can grow the movement? If so, that is a very sad commentary, indeed.

    I don’t think we should be doing the Woman Question, but for Heaven’s sake, if we’re going to do it, let do it right. The manosphere has been caught in so many whoppers now, I keep thinking surely any day now people will start ignoring them, or at least not accept everything they say as Gospel Truth.

  377. @Anonymous

    The Lindbergh’s what? (To which of the Lindberghs does this unidentified possession belong, anyway?)

    Anyhow, the vast majority of articles and commentary on this site have nothing whatever to do with sex or relations between the sexes (as Mr. Unz already quite rightly pointed out).

    Here’s a final bit of advice for negotiating reality: not everyone whose views you do not share is a he-man woman-hater or a “frustrated misogynist.”

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  378. @Autochthon

    Actually, Autochthon, I think Mr. Unz ought to have MORE material on this issue. I see him as into the power politics and investigations into important American historical events more than the social/cultural issues (probably why he doesn’t “get” iSteve). However, feminism has been arguably THE most destructive cultural change ever implemented in America, with welfare policy being a close 2nd. (… and I do mean “implemented”).

    Mr. Harbinger could put out a column on the effects of feminism probably every coupla’ weeks without running out of material for years. Ask me, and I’ll come up with 10 titles in a minute.

    If such a column were published, the Rosies and #186s could simply avoid them (not that awful hard to just not click, is it?) based on their perceptions of the “stupidity” contained therein, just as I now avoid all the columns written by the complete anti-Americans and Commies (with lots of overlap), as the real stupidity seen there is overwhelming.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  379. Harbinger says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    “We’re never going to compete against other races in “victory from the cradle”. Africans start screwing at age 14 and don’t stop until 45 when their youngest baby is younger than their first grandchild. Whites cannot outscrew hyper-sexual and hyper-fertile minority groups.”

    And what is the answer of western women to that? Having careers, no children and promoting immigration to pay for their pensions and for someone to serve them their coffee.
    The western civilization is slowly committing suicide and white women are the knife that’s severed the artery.

  380. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    If such a column were published, the Rosies and #186s could simply avoid them (not that awful hard to just not click, is it?)

    You don’t understand, Achmed. I’m not here for entertainment and lulz, unlike most of you. I’m here to babysit, which bitter experience has shown me is absolutely necessary lest deranged and sadistic misogynists make a laughingstock of pro-White politics while our supposed leaders sit around and do absolutely nothing about it.

    So, no, I won’t be avoiding any columns set aside specifically to scapegoat women.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Rosie
  381. @Rosie

    Well, I know you are done raising your kids and have somewhat more time that I have, Rosie. Still, I think you’re gonna’ be on-line all day – too much screen time can be bad for you. I tried my best to talk some sense into the Commies before, but Commies are gonna Commie, and so I felt my time was wasted. I do understand the idea of replying to people in order that others that are on the fence or ignorant of the whole issue won’t be duped.

    Still, I will reply in kind, as I know as a CONSERVATIVE that feminism is destructive, and any REAL CONSERVATIVE would understand this.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Alden
  382. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    However, feminism has been arguably THE most destructive cultural change ever implemented …(… and I do mean “implemented”).

    Meanwhile, Israel has plenty of babies, without any need for a backlash against women.

    Hmmm. What’s different about Israel? Maybe it helps not to be told how much better off the works would be if you were gone 24 hours a day.

    https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2018/1214/Israel-booms-with-babies-as-developed-world-s-birth-rates-plummet.-Here-s-why

    Of course, men don’t want to acknowledge the real problems because then they would have to take responsibility for handing our societies over to a hostile elite that constantly demonizes and demoralized us, sapping our will to survive.

    By the way, I’ve been asking for evidence that low birthrates are driven by women’s fecundity preferences rather than men’s for years now. I still haven’t seen any.

  383. Harbinger says:

    Let’s put this argument to bed once and for all.

    What I like about The Unz Review is that it attracts a great deal of thinkers. That is it attracts not only people with the ability to think critically, but be sceptical about current events and the ‘official story’ of history. With that stated, I’ll continue.

    Firstly, Alden (Anon #186) entered into an argument with me on another thread because I stated that when nature determines that a child become a woman, that child begins puberty. That was my argument, along with the fact that not only the western nations, but nations all over the world’s population is what it is today, with procreation, amongst the young, due to, high mortality rates for all the obvious reasons.
    What I stated was that a female child, no longer is a child when she reaches puberty, but in fact, is ready to have children of her own.
    I also stated the simple fact – who is more correct – man or nature?
    This of course led into a typical argument of hysterical proportion with Alden ranting and raving, wanting to call the FBI, there in itself proving how quick women are to not only bring about authoritarian police states, but destroy any speech they disagree with and calling me a paedophile.
    I then went back into history, stated facts of history such as Edward 1st of England bringing about the first law that it was unlawful behaviour to have sex with a child of 12, this in itself proving that for thousands of years previous it was perfectly acceptable (cue debate on Muhammad and Aisha and an easy point to bring about hypocrisy of westerners thinking they have moral highground in this debate). To add, it wasn’t until the latter 19th century that a feminist women, decided that the age of sexual consent be increased from 13 to 16.

    Now, time for some critical thinking……

    The Fabians, responsible for the creation of the suffragettes and women’s emancipation, are a communist organisation. There is plenty of information, on the internet about them so go have a read.
    So, if ‘someone’ say, wanted to destroy the white civilisation, how on earth would he/she/they go about doing so? Well, it’s really quite easy. Other than destroying them through wars, you simply have to stop them procreating. Therefore, how about actually stigmatising the very natural procreation of women in their early teens? How about actually making that illegal, which for thousands, upon thousands of years it was, effectively the very reality of nation building.

    Problem

    We need to make the public change their attitudes about sex with women of the age of 13/14, in order to stop women having children at an earlier age and reduce the nation’s population growth.

    Solution

    1. Change the initial definition of paedophilia from that of sex with a pre-pubescent female/male to someone of a certain age, in this case 16.
    2. Dumb down the population, women especially, putting them in a box, keep them ‘innocent’ from the horrors of life, do not teach them about life skills (cooking, understanding the lay of the land, cleaning, clothing creation, farming, etc) which will ultimately bring about the answer: “she is too young to understand about life, hasn’t learned and too young to raise a child of her own.”
    Case in point: How many child prodigies are there? Is this a natural affinity to being good at what they do or is because they started learning from a very young age? Apprenticeships began before a child’s teens. In the past, children of 7 were far more intelligent, certainly wiser on the ways of the world than most 18 year olds today. They’d all been taught.

    Society has been conditioned to accept the age of ’16’ for sexual consent. And where did this magical number appear? Why is it 16? Why not 15, 14, 13? Why not 17,18, 19, 20? What expert came along and said 16? Again, it was a feminist, most certainly affiliated with the Fabian Socialists of London. And here’s something also for you to think of – conscription into the armed forces, today is 16. Yup, you can go off and kill and be killed, but you can’t procreate. What better way to stop procreation of western peoples, by not allowing them to procreate until the age the men are most likely to be killed in a war?

    The point here is NOT, as hysterical women on this forum will shout out, the promotion of paedophilia, but the very changing of the public’s views on procreation, that for thousands of years society accepted a child became an adult, when they were ready to procreate and that was decided by nature, NOT man/woman. All of this change, as stated, came about with the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 of which feminist Josephine Butler and other organisations, were instrumental in bringing it about.

    From then on, we saw the rise of feminism and the utter obliteration of life, that had existed for thousands of years, between men and women. Women got the vote, to become the easily manipulable pawns of society’s change agents. The very deliberately created WW1 brought about the annihilation of Europe’s youngest generations and cull of their population, leading to women moving into the workplace, because the men were all off killing and being killed. And this directly lead to careers for women and competition, against men, in the workplace. Added to that any children that parents had, would be snatched up by the state for indoctrination. It was after WW2 that we saw this come into full effect, most notably with the Cultural School of Frankfurt Marxists, who had fled Germany and were now bringing about the demolition of the west. To Quote Willi Munzenberg – “We’ll make the west so corrupt it stinks” and they knew just how to do that. All one has to do is look back to the Weimar Republic, pre rise of Hitler.

    So, roll on 60 years, past the 60’s and second wave feminism and we’re not at the situation where marriage between men and women is at an all time low. Divorce rates soured the minute ‘no fault divorce’ came into being, allowing a woman to go off, have an affair, divorce her husband, not be guilty of breaking the marriage contract and running off with half his assets and income.
    And women, truly, on this forum call men haters and misogynists, because there is a growing number who choose not to marry, when 80% of divorces are brought about by women?
    This is what men have to deal with – being lambasted and pilloried, told to ‘man-up’ and marry. So what if she has carte blanche to divorce you, whenever she wants, through no fault of your own and steal all your hard earned income? That’s what being a man is, as we’re told. We’re supposed to take the physical and psychological abuse from women, the false rape allegations, the sexual assault allegations or women being offended in the workplace BS?
    Men simply decided to say one thing – “NO.”

    Women, do not love men. Men love women. Men love unconditionally. Women love conditionally (this negates love). It is natural. A woman seeks a man for protection, to have young with and for him to help provide for their growth. This was the bond that has been from time immemorial. Everything was fine. Yes, men knew that women wanted them, only for what they could give them. They’ve known this for thousands, upon thousands of years, but the difference is that today, men have absolutely no guarantee in marriage, as they did in the past. There is absolutely nothing to stop women from marrying them, simply to get as much as they can from him financially. It is nothing more than STATE SANCTIONED, LEGAL THEFT, OF A MAN’S ASSETS & INCOME.

    To bring this to a close, the bottom line is really a simple one – western society has been deliberately sabotaged, from the changing of the age of consent (and subsequent generational conditioning, through constant propaganda, in order to accept it and bring about vehement hatred to anyone who questions it, as can be seen clearly on this forum), to the creation of feminism, votes for women, women in the workplace and careers, promotion of equality and the recent #MeToo witch hunt of men, which has subsequently happened because of it. From the creation of a police force who ignore female battery of men, but instant arrest of men who defend themelves to it, to arresting the male for rape, should he and the female both be intoxicated. And of course the attack against the male continues as the (((change agents))) bring about an even bigger rift between the sexes.
    MGTOW was simply a natural reaction by men, to society giving women power over men and toxic carte blanche gynocentrism. “But it’s men who make those laws” you’ll very probably find that women’s (feminist) groups were behind them (lobbying) and Jews were the law lords who made the change.

    Again, the hysterical women, on this forum, have proven by their behaviour, just why women should never, ever, ever be allowed into any position of power, authority or influence. Not only are women emotional, but they are incapable of the wisdom, men have shown throughout time, on how society should be run. When women attain power, they instantly create authoritarian states. They push for equality. They push for a bigger police force and more power to the state. They push for control speech and other freedoms. And it’s precisely this reason that feminism came into being because women, I’m very sorry to have to state, are the authoritarian’s, the tyrant’s wet dream.

    P.S.
    Rosie and Alden (Anon#186) I will not be replying to any comments you will most certainly write. If you can’t get the point from what’s written (and everything I’ve already written) you never will. Continue wallowing in your ignorance and hysterics. I really couldn’t care.

    • Replies: @Alden
  384. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Well, I know you are done raising your kids and have somewhat more time that I have, Rosie.

    No, I’m not and no I don’t.

    Believe me. I wish someone would come along and relieve me of my duty to keep you all from going completely and totally off the deep end with woman-hatred. I have other things I’d rather be doing.

    Still, I will reply in kind, as I know as a CONSERVATIVE that feminism is destructive, and any REAL CONSERVATIVE would understand this.

    Achmed’s reactionary fideism. We don’t need no stinkin’ proof.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  385. Alden says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Conservatives are the reason White Americans are in the condition were in.

    It wasn’t women who ordered school desegregation and school bussing, passed and enforced the unlimited non White immigration and affirmative action acts, made the disparate impact affirmative action Supreme Court rulings that made it basically illegal to hire a White man.
    Everyone of those things were done by White, mostly non Jewish men, long before women flooded into political and law.

    White men did it, not White women or any women.

    Conservative men aren’t even aware of the affirmative action discrimination against them.

    They’d rather whine about someone else who doesn’t want to pay child support. Or rant and rave about tattoos, hair dye, skirts, décolletage, things that are totally insignificant when compared to black in White crime gun control massive immigration and most of all, affirmative action discrimination against Whites.

    And please guys, shut about TV. Your showing your age. No one under 60 watches TV anymore. One of the misogynist women hating old codgers wrote something to Rosie about the Oxygen channel. The old whiner disapproves of Oxygen channel.

    I’ve never even heard of Oxygen channel. I don’t watch TV at all. Yet the old codger scolded me and Rosie for watching Oxygen channel. How does the old grumpus Know so much about the Oxygen channel? .

    Take care of your own sex guys. You should have done something back in 1954 when the schools were desegregated and when unlimited affirmative action and affirmative action were passed.

    But you men just behaved like sheep being trucked off to the slaughterhouse. And you seem to think Harbinger’s emotional problems are more important than the vicious discrimination against the White race in this country.

    Go ahead, rant about tattoos and décolletage and ignore the real issues.

    • Agree: MalePaleStale
    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  386. Alden says:
    @Harbinger

    Ron, Harbingers comment 389 that as soon as a girl reaches puberty she’s ready for sex and mother hood is a repeat of his prurient posts on the Jeffrey Epstein articles claiming that if a girl
    Menstruates at age 10 she’s ready for sex and motherhood.

    He claims to be resident in England so he’s beyond reach of the FBI.

    His claims that women started WW1 are insane.

    Harbinger’s beyond reach of the FBI if he’s English. Americans are under the jurisdiction of the FBI.

    My husband’s company employees almost all White men in defiance of affirmative action. I sent thousands of black men to maximum state prison terms over 27 years.

    And harbinger states both on this thread and the Epstein threads that girls are ready for sex and motherhood as soon as they start puberty. On the Epstein thread he stated even at 10 and 11.

    I sent men to prison who raped girl children.

    Harbinger approves of sex with girl children and proclaims it on your site.

    It’s your site. If you want Harbinger proclaiming his approval of sex pregnancy and motherhood for girls under 12 if puberty starts under 12, face the consequences.

    Women started WW1 when they couldn’t even vote in most European countries.

    What’s really bad about Harbinger is that most of the men at UNZ agree with the fool.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  387. @Alden

    Boasting about putting blacks in jail is as big a cardinal sin as any statement anyone could make.

    And many of the people on this site do not live in America.

    Here is the good word from an expat. I live overseas because I scoff at your laws, at your customs, at your cultural sensibilities. And someday, I’ll take social security from taxpayers and spend it in another country.

    Possibly Harbinger is not an American.

    San Francisco has always been a pit of Irish-Catholic political assassins shooting gays in city hall on the “Twinkie Defense” and Charles Mansons.

    You’ve also made some statements about Chinese people in San Francisco that were not exactly politically correct.

    Your backyard is a dump.

  388. Harbinger says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    There you go, as stated the hysterical Alden put in her 5 cents. How anyone could brag about locking up “thousands of blacks” not only shows just what Alden is but only goes to strengthen the fact that women, given power and influence in society turn them into authoritarian, police states. And yes, it is a cardinal sin.

    There’s thinking what’s right and ‘doing’ what’s right. Locking people away, only gives them access into understanding how to be better criminals and social network with likewise peers.

    Best scenario is Devil’s Island model. Put criminals on an island within the society they choose. Who do people think they are imposing authority upon those they have none over? A problem, that arises between individual A and individual B is between A & B, NOT A, B & group C. People fail to understand that the police, were created NOT to protect them, but to protect the elites, from the public, when the public wakes up and realises they’re being rogeted over a barrel.

    Case in point: constant police presence around aristocracy, politicians and of late patrolling Jewish areas in London after the recent synagogue attack.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
  389. @Jeff Stryker

    Jeff, did you read my reply to you above about living overseas on the American dollar? It was just a friendly warning. I know you want to screw the American Feral government by collecting SS (and anyone who likes to screw the Feral government is a friend of mine), but that money denominated in dollars may be worth squat by the time you collect. I’m just saying: don’t count on that!

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Alden
  390. @Rosie

    No, I’m not and no I don’t.

    See, I read through comments pretty thoroughly, at least when it’s someone I’m writing back and forth with. I don’t remember all details but the general idea after a while. I had thought your 6 kids were out of the house, but perhaps I’m wrong. I know you have more time than me, if you think you can get on every thread on unz, not to mention the rest of the internet, and argue for feminism.

    Do you understand, you and Alden, that by “REAL” conservative, that’s exactly what I meant, not the fools that write for National Review or any particular politician that says he’s one? (No, GOP ≠ conservatives) Just by definition, feminism being completely anti-nuclear family, it is not a conservative ideology.

    Worse yet, Rosie, though you are in good company with some of the alt-right on this, you admitted to being somewhat of a Socialist, did you not? Well, that’s just grand! Anyone who wants more government yet cares about the family is deluded. Government LUVS, LUVS, LUVS your kids, but in THEIR hands.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  391. @Jeff Stryker

    Haha! You just need to do the right plan – that is, have physical assets or some other currencies, at least.

  392. @Alden

    Conservatives are the reason White Americans are in the condition were in.

    See what I wrote to Rosie. If REAL conservatives were the problem, then there are absolutely NO solutions! You’re wrong – this country was conservative before, and it was a great country. You’re old enough to know that, probably by a decade on me.

    I write that only because you brought up the TV. I may be one of the few (I dunno) here who try to read through whole threads (yes, > 400 comments when it comes down to it). I don’t just skim through and pick and choose like you and Ron. If you had read just a decent number of my comments, you’d know I’m an anti-TV fanatic. I haven’t been hooked up in 20 years to cable, only have the flat-screen for videos for kids and movies that I watch. (I got it for my wife, but she doesn’t watch it at all). Nope, I’m no codger – I love my wife, but truth is truth. She can read my blog to know what I think about feminism.

    The Oxygen Channel was on years ago, but I figured it was still on. Like “Lifetime”, the deal is, they’d show women’s interest shows. The movies that I’d seen while some idiot had the thing on were always about some bad, bad man who beats the wife, etc. etc. The truth of it is all that stuff Rosie has in her head about women having to escape from these bad men is either memories from 50 years ago, from experience living in Non-white communities, or from watching the Oxygen Channel. Which is it, Rosie?

    In another of her great columns, Ann Coulter (she’s a woman, you know) explains that white men in the Western world have been the best to women of any society you could name:

    With the impeachment nonsense making TV news unwatchable, I’ve been catching up on “Law & Order SVU” recently.

    The scripts involve the sort of real-life crimes that are a lot more common since our country has become “diverse,” such as child rape and incest. But the child-rapists are never diverse, as they are in real life. No, the perps are always blond, blue-eyed American men.

    In fact, the modern American white male is the least rapey, most gentle, protective, chivalrous creature God has ever created. Get ready for a gigantic I TOLD YOU SO when American women realize that, from 1620 to the day Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act kicked in, they never had it so good.

    I wouldn’t mention it, except for “Law & Order SVU.” It would be as if the writers portrayed New York City as a sleepy little burg and Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, as a fast-paced metropolis, jam-packed with skyscrapers.

    In one episode titled “Zero Tolerance,” a white American male sells illegal alien girls to other white American men in a sex trafficking scheme that was somehow enabled by Trump … SEPARATING CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS AT THE BORDER!!!

    (The theory of causation is a little vague, but it was definitely Trump’s fault.)

    Also, according to “Law & Order SVU,” the main demographic with a sexual fetish for pre-pubescent Hispanic girls is: handsome, married American white men.

    Thus, the john having sex with a 9-year-old illegal alien in this episode was a white businessman, married with two sons, who was in New York specifically to have sex with underage girls.

    You have to admire television writers who have taken a vow to never leave their homes, have any human contact or read.

    Reviewing my years of research on child sex crimes, I see that this has happened NEVER. It’s kind of the opposite. I ended up with so many immigrant child rape cases for “Adios, America!” that most of them had to be left on the cutting room floor—or the book would have been twice as long.

    Ann Coulter for VP! Tucker for President!

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Rosie
  393. Anon[281] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harbinger

    Why do you need to tell your personal sexual and relationship problems to strangers in the internet? In America the outpouring of personal problems is a Jewish habit. Form a support group.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  394. Alden says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I’ve never watched Lifetime or Hallmark in my life. I’ve seen a few trailers and bits and pieces of Law and Order. In a city where 97 percent of the murderers are black and brown all the murderers are White.

    And not just White. They are all wealthy working in prestige professions living in the multimillion dollar homes in the most expensive neighborhoods of Manhattan.

    I’m a woman and I resent you insulting me by claiming I watch Oxygen channel because I’m a woman.

    I personally have done more against black criminals and for victims of black on White crime than any of the whiners ( not you) on UNZ. I sent thousands of black criminals to state prison maximum terms

    My husband’s family company employs 80-200 White men at any one time in total violation and defiance of the affirmative action laws.

    What have the misogynist women haters of UNZ ever done for Whites? 000 nada, nothing.

    UNZ men aren’t even aware of affirmative action and black and White crime. I don’t know why Paul Kersey bothers. When he reports a black man criminal attacking a White woman, the UNZ misogynist eunuch women haters just heap much hatred on the White woman victim. It’s all her fault. She lived in NYC. She went to a Popeyes in Tennessee. She lives in Tennessee.

    She was outside at 5/pm Tessa Majors went to a dangerous park to buy weed. A student can buy weed in every high school in the country including the religious ones. And on every college campus. How old are these commenters who think weed is a rare, exotic substance available only in Harlem from 8th grade black boys?

    Kersey would find a more sympathetic audience on Amren , CofC any where else. On UNZ the commenters just rejoice White women are victimized by blacks.

    At least half the Epstein comments ignored the fact that Epstein pled guilty to soliciting and procuring for prostitution and soliciting and procuring for prostitution of minors which is a felony in Florida and every other American state.

    The Epstein threads were just a mishmash of old codgers defending statutory rape and molesting of minors including one old pervert insisting that girls are ready for sec pregnancy and child birth the first month they reach puberty even if they are as young as 10.

    This has turned into the same thing even though the article is about Anne Lindbergh’s worries about the how Charles’ anti war activism would affect him and the rest of the family.

    Comment 389 defends sex with girls under 12. Too bad he’s not gay. He could join Nambla North American Man Boy Love Association NAMBLA wants to bring down the age of consent for boys doing gay love to 5.

    Maybe he can fiound the Great BritishLegalizing
    RapeOf5YearOldGirlsAssociation.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  395. Alden says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Can’t get social security till you’ve contributed 10 quarter years into social security. Jeff and his wife own a Thai business or so he claims. So I suppose they’ve funded their own retirement. I doubt Jeff ever plans to come back.

  396. Alden says:
    @Harbinger

    I do brag about locking up thousands of convicted blacks who preyed on Whites. They preyed on blacks and others as well but when the victim was White I really went after them and I’m very very proud of that

    The thing I’m most proud of is that when I started as a probation officer the sentence for a convicted black rapist was 3 weeks in a mental health counseling facility. San Francisco County was better than Alameda County
    (Oakland Ca.) There was a good 15 year period after the publication of To Kill a Mockingbird that Alameda County prosecutors just refused to charge blacks who raped White women.

    It took me less than a year to change the sentence for convicted black rapists from 3 weeks mental health counseling to maximum terms in state prison. Judges, especially men judges are such wimps. Just barrage them with facts.

    Another thing I’m very very very proud of is that I got an Israeli mafia visa fraudster, mortgage fraudster sex trafficker of Eastern European girls molester penetration rapist of a 3 year old shiksa and pimp arrested and deported along with his anchor babies.

    It wasn’t even difficult. Just calling the local FBI sheriff and police of every town I chased him to and the state department sex trafficking unit and visa fraud unit. Also notifying local and national like Westfield Mall management of every mall he set up his little sunglass kiosks in.

    Those mall kiosks are organized crime. They invest about 50K for 2 or 3 kiosks and training. You know those HI-B visas? For an employee with such rare and unusual skills the employer just can’t find a competent qualified American employee?

    The mall kiosks just need one sales clerk. But the kiosk owners can get dozens of HI-B visas and then sell them to the employees and the employees just disappear into the underground economy. He didn’t let the visa girls go. Just locked them up in brothels s and made them work.

    I don’t know about ethnic not Jewish Russian and Asian mall kiosk organized crime. But allegedly the Israeli immigrant organized crime kiosk owners are all part of Israeli ( not American Jewish) espionage.

    That’s what I did for Whites. And the majority of victims of black on White crime were White men. Because men are out on the street at night alone and go to bars alone much more than women.

    And you guys just cheered when Tessa Majors and Deborah Scruggs, White women were seriously injured and killed by black hyenas.

    Harbingers whining on the internet about his sexual and personal problems. Achmed bragging about not watching TV except when the wife and kids watch is nothing to brag about. How does achmed know so much about anti White Law and Order if he doesn’t watch TV

    Jeff has something to brag about because he fled anti White America and made a life for himself. Of course if he’d gone to work for my husband’s family company he’d have been just fine as we violate every affirmative action law in the country. And our guys and gals make enough to live a nice middle class life style in N. Cal.

    I do brag about the thousands of black criminals I sent to state prison. That really helped not just the White victims of their crimes but kept them locked up for years where they couldn’t hurt other Whites, mostly men because men are more likely to be victims of street crime than women.

    The Israeli I got arrested imprisoned and deported when his sentence was up? It’s just something I enjoyed. Just harassed the right authorities and the mall owners. State dept visa fraud was reluctant to help but I persisted. State dept human trafficking was excellent, very fast and effective. Set up a case first five minutes of my first call. Of course I had names addresses DBA license numbers corporation addresses etc

    Not visa fraud for himself.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Rosie
  397. Harbinger says:
    @Anon

    “Why do you need to tell your personal sexual and relationship problems to strangers in the internet?”

    Would you like to highlight just where, on this thread, where I state my sexual and relationship problems please?
    I think you’ll find that I have no relationship nor sexual problems.
    I think you’ll find that I state I am not in, nor will ever be in a relationship with a woman as I am, what is effectively known as a MGTOW. This is men who choose to not be in a relationship with a woman for reasons explained.
    I think you’ll find that I state I have no sexual problems. Should I want sex, I could easily attain it (not through payment of an escort). However, unlike many men in society, I do not see a woman to be used for wanton, sexual pleasure, but as part of the procreation process. I have procreated, therefore I do not need to be anywhere near a vagina. Unlike many men, I have full control of my desires and to not succumb to the charms of a woman. Many have tried and many will continue, but regardless, I have no interest whatsoever in anything other than conversation with a woman.

    Now how you can state that I have sexual and relationship problems from what I’ve stated is completely beyond me. I find that it is people who are IN relationships who have relationship problems, not those who choose not to be in one. I also find that those who have sexual problems are those who are incapable of getting sex, known to be ‘INCELS’ or involuntary celibate, or of course men in relationships.

    Your reply, again, sadly shows that many people, are incapable of understanding what has been written. I have written, on this thread, of MGTOW. To understand it, I suggest that you either re read what has been written, by myself and others, or go to You Tube, where you’ll find many channels.
    The bottom line, really and I’m sorry to have to state this to you, but you see, MGTOW choose not to be in relationships with women, because they clearly see that women are not, in fact, the prize that they’ve been told all their lives to they are.
    MGTOW don’t have relationship and sexual problems because they don’t do relationships or sex. And again, this is through choice. It is completely voluntary and it will drive women absolutely mad. But then, women created this environment for MGTOW to come about. It’s a natural reaction to toxic gynocentrism.

  398. Alden says:
    @Harbinger

    What’s wrong with sending black felons to state state prison harbinger? Do you object to a woman sending black men to prison because you hate women so much and love black felons who beat rob and injure White men coming home from work and or Being out and about at night ?

    Whine whine whine were I a man I’d be embarrassed to whine to strangers about my personal problems and sexual problems.

  399. @Alden

    My comment about the Oxygen channel was to Rosie. She seems to think women should be able to screw up a marriage any time they want because of all those Kowalski guys that might beat up on their wives all the time. That’s my impression of the Oxygen channel, and my comment about it wasn’t directed at you. Alden.

    Anyway, I’ve read most of those threads that you are mentioning under the Paul Kersey posts. Again, you must be skimming or cherry picking, or you have no sense of proportion of the over-the-top comments vs. quite reasonable ones. Many of the people criticizing Tessa Majors were familiar with that part of NY City (I am not) and were saying, being an SJW type, she was deluded thinking it was safe to be there. Only one or two comments said she deserved what happened or we are better off for it, which is not what I think.

    No commenters were actually “rejoicing” that this young white lady got murdered. Some see a kind of karma in it, but most just figure that if these women weren’t so delusional about racial matters, many of these terrible things wouldn’t have happened.

    Your emotion gets the better of you on these threads, Alden – that’s my opinion. Read through all of the comments* next time. This one is a case in point. Do these men here hate women or hate feminism? I hate feminism, because I am a conservative and I see how much cultural damage it has caused.

    What do you think of Kevin MacDonald’s original point anyway. Is he a woman-hater because he is discussing how one can deal with emotional women to steer them in the right direction politically?

    Oh, lastly, kudos to you for putting black criminals behind bars. That is indeed very admirable, and your husband’s hiring practices are too.

    .

    * Admittedly, I have certain commenters that I know to skip over immediately. For a few, I even skip over all replies to them also.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Rosie
  400. @Alden

    Achmed bragging about not watching TV except when the wife and kids watch is nothing to brag about. How does achmed know so much about anti White Law and Order if he doesn’t watch TV.

    Do you need a pair of spectacles, Alden? You know you can move your fingers around to blow up the text, right? I just wrote one thing, and you quote me as writing the opposite. Quit lying about what I wrote!

    I said that none of us watch the TV – just videos for the boy (was Mighty Machines filmed in Canada) and I watch movies once in a while. That’s not TV. The Law & Order business was in the blockquote from Ann Coulter’s column. Do you understand what the stuff in the gray box is? That is the excerpt – it’s not my writing. That was Ann Coulter’s writing.

    How could you have possibly been a prosecutor if you can’t pay attention to details?

  401. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I had thought your 6 kids were out of the house.

    Nope.

    Worse yet, Rosie, though you are in good company with some of the alt-right on this, you admitted to being somewhat of a Socialist, did you not?

    Yes. You can’t be a nationalist and an individualist at the same time.

  402. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In fact, the modern American white male is the least rapey, most gentle, protective, chivalrous creature God has ever created.

    That’s true, but then it’s also quite beside the point. We’re not grading on a curve. You don’t get to be a jerk just because someone else is a bigger jerk.

    . The truth of it is all that stuff Rosie has in her head about women having to escape from these bad men is either memories from 50 years ago, from experience living in Non-white communities, or from watching the Oxygen Channel. Which is it, Rosie?

    No. I know White men who treat their wives like crap even today, though obviously they are a minority. Bad husbands exist.

    But even if there were bad husbands 50 years ago, but not now, what would that matter? If they abused their power then, why would they not do so now if legal protections in place for women are dismantled? Are men fundamentally different creatures than they were 50 years ago?

  403. Rosie says:
    @Alden

    This authoritarian police state thing is new.

    Harbinger says:

    How anyone could brag about locking up “thousands of blacks” not only shows just what Alden is but only goes to strengthen the fact that women, given power and influence in society turn them into authoritarian, police states. And yes, it is a cardinal sin

    Whenever you refute manosphere arguments, they don’t say, “OK, you’re right. Women are OK.” They just go think of new reasons to hate women. I suppose if you keep throwing noodles at the wall, eventually something will stick.

    This one might have some truth in it. Someone has to deal with bad men. White people don’t have clans. We have the state. That is the political expression we naturally create and it is the institution that must take responsibility for protecting vulnerable groups and individuals on behalf of the people.

    Harbinger wants to go back to the days when a man’s home was his “castle” and he could mistreat his wife and children with impunity.

    For what it’s worth, it is not only women whom seek protection from the state. The working class has also sought government protection from predatory capital. Does he also think working class should men should be disenfranchised?

    Authoritarianism is not necessarily undesirable. For example, I appreciate that there are at least some standards here at Unz. Sometimes you can’t get the benefits of free speech without some limitations on the same. You can’t have a discussion on the merits, and therefore a functioning marketplace of ideas, if vicious misogynists are allowed to run off commenters with threats to throw us in a rape dungeon come the revolution. I wish that were hyperbole, that no White men would ever say such a thing, even to a stranger on the internet, but unfortunately that is not the case.

  404. @Achmed E. Newman

    I doubt many people rejoice about such a disgusting crime-minority groups are like a dog licking its genitals…that is just how they behave and public parks are a stalking ground.

    The culprits were only 13 and 14. So try to imagine the poor white kids who had to attend lousy public schools with these beasts and were terrorized.

    As for why I live overseas it is because I am out of the proximity of the most dangerous underclasses in America as an urban white male.

  405. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Do these men here hate women or hate feminism? I hate feminism,

    It’s theoretically possible that a man could hate feminism but not women, but the more I engage with antifeminists, the more I realize that such men are mythical creatures. They don’t actually exist in the real world.

    Antifeminists want to take rights and privileges away from women, and they are unable to justify same without recourse to our supposedly wicked nature. So, in the end, it all comes to pretty much the same thing. Harbinger actually accused us of not loving, but only using, our husbands! He seems to think we’re some sort of reptilian creature that lacks normal human feelings. Women can’t bond, but their promiscuity is ruining their ability to bond, or something.

    And this from a guy who wants to know why he should get married if women don’t know how to sew!

    Really, Achmed, is there anything a man could say about us on this forum that you would object to? I mean, you really can’t get much worse than a cold-blooded, machiavellian psychopath, so I don’t suppose there is anything that you would consider over-the-top.

    Yet you tell me you don’t hate women.

    Whatever.

  406. @Harbinger

    Firstly I would like to tell everyone on this site that I appreciate all the comments

    everyone is entitled to their opinion at least for the time being in America !! But, Mr.
    Harbinger I wonder if you acknowledge that a certain percentage of both men and women are born without the ability to procreate, some born that way at birth and have no choice in the matter so what do you propose women that are born sterile to do are they allowed to have a career or do you consider them useless ??both men and women that are sterile can still make great contributions to society .I worked in customer service for over 40 years . I saw a lot of the population young and old and I was shocked to discover that probably out of a hundred young men in their twenties and early thirties probably 95 of them lived at home with their mom at a minimum wage job or no job and spent their day surfing the net porn, video games etc .
    They spend whatever little money they have on
    ridiculous things like Star war toy lasers for $100, etc.
    How are these men ever going to step up to the plate and become proper fathers so that young women CAN stay at home and raise the children?? Also, in present times, a good percentage of men do not earn enough to support a family and women MUST work, even those that want to be home with their children..

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  407. Harbinger says:
    @L (no longer in) Atl hell

    I certainly have considered what you write about, however, I don’t believe that nature ‘messes’ up. Throughout history there were occasions where women and men were infertile, but it is not a subject that I have looked into. However, what I can state is that the male sperm rate has plummeted, courtesy of human manipulation. For example, Bisphenol A (BPA), which was used in the rinsing of baby and beer bottles, for a very long time, is a synthetic oestrogen. This plays havoc with the male hormone testosterone. This is also what’s known as a ‘gender-bending’ drug. There is also speculation as well of depositing of sanitary towels and tampax into the toilet also had a similar effect to BPA. Added to this vaccinations, the use of fertilisers on crops, along with the fact that animals eat them, along with humans and other ‘injections’ they give livestock, then man has seriously tampered with the human body, in regards to ‘fertility’. Considering the agenda is to bring the world’s population down to -500 million people, we see situations happen, such as in Kenya, whose doctors are suing the World Health Organisation (Bill Gates) because they were vaccinating the women, with hidden sterilisation.

    So the solution is to STOP the above, obviously.
    As for the men who can’t support a family, well they used to, but again, the problems we face today are down to women getting the vote. Before the vote a man’s work could keep a roof above the head of his family, feed and clothe them. But with women getting into the workplace and thus the other half of the population working, it gave banks the excuse to rise housing and rental cost. Added to that, women in politics and non governmental organisations are predominantly proponents of mass immigration, if anything “to save the children”, even though the majority of immigrants coming in have been males between the ages of 18 and 30. And there’s also the other factor that more men, means more chances of these feminist harpies getting laid, women who their own men folk won’t touch for obvious reasons. With more immigrants piling in, more housing is needed and the cost continues to rise.

    The situation we’re in didn’t happen by happenstance. It was created, but exceptionally evil people, who want everything for themselves. The biggest mistake that ever happened, in society was women getting the vote as everything started falling apart from then on. Women, create socialist states. Socialist states bring about police states to protect the many single women that come as a result. Women are easily manipulated by these control agents. They then get positions of power and influence and the result is Sweden, which is the canary in the coal mine.
    Ironically though, it’ll be the men who’ll get the last laugh. Feminists and lesbians will be given a choice – marry and pump out babies, when the west becomes an Islamic enclave by 2070 (won’t be stopped courtesy of low western birth rates, due to feminism and high procreation rates within Muslims and continued immigration into the west from Islamic lands) or else swing from a rope.

    Women’s duty in life is to have children and raise them. They are ruled by their emotions and the last people to have any power and influence over men. Feminists in positions of power create matriarchies, which produce weak males. Matriarchies inevitably fall to patriarchies – Islam. So, women are just digging a huge hole for themselves. Their men folk created the greatest civilisation this world’s ever known. They gave their women the world, but the world wasn’t enough. They wanted control, power and influence. One of the epitaphs on the tombstone of the western civilisation will simply read:

    ‘The western civilisation fell because women were given control of it.’

    • Replies: @Rosie
  408. Rosie says:
    @Harbinger

    Really though, it’ll be the men who’ll get the last laugh. Feminists and lesbians will be given a choice – marry and pump out babies, when the west becomes an Islamic enclave by 2070 (won’t be stopped courtesy of low western birth rates, due to feminism and high procreation rates within Muslims and continued immigration into the west from Islamic lands) or else swing from a rope.

    Like most of these manosphere creeps, he thinks the idea of Islam overrunning the West and White women swinging from a rope is funny.

    These people are not to be trusted. They are traitors.

    Added to that, women in politics and non governmental organisations are predominantly proponents of mass immigration, if anything “to save the children”, even though the majority of immigrants coming in have been males between the ages of 18 and 30.

    George Washington on cheap immigrant labor:

    Greed is the White man’s fatal flaw.

  409. Rosie: “Greed is the White man’s fatal flaw.”

    Greed is everyone’s fatal flaw; greed for money, greed for life, greed for MORE of whatever it is. And to be fair, George Washington was writing about indentured servants and slaves he wanted to purchase, not immigrants. But if someone had asked George Washington, one of the richest men in America, why he thought it a good idea to be rich, and he were honest in reply, high up on the list of reasons to be rich is that it boosted his attractiveness to women. Being rich entails achieving high status, and I’ve already pointed out that status is an aphrodisiac to women.

    Also, as a Darwinist who sees this world as one of ceaseless struggle of all against all, I am constrained to point out that there really is no choice in the matter. Either you control the limited supply of resources (including women) or someone else will; either you become rich and control others, or they become rich and control you (at least to the extent that anyone can be controlled.) Washington was only following his “God-given” instincts. In a sense, he did what he did not only for himself, but for women, and for his society as whole.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  410. Rosie says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    But if someone had asked George Washington, one of the richest men in America, why he thought it a good idea to be rich, and he were honest in reply, high up on the list of reasons to be rich is that it boosted his attractiveness to women.

    The male reproductive strategy: Beggar thy competitor.

    Being rich entails achieving high status, and I’ve already pointed out that status is an aphrodisiac to women.

    So you say. Young women think crusty old men are repulsive, no matter their wealth and/or status. I mean, a hot, young rich man would be a catch, but alas, there just aren’t enough genius-playboy-billionaire-philanthropist Tony Starks to go around, so we’re more than willing to settle for an ordinary guy, as long as he’s not too old.

    https://image.businessinsider.com/51e55045eab8eaf71c000000?width=800&format=jpeg&auto=webp

  411. Rosie says:
    @Nicolás Palacios Navarro

    White women, who at the moment occupy the top of the grievance pyramid; and due to that as well as already being sought after because of their general attractiveness, command disproportionate attention and power.

    Steve Sailer tells us all about how women are “at the top of the grievance pyramid.”

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/another-rotherham-style-report-this-one-from-manchester-on-muslim-pimps-abusing-english-girls/#comment-3661394

  412. Rosie: “So you say. Young women think crusty old men are repulsive, no matter their wealth and/or status.”

    You mean, so I’ve proved, and I’ve given numerous examples above. Instances of rich or famous old men w/much younger women are easy to find. Repulsive? That evidently doesn’t matter much either. Wealth and/or fame offset repulsive very easily in the minds of women. If Mick Jagger were a cab driver instead of a Rolling Stone he’d be an incel.

    I agree that what you say is true in general now though. Part of the evidence that we live in a technologically enabled and enforced matriarchy is that older men in the population at large are despised by young women. I get the idea that most of them would sooner copulate with a young negro than an old man. But that’s cultural, and for most of human history it hasn’t been the case. Even St. Augustine, for example, was once engaged to be married to a ten year old girl. Patriarchy was the rule in ancient times, not the exception. The Roman patria potestas was the apex of patriarchal power, and even gave the head of the family the legal authority over the life and death of his wife and children. It’s been a long and gradual slide down from that to where we are now. Take prostitution, the practice of which is illegal in most of modern America, but was common and widely practiced in ancient Rome and Greece. Its being illegal is a state of affairs inconceivable in a patriarchy, but very understandable in a matriarchy, where women have power. Women have a vested interest in restricting the sale of vagina, which is the only thing of value most of them can offer. Incel men would not exist were it not for this ban on prostitution. They are a predictable consequence of matriarchy.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Rosie
  413. Rosie says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    . Even St. Augustine, for example, was once engaged to be married to a ten year old girl.

    I’m sure she was thrilled about that.

    The Roman patria potestas was the apex of patriarchal power, and even gave the head of the family the legal authority over the life and death of his wife and children.

    Isn’t that special?

    Its being illegal is a state of affairs inconceivable in a patriarchy, but very understandable in a matriarchy, where women have power. Women have a vested interest in restricting the sale of vagina,

    Why White advocates have anything to do with the likes of you is truly beyond me. Prostitution is birth control, and a particularly ugly and exploitive form of birth control at that. Why get married and have children when you could just hire prostitutes?

    Hence, Emporer Augustus’ bachelor tax, not that it did any good.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  414. @Rosie

    As a young man, I probably never slept with a girl I would have wanted to marry or have a family with. I always used birth control. Most of the girls were the druggie rebellious Gen X women of the college scene in the nineties.

    Have a kid at 20 and you are screwed. All the young men I knew who did so ended up stuck in Michigan.

    Compare that to the life of travel and overseas employment and semi-retirement at age 40 in Asia I enjoyed. Eventually I had two children anyhow.

    If I had gotten one of these girls pregnant I would have been stuck in some peeling wooden house in Southeast Michigan pay a mortgage on a piece of property nobody would buy and sending my kids to lousy public schools and raising them in some neighborhood with white trash where drugs flowed through the streets and I would not have been able to afford to send them to college anyhow.

    Believe me, I knew some young men who had kids at age 20 and I remember as a young man myself thinking how screwed the kid would be. The daughters are now probably wild sluts. One feckless Polish Catholic girl I knew refused an abortion and drank and smoked pot all through her pregnancy.

    As a young man I would never have wanted kids to get in the way of my freedom and self-fulfillment.

    Some young people I knew were screwed financially by the cost of delivering the child.

    Anyhow, while they ended up miserable and broke and stuck in unfulfilling jobs in Michigan hoping that some miracle would improve the economy…I was able to take off. And when I disliked Phoenix even more than Michigan because it was full of Mestizos, I was able to move overseas.

  415. Rosie: “I’m sure she was thrilled about that.”

    Most likely nobody cared what she thought about it. In a patriarchy, the feelings of women are of little concern to men, just as in today’s matriarchy, the feelings of men, and particularly incel men, are of little or no concern to women. The marriage was arranged, probably by her father.

    Rosie: “Prostitution is birth control, …”

    No, prostitution isn’t birth control, or at least if you want to look at it like that, it’s a particularly ineffective form of birth control. Prostitution has always been around, even during periods of white population growth.

    The fact that you would raise this specious objection is also hypocritical, since you yourself probably have used birth control, and probably still are using it unless you are an old lady who doesn’t need it anymore. The invention of scientific birth control methods, including “therapeutic” abortion, has proved to be one of the greatest racial disasters ever to hit the white race. For almost all human history, women have been the prisoners of their biology, chained to the home by the bonds of pregnancy and motherhood. The now-sacred “woman’s right to choose” was only granted to them by the existence of such methods. Modern feminism would be impossible without it.

    Also, I have a few closing words about status-seeking behavior in both men and women, which I intended to contribute earlier, but got sidetracked. Both men and women seek improvements to their status in the social hierarchy, as is typical of many social animals. The evolutionary advantages are obvious. The survival chances of both adults and their children are raised by having attained a higher status. For the males, high status also brings access to more females, thus increasing their reproductive fitness. Chimpanzees have a similar arrangement, but it differs in key respects from the human one. Chimpanzee males, like human men, mostly advance in the status hierarchy by competing against each other. Chimpanzee females though find their place in the pecking order and stay there once they become adults, moving up only as higher status females die off. Not so with women. Women can improve their social standing at any time simply by attaching themselves to a high-status (i.e., famous and/or wealthy) man. This desire to move up in the female pecking order is what drives them, and is behind a lot of their behavior that otherwise would remain inexplicable. For example, what drives white women to want to copulate and produce children w/non-whites, particularly w/negroes? Are they drawn by the negro stench? Or the prospect of conceiving children who will have sub-normal intelligence? No, it’s only that it’s fashionable. Having a non-white man marks her as having higher status in Current Year, at least in the eyes of other trendy females who keep up with what is fashionable (and what woman does not?) It stands in stark contrast to men’s behavior, which if it were the same, would find hordes of hysterical young men panting after famous and/or wealthy women, even when they’ve become old ladies. This difference is rooted in biology as well. A woman’s most fertile years occur between the ages of 15 and 30, and her fertility has a definite end, whereas a man can remain fertile for as long as he lives. Thus women always fear being displaced by a younger, prettier competitor, and when they have power, attempt to construct culture in such a way to minimize the danger of this. In the modern American matriarchy, they have succeeded in this to a large degree; the ban on prostitution and the social taboo against older man/younger woman sexual relations are the proof of this.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Adûnâi
  416. Rosie says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    . Thus women always fear being displaced by a younger, prettier competitor, and when they have power, attempt to construct culture in such a way to minimize the danger of this.

    The horror!

    Of course, serial monogamy (bigamy) is terrible for young men, as well.

  417. Sam J. says:
    @Harbinger

    “…Men are beginning to have enough of gynocentrism. There’s no longer a level playing field. The game is rigged…”

    This has all happened before. In Rome the EXACT same thing happened. No fault divorce and after that Men started refusing to get married. At one point the government put in a bachelors tax on Men. Nothing helped. When the barbarians came to the gates of Rome no one was there to fight them because the Men having no Women or families to care about them refused to fight and Rome was lost. The same thing will happen to the West. I have sympathy for Rose feelings. She wants a more exciting life for Women but the truth about the matter is life sucks then you die and you can’t have what you want in the long term. In the end if to get this enhanced lifestyle Women take it out of Men asses like what is happening now it will not work. Women are either not capable or willing to step up and do all that needs to be done and Men will refuse as they have no family or anyone that respects them so they will just punt. The whole thing will crumble to dust.

  418. Adûnâi says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Not so with women. Women can improve their social standing at any time simply by attaching themselves to a high-status (i.e., famous and/or wealthy) man.”

    Do you mean divorce? Because divorce has never been an option to them. Unless you mean something else, a woman would only have had one chance at moving upwards in a semi-healthy society (semi- because a hierarchy usually presupposes a racial origin, and its destruction is driven either by greed or by lust).

    “For example, what drives white women to want to copulate and produce children w/non-whites, particularly w/negroes? Are they drawn by the negro stench? Or the prospect of conceiving children who will have sub-normal intelligence? No, it’s only that it’s fashionable.”

    So, you are postulating idealism as the foundation of modern degeneracy now? What technological advancement has made loving Negroes a fashion?

    “It stands in stark contrast to men’s behavior, which if it were the same, would find hordes of hysterical young men panting after famous and/or wealthy women, even when they’ve become old ladies.”

    What a hilarious picture. Ditto. Although young White men exhibit white knight behaviour, they do not chase after old ladies (old men do, however)… Maybe because women have only become powerful enough in the recent decades, and such a male behaviour has not been formed yet?

    The funny thing is that women chase after not exclusively old/popular men, but popular women, too. Look at pop music, from the USSR to southern Korea. Is it because women all think alike, whereas men are a bit more competitive and divisive?

    “the social taboo against older man/younger woman sexual relations”

    And who has established that taboo? Muh’ women would be the same excuse as muh’ Jews. Neither of them dominates, or dominates without man’s permission to do so. And whence has such a will come? Some would posit, from Christian axiology.

  419. Adûnâi: “Do you mean divorce? ”

    No, I had in mind contemporary women who are nobodies in the female pecking order who become somebodies and rise in the order by attaching themselves to a famous and/or wealthy man. Examples: Trump’s series of wives. Who had ever heard of them before they married Trump? Or Paul McCartney’s ex-wife, the one-legged ex-prostitute? Or Nicole Brown, who was a nobody before she married OJ Simpson? Or Meghan Markle, that obscure negro actress who married Prince Harry? The list could be extended indefinitely.

    Adûnâi: “What technological advancement has made loving Negroes a fashion?”

    Certainly negroes would not be in white societies at all without the technologies that brought them here, and solving the mystery of women’s addiction to fashion, which preceded modern civilization, is not a task I set for myself; still less am I trying to explain why X is fashionable and not Y.

    Adûnâi: “Maybe because women have only become powerful enough in the recent decades, and such a male behaviour has not been formed yet?”

    Yes, I think it’s possible that might happen as society continues to feminize men and masculinize women. As it does so it becomes more and more unnatural, more and more anti-human. But scientific birth control methods were indispensable to that, and will remain so. If they became unavailable due to civilizational collapse, things would revert to patriarchy in short order.

    Adûnâi: “Is it because women all think alike, whereas men are a bit more competitive and divisive?”

    No doubt that’s part of it. “Female non-conformist” is pretty much an oxymoron.

    Adûnâi: “And who has established that taboo? Muh’ women would be the same excuse as muh’ Jews. Neither of them dominates, or dominates without man’s permission to do so. And whence has such a will come? Some would posit, from Christian axiology.”

    As far as I can see the taboo has grown up gradually and had no clear point of origin. Christian egalitarian ideals probably contribute something here, but I don’t think it’s a deciding factor. Older man/younger woman pairings used to be more common. For example, Hitler’s father was considerably older than his mother, and even my own father was about 20 years older than my mother. Could it be a sinister Jewish conspiracy developing over centuries in a society-wide attempt to prevent the birth of another Hitler? LOL.

  420. Rosie says:

    “Female non-conformist” is pretty much an oxymoron.

    That must be why a majority of White women voted for Trump in the teeth of elite opposition.

  421. Rosie: “That must be why a majority of White women voted for Trump in the teeth of elite opposition.”

    With a comment like that (one not even true, btw), it’s apparent you haven’t got the faintest idea what is meant by the word non-conformist. A non-conformist is described by a Latin phrase now falling into disuse, sui generis; i.e., someone or something of its own kind or genus. Such individuals are unique and powerful personalities, and are not defined by their membership in a group such as Trump voters, or baseball fans, or anything like that. Frequently they are loners, often with high IQ. Often they are ascetic, or driven to it by lack of alternatives, since by definition they don’t fit into society very well. Often they are described as geniuses, or madmen. On the other hand, they can be members of groups, but if they are, they will try to reshape the group into conformity with their own thinking rather than conforming to its standards. This type of man establishes or seeks to establish an entirely new way of viewing the world. Accordingly, such men frequently find themselves in opposition to society at large, often with fatal results for them. In other words, they refuse to conform even if the price of non-conformity is life itself. Examples of non-conformists: Socrates, Diogenes, Giordano Bruno, Sade, Hitler, Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski. Female counterparts don’t exist.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  422. Rosie says:

    Examples of non-conformists: Socrates, Diogenes, Giordano Bruno, Sade, Hitler, Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski. Female counterparts don’t exist.

    Maybe, but then you have stretched the term “nonconformist” beyond any ordinary understanding of the term. Female nonconformists (in the ordinary sense of the word) certainly exist, and misogynist men can’t stand us. The only thing they hate more than a typical woman is an atypical woman.

    With a comment like that (one not even true, btw),

    You’re right. Only a majority of White women who voted at all voted for Trump.

  423. Rosie: “… you have stretched the term “nonconformist” beyond any ordinary understanding of the term.”

    I describe a real human type, call it what you will. The phenomenon is understudied, and little understood by science. To use an analogy, ordinary men are coal, but non-conformists are diamonds; both will assay as having been made from the same stuff, but differ radically in their characteristics; the former are common, the latter extremely rare.

  424. Adûnâi says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Often they are described as geniuses, or madmen. On the other hand, they can be members of groups, but if they are, they will try to reshape the group into conformity with their own thinking rather than conforming to its standards.”

    What’s about Alexandra Kollontai, Ayn Rand or Savitri Devi? Weren’t they opposed to their professed creeds enough? The USSR was not totally feminist, the conservative capitalists are not libertarian, and Hitlerians did not fully commit into allying with the swarthy men. In your mind, are they conformist to… what?

    P.S. On an unrelated note, the latter two were born and died in the same years. Unfortunately, Savitri has so incredibly fewer conformist to her ideas men…

    • Agree: Adûnâi
  425. Adûnâi: “What’s about Alexandra Kollontai, Ayn Rand or Savitri Devi?”

    I haven’t studied them much, but from what I know I wouldn’t place them in the same category as the men I listed. They strike me as adherents — to Marx, Nietzsche, and Hitler, respectively — and not truly original thinkers. They also didn’t suffer for their beliefs to the same degree that the men did. Observe that, except Diogenes, all the men I listed suffered severely for their non-conformity, either having been punished by their broader societies with execution or lengthy imprisonment. As I am using the term here, the non-conformist is like the epicenter of an earthquake. He is at the center of the disturbance, not a mere participant in a disturbance caused by someone else. Their society’s violent reaction against those men is a useful indicator of the extent of their non-conformity.

    It might be possible to make a good case that Joan of Arc could be on such a list, since at least she died for her beliefs. But on the other hand, she was far from original in her thinking, and was also just an adherent — of Christ, the Catholic Church, and of the Dauphin.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  426. Adûnâi says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “He is at the center of the disturbance, not a mere participant in a disturbance caused by someone else. Their society’s violent reaction against those men is a useful indicator of the extent of their non-conformity.”

    Savitri Devi was imprisoned and almost hanged, whereas Nietzsche was never explicitly punished by men.

    Do you consider such heroic and immense persons as Himmler or Heydrich merely hypostases of Hitler? And can Hitler be considered a non-conformist if he was immensely successful and venerated in life? Is a true non-conformist always famous, at least, after death? Are the bombers of 9/11 too ordinary, insignificant men for you to consider them equals of Socrates?

    I guess, I disagree about the inherent value in non-conformity. To me, there is one objectively correct ideology, and whoever professed it in history no matter the circumstances is to be admired. Sade does not become less degenerate due to his force of will and honesty, just like the soldier who shot the last Jew in Vinnitsa is no less of a giant due to his anonymity.

  427. Adûnâi: “Savitri Devi was imprisoned and almost hanged …”

    Almost hanged? LOL. Is that like being almost raped? Seriously though, I admit that adherents of an unpopular world view can suffer too. That’s certainly true. But that doesn’t make them the originator of such a world view. Surely you can see the difference. Someone who conforms to an unpopular ideology is just a conformist too, at the end of the day.

    Adûnâi: “… Nietzsche was never explicitly punished by men.”

    Yes, it’s interesting, isn’t it? However, he didn’t act on his beliefs, and in that way perhaps was not a non-conformist within the meaning of the term as I’m using it here. Jacques Ellul is another one. If implemented, his ideas would destroy the modern world. Society sometimes seems willing to tolerate non-conforming opinions so long as they don’t result in any action. Kaczynski was inspired by Ellul’s thinking (although not an adherent), and he’s paying the price Ellul would have paid if he had been a man of action too, as a true non-conformist must be. For an example closer to home, we could say you and I are free to be a racist or to praise genocide, so long as we don’t attempt to put these ideas into practice! Free, at least for now, anyway. It’s in the nature of technological society to constantly increase the level of conformity within it. In a few years, maybe less, such freedom could be just a memory.

    Sometimes though, as in the case of Socrates, the magnitude of the non-conformity can be judged from the reaction. Not all non-conformities are equal. It appears some are deemed greater dangers to society than others. If you suddenly decide to start parting your hair on the left, instead of on the right, like everyone else, nobody is going to kill you over it — maybe. But on the other hand, people are the greatest bunch of goddamn bastards, always hypocritical and seemingly inconsistent, and they’ve killed non-conformists for less, haven’t they? So you never know. In this light, Manson is interesting. Many, even most people appear to have a hatred of him that is almost volcanic. Our buddy CT is a prime example. Yet it’s doubtful he ever personally killed anyone. Even if he did, there are serial killers with many times more victims, who killed in more horrific ways, who don’t enjoy one thousandth as much notoriety. Why does Manson rank only just below Hitler in the pantheon of white devils for the conformist masses? I seek a scientific explanation.

    Adûnâi: “Do you consider such heroic and immense persons as Himmler or Heydrich merely hypostases of Hitler? ”

    Just adherents, yes.

    Adûnâi: “And can Hitler be considered a non-conformist if he was immensely successful and venerated in life?”

    If a non-conformist originates a world view that becomes popular, he may enjoy a local success. However, the fact remains that the rest of the world rose up against Hitler and crushed him, and since has done everything in its power to erase and suppress all traces of his civilizational “heresy”. I believe the energy and viciousness with which this suppression was perpetrated and is being continued show how seriously the broader society took him, and the threat to it his non-conformity presented.

    Adûnâi: “Is a true non-conformist always famous, at least, after death?”

    No, I wouldn’t say that fame is a requirement. However, we have to talk about people who are well known, since non-conformists who languish in obscurity are by definition unknown to us.

    Adûnâi: “Are the bombers of 9/11 too ordinary, insignificant men for you to consider them equals of Socrates?”

    Just adherents, heroic or not, as may be.

    Adûnâi: “… I disagree about the inherent value in non-conformity.”

    I’m not ascribing value to anything, just describing a phenomenon. Think of it as an exercise in sociobiology; like describing the behavior of an ant colony, or a hive of bees. I approach human societies, and their peculiarities, in the same way. I have an idea that humans collectively form a superorganism like a hive or colony, with a kind of consciousness all its own. In setting up this classification scheme of conformists vs. non-conformist I’m attempting to discern some order in what superficially seems to be chaos. In this view, collective hostility to the innovation represented by non-conformism becomes understandable. Just as the body reacts to cancerous mutations by suppressing them via the immune system, so witches and other wrongthinkers get burned at the stake by the surrounding collectivity of conformist men.

    Adûnâi: “To me, there is one objectively correct ideology, and whoever professed it in history no matter the circumstances is to be admired.”

    I have no clear idea of what you mean here. I see ideologies as a product of their circumstances, and circumstances change radically from time to time and place to place. A certain phase of industrial civilization made both Marxism and Nazism possible, and neither one would make much sense without it. In a hunter-gatherer environment, with no workers, capitalists, financiers, or bourgeoisie, they’d be pointless. And in the future to which technological civilization seems to be headed, when people have become cyborgs, androids, and other kinds of synthetic organisms, such ideologies will make even less sense.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin MacDonald Comments via RSS