Many of us have come to view with serious consideration the concept that a ‘traditionalist’ state may be constructed in the future which will not be a direct continuation of the current form of the United States of America. As such, we must consider what form of government this new state will have.
A fairly large and vocal contingent of traditionalists opposes the idea of ‘voting’ altogether. Who decides how to run the country is somewhat unclear, but one form appears to be some sort of ‘national socialist’ politburo. How exactly this will be set up is completely indecipherable, since most internet ‘national socialists’ are long on bumper sticker slogans and short on real world solutions. The other solution proposed is a ‘return’ to a ‘natural hierarchy’ of a caste or feudal system which will instantly vault its proponents from the trailer park to a new leisure class of nobility.
Most of us recognize that these forms of government will be completely unpalatable to the people who created the Magna Carta and the Althing. Most of us also recognize that unlimited democracy with universal suffrage is a terrible idea, and largely responsible for the problems we face. Something in between must be found, a limited republic or democracy without universal suffrage. The central point of the argument then, is who will be in the voting pool and who won’t.
The most important delineation that we must make is to restrict the vote to men only.
Blogger April Joy Gavaza wrote recently “I’ve met women my age who are almost proud of “knowing nothing about politics.” A mom told me once, “Can you just write up a list of people we should vote for?” Her playdates, soccer games, and story times at the bookstore were much more important.” This mirrors my personal observations.
The fact that this mother is busy being a mother is not the problem: it’s what she should be doing. The problem is that she asks someone else to tell her who to vote for. In past times, this person would have been her husband, which mitigated the damage of female suffrage in the first decades after it became law. Today, it is far more likely to be the lone female friend of hers which is heavily involved in politics (probably of the far left sort), or some organization which displays a cutsified African child or other animal as its logo.
The reason for the difference is simply that male and female brains are different, as confirmed by numerous scientific studies. Among the differences discussed in a recent publication by Dr. Louann Brizendine is that “The “defend your turf” area — dorsal premammillary nucleus — is larger in the male brain and contains special circuits to detect territorial challenges by other males. And his amygdala, the alarm system for threats, fear and danger is also larger in men. These brain differences make men more alert than women to potential turf threats.” This right here gives us the explanation of why the white nationalist movement is predominantly male, as the white nationalist movement is essentially the ‘defend your turf’ mentality at the national level.
On the other hand, according to Dr. Brizendine, “the “I feel what you feel” part of the brain — mirror-neuron system — is larger and more active in the female brain.” Thus, movements which are based on emotional appeals for the ‘downtrodden’ elements of society appeal much more to women, for example the ‘civil rights’ movement, environmentalism of the ‘greenpeace’ sort, foreign aid, and assorted welfare systems.
A recent article berating the failings of American women noted that they “tend to believe in deeply unattractive insanity like “gender as social construct feminism,” astrology, socialism, putting unsightly tattoos all over their bodies, and moral relativism of all kinds.” However, an observation of left wing ‘feel good’ movements in other countries shows that women are just as active in those movements as in the US. The only countries where this doesn’t seem to happen is ones where the populace is too busy living hand-to-mouth to engage in any sort of ‘socially conscious’ political participation, or where political participation by the public at large is severely restricted.
Continuing in her summary of differences between the male and female brains, Dr. Brizendine discusses how “because of the way their brains are wired, men use their analytical brain structures, not their emotional ones, to find a solution.” Obviously, you want the people who use analytical brain structures to be deciding the course of a nation, not those who make emotional knee-jerk responses.
Freedomnomics author John Lott has an excellent summary of the effect of women’s suffrage on the direction of the country. Some highlights:
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk-averse than men. This could be why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life.
single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor. The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.
But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s, just as women’s share of the voting population was leveling off, something else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births.
Over the course of women’s lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending.
But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. Women with children who are divorced, however, are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.
Women’s suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the “gender gap” is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning.
What is left unsaid is that the changing of divorce laws was itself brought about at the demand of female voters. It is not a coincidence that divorce and family laws began changing at the same time as the female share of the vote reached its full potential.
Once given the vote, women replaced individual men with the government. Women once depended on the individual men in their lives for physical and economic security. Now the police state provides physical security, and the welfare state provides economic security. Of course, the police state hates competition, so men who use violence on an individual level to defend their interests are now locked up as common criminals, and individual gun ownership is restricted. Women don’t have much need for individual men to provide these things anymore, so as a result we end up with confused gender roles, as evidenced by the ‘emo,’ ‘hipster’ and ‘metrosexual’ phenomema.
The whole thing is one massive, inevitable, downward spiral. Once women had the opportunity to change the rules of society, they did so, in a way which gave them all the privileges of both genders and none of the responsibilities of either. This can be expected to repeat in any future white ethnostate in which women have the vote, since it results from how the female brain works. Familial laws and behavioral codes which feel too restrictive are removed, which results in the breakdown of the family. This increases the risk of being an adult female without individual men to depend on for physical and economic security (feels scary!), thus the ‘need’ to implement a police and welfare state.
Rebuttals to this argument come in two main forms. The first comes along the lines of “Not all women are like that! My great aunt Mabel loves guns and is the most right wing person I know!” True, there is a huge variation amongst individuals of both genders, and many women are ‘analytical’ and ‘right wing’ and many men are ‘emotional’ and ‘left wing’.
Thus, there is no need to prevent female politicians from running for and holding office, or choosing to become involved in political activism for righteous causes. In these instances, women may be judged on their individual merits. However, voting is the way ‘the masses’ participate in politics, so we must look to general tendencies of to evaluate wide swaths of the population, and whether or not they should be allowed to vote.
The other type of rebuttal to this argument comes along the lines of “modern men suck too! Both genders are at fault!” followed by the claim that it would be unfair and/or ineffectual to limit voting to men only. However, to properly analyze this claim, we must carefully examine what caused the demise of ‘modern men’. The police state crushes the souls of individual men, and the welfare state destroys economic growth. Note the large number of men who are recent graduates of universities and unable to find jobs due to the economy.
Naturally women are put off by men who would flee in fear from a burglar while desperately dialing 9-1-1 on their iphone, as well as those who continue to live with and remain dependent on their parents for years after completing their education. Yet, these men would be few and far between without the modern police state and welfare state.
In conclusion, regardless of the other failings of society, any state constructed in the future must restrict the vote to men only. A failure to do this will result in disaster.
Lena, I believe Svigor is referring to your highly emotional response to the article in question.
Indeed. Exhibit B:
I am now an exhibit? Cute. Most of you boys have no idea how to be men or even what the practical concerns of women, mothers and families are, not a fucking clue. Why don’t you idiots grow up, get married have kids, then write some scribe about how great women have it. Fuck off with this shit.
I think white men need to start being men again. The modern white female is the by-product of the neutered white male.
There were plenty of “macho” white males who belonged to unions and voted for Obama. I know plenty of white male Democrats who will NEVER vote Republican or third party. We have a white male problem in this country. Fix that and the white females will fall into their proper places and roles.
This is about blood and soil, and neither white men nor white women vote blood and soil.
Threaten to do something outrageous to group X because they’re too emotional. When they react, tell them that they’re confirming your point.
Comedy gold.
1) It isn’t outrageous to suggest going back to earlier versions of the franchise.
2) I didn’t suggest such, merely pointed out that a woman losing her wig is a good example of why some men think they make particularly poor voters.
Oh, and all the men cheering on Tiger Woods in the run up to an election, Scrooby. Geez, I use to think you were cool. Anyway I have to find a recipe for pumpkin pie. Later, boys.
H. Rock White writes:
“…men and women have about the same average IQ.”
Women have on average about 4 less IQ points than men. Also, women initiate divorce in about 2/3 of cases. In states where there is a presumption of shared custody of children post-divorce that percentage is lower.
Is a woman that is ready to betray you just because they don’t agree with your opinion one that you really to have your back in a high risk movement such as this one? (Exhibited by, “I am considering never reading here again”, and the childish adjectives used to describe the article.)
Thanks for honing my original point for me. She didn’t just lose her wig, she threatened to take her ball and go home, never to return. Why? Insecurity? Feminism-over-the-race? I’d like to know.
Ummmm, so Aservant decides to agree and disagree with my “unrationality?????” Were the white men in US army being “rational” when they decided to point their guns at girls and force them into school with niggers? We never voted for that. Yeah, I must be insane, perhaps I due for my period or something. You assholes got us into this and now you want to cowardly hide behind our skirts, blame us. Like I said before, I did my battle. What battle are you boys fighting? One with girls?
As Aservant rightly pointed out, yes, white men got us into this mess. Unfortunately for grrrl power, the story doesn’t end there; part of the mess was putting up with grrrl power. Whoops.
Lot of really excellent ideas in Trainspotter #90.
We have a white male problem in this country. Fix that and the white females will fall into their proper places and roles.
Couldn’t agree more.
It’s funny to see women take offense at this article! I agree with what Lena said about “the insidious fantasy that the “masses” participate in politics”. Today’s problem is not democracy, but the lack of it. Most people are against immigration, but the system doesn’t care. As MGLS mentioned, most white women did not vote for Obama.
Ben Tillman: “The political class identifies a change it desires and then manufactures consent”
It works only to a point. The political class has never succeeded in manufacturing popular acceptance of its immigration policy. They just ignore popular opinion.
“Many of us have come to view with serious consideration the concept that a ‘traditionalist’ state may be constructed in the future which will not be a direct continuation of the current form of the United States of America.”
I could do without Evola’s mystical bent. An overwrought literary imagination is not terribly relevant to power politics.
“Who decides how to run the country is somewhat unclear, but one form appears to be some sort of ‘national socialist’ politburo.”
Intrinsic to National Socialism is the Fuhrer Principle. National Socialism is principally about power politics pursued for the benefit of the people. The people are ruled according to what is beneficial for them, the assumption being that they are not the best judge of that themselves, and that the one, best man is.
“I have to find a recipe for pumpkin pie. Later, boys.” ( — Lena)
Pumpkin?? But pumpkins are way out of season. Shouldn’t you be thinking of rhubarb-and-strawberry pie this time of year? Those’ll both be in season soon and there’s nothing more delicious in a pie, or in a bread pudding with whiskey sauce, or what-have-you (a crisp, a cobbler, a pandowdy), than that particular combination in springtime, especially when picked right in your own garden, Lena.
Response 22 teach me your blog Kanji characters reject. ‘The most important delineation that we must make is to restrict the vote to men only.’ The most important delineation that we must make is to restrict the vote from Jew men and gay men. I read ‘Merchant of Venice’ in English original. I look at gay men on television. I look at women on television. Women good gay men bad. Yankee Doodles send please Jew men and gay men to China. I send this message to you after my smoke break IMHO. Winston tastes good like a cigarette should is not my brand IMHO. Give up smoking please IMHO.
White Nationalist guys have to learn how ot appeal to women. Yo must get women to join, in the first place, before you make lofty plans, about voting rights, or anything else – or your plans will never be realized.
History is full of examples of influential political movements. How many of them obeyed your rules? None?
Remember what I said a few days ago about Wolf mothers? I meant it. I also mean what I’ve said here. Try and reconcile these statements and you might start to understand where I’m coming from.
Start by looking at your race first, and your ego (“goddamnit who are they to say wymmin shouldn’t vote?” (keeping in mind I’m not actually even saying that, just sitting on the fence)) last.
I also find the idea that WN males can only procreate and form families with WN females (something you’ve implied) to be so laughably absurd I can’t even find a pithy way to express it. NO, WN males don’t need to find WN females to form families. What could possibly give anyone such a stupid idea?
Good article to draw out the feminist moles. Looks like we have a few here.
In my experience, most WN females are feminists.
It’s funny, but I get the feeling that many of the female ranters here would blame men for the lack of WN females out there. Well, ladies? How do you explain the extreme skew? Our fault?
Is it unfair to say that white women, relative to white men, really don’t give too much of a shit about their race? Or politics in general (my theory)? This doesn’t bode well for WNism if you think women are essential the future success of WNism. But, I digress. Who’s to blame for the appalling absence of women in fighting for our race?
Barb #79, thanks for posting those very interesting suggestions.
Umm, checking back, and Scrooby thanks for that but I am in NZ. Pumpkins are in season here and I just picked up a 10 kilo bag of Potatoes, a pumpkin, and a bag of onions for ten bucks, that is a great deal here.
The only truth here is this: as soon as boob job kicks beer gut in the ass we will have something going on! Believe me!
Didn’t know NZ had enough of a race problem for a gal to be concerned about. You must have zero Negroes, for example. As for Maoris, well, if we had them instead of what we have, I’d get down on my knees and say a prayer of thanksgiving.
“Scrooby thanks for that but I am in NZ. […] The only truth here is this: as soon as boob job kicks beer gut in the ass we will have something going on! Believe me!” ( — Lena)
Are you insinuating that I have a beer gut and you’ve had a boob job?
The race problem here would shock you. No, I don’t have a boob job, I don’t need one. One of my kids just calls me “booby.”
Yes, the New Hampshire data shows men 275% more likely than women to vote for Ron Paul, who was the only acceptable candidate in the race.
Ron Paul was not an acceptable candidate. Not even close. Libertarianism is an enemy of the cause of racial preservation.
In any case, the exit poll data does not show older women were much more likely to support McCain, which was what you claimed.
Hey Torquesky – go find Scottie Lockloser. If ya ask him really nice, and femininely – maybe he’ll pull his head up from his gaggle of Asiatic 9 year old ladyboys – and share.
It’s the only way you wil EVER get any action at all.
Bernard is correct. Denise furiously denounces yellow fever and Asiaphiles who “mat[e] with Gooks,” but she attempts to insult white men as harshly as she can by claiming negroes and mestizos are better at “getting women” than white men. Denise notably fails to specify the race of the women negroes and mestizos are supposedly so much better at attracting. If Denise is trying to claim negroes and mestizos attract white women better than white men, then she is utterly mendacious – see here.
With her attempts to tear down and denigrate white men and elevate non-white men, Denise has revealed herself as a enemy of the pro-white cause. Sarah correctly said that men and women need and complement each other, but Denise says women do not need men at all.
Before Denise posts a profane, semi-literate screed in response, I will say that I disagree with this post, sharply criticized the Alternative Right article, and have nothing but contempt for Asiaphiles. Denise is arguing against straw men. White nationalist men oppose miscegenation and are not Asiaphiles, and no white nationalist man on this blog has said anything about “mating with Gooks.”
Take your jungle fever elsewhere, Denise.
MLGS – I am insulting you. You are attepting to ….I don’t know what – denounce me or something – but you don’t refute ANY of my astute and eccurate observations.
Ghetto trash, Black and Brown – is better at drawing in women, including very attractive White women – than are WN Males.
Oh – they draw in all kinds of ghastly trash, and abuse them ,and toss them aside – but the females don’t know this will happen, beforehand.
I’ve seen, with my own eyes, a lot of you guys in action. You are drooling, blank-eyes feebs, around females. Dismissive, obtuse, and boring as Hell. No fun to be with at all.
You don’t know how to talk to women. You don’t know what to say. I think a lot of you don’t actually like women at all, don’t enjoy female company, and just want females to serve as maids, or whatever.
I am rude and crude cause you are getting the respect and courtesy that you deserve.
I am not rude and crude to the males that merit respect and attention.
Not ONE of you has ever answered one of my fundamental questions, so I’ll ask, again, cause you are …developmentally delayed,
Why would a woman want anything to do with any of you?
Give me a reason.
Are you fun to be with?
Are you flirty, and amusing?
Do you have money?
Will you make a woman feel beautiful and special?
Why would a woman want anything to do with any of you?
Can you support a family?
Answer those questions.
You are on the Retarded WN Wannabe Male Boor List.
Lena – Fred is Jewishy – but he’s not as hateful as some of these toads are.
He’s actually been sticking up for us a bit.
Lena – if Fred, or any of these testosteronely deficient Mommy’s Spoilt yet Ignored Brats actually attempted to prevent us form doing anything at all – let alone voting – we’d just jack them up and toss ’em in a ditch.
I am well-endowed as well. I am a redhead. We need a big-boobed brunette to complete the Amazon Trio. We could sweep them aside with our assets, in one choreographed move.
You know none of these idiots would dare say any of this to our faces .
We’d glare once – they’d utter a strangled squeak, and then faint, or run away.
Really, LOL…I just love you Denise! I can’t wait for your rebuttal/rant.
Well, I don’t think anyone can accuse H. Rock White of writing a boring article. I’m told the parallel Stormfront thread is up to eight pages long. This thread has gotten more responses than even the Terre’blanche coverage.
The adversarial posturing here, by some parties on both sides of the debate, is not helping in any way whatsoever.
Hunter has invited several women here to write an essay in response to H. Rock White, expressing their view of this subject through cogent, unemotional, fact-based argumentation. Why not take advantage of that opportunity, rather than lending credence to HR White’s assertions by lashing out with defensive, emotional rhetoric aimed at drowning out the debate and silencing critics?
“To attribute to others the identical sentiments that guide oneself is never to understand others.” – Le Bon, The Crowd
Denise, no one here is as deranged and hateful as you are. ATBOTL hit the nail on the head in his assessment of you last week. When Arthur Kemp wrote of the need to get rid of the “cancers” in the white nationalist movement, people like you are who he was talking about.
Why would a man want anything to do with you? You are a profane, semi-literate lunatic.
Svigor – I normally like you very much – but you are writing like you are on your period tonight.
You have mis-interpreted much of what I’ve written.
I NEVER said that WN males can only mate with WN women.
What I have been writing is that WHITE WOMEN will be repulsed by the way so many WN men behave towards them and treat them.
You won’t HAVE a Homeland at all – if you can’t learn how to draw and and attract females.
Where is the incentive? If I showed this thread to young White females I know, who are looking for a boyfriend, or a mate – they’d think you were all mental. Walk away, and never look back.
God. Whites are reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally bad at PR, and “advertising”. Sheesh!
NO WN female is a feminist. Drop that canard. We ARE strong, opinioned females – who think for ourselves. I’ve written earlier that WN females are the Outliers of the Outliers. Most women are absolute herd creatures. They do “what every-one else does”. We do not.
Even the dreaded feminists are only following the flock. They know what they’ve been taught. They get kudos and praise to parrotting and acting on their instructions. What do WN women, or women in general, get from you?
Has this nastiness, bitterness, and blaming gotten WN anything from females?
Please elucidate the gains.
I like you and respect you. Every-one has an off day. I am not putting you on the Pathetic Impotent Surly Backed-Up Lone Wingnut, Completely Socially Retarded Social IQ of .000000000000010 Point Even Hookers Laugh List.
Not tonight.
I am giving you a Save.
Don’t make be regret my generosity/
Denise: “I am well-endowed as well. I am a redhead. We need a big-boobed brunette to complete the Amazon Trio. We could sweep them aside with our assets, in one choreographed move.”
LOL! I love the line about “one choreographed move.” Good stuff, well worth the price of admission.
I like your style, Denise. But sister, chill out a bit. I don’t think anyone here seriously believes that women are “the” problem, and this shrieking rage is harshing my mellow. As far as WN men attracting white women, I can only speak for myself. No….problems. Good times. Of course, I try to resist preaching white nationalism on a first date, so maybe that helps.
Denise writes:
“Has this nastiness, bitterness, and blaming gotten WN anything from females?”
This cuts both ways, my dear. The vitriol you’re dishing out is not going to persuade anyone of your opinion.
What is wrong with the “bedrock practical behavior” I explained in post #75? Why do you say it is of a purely theoretical nature, as if being a gentleman were of ancillary value? Perhaps I misunderstand what you’re trying to convey.
“Has this nastiness, bitterness, and blaming gotten WN anything from females? Please elucidate the gains.”
You’re absolutely right about this. At the same time, criticism is legitimate, and just part of the process that we have to go through.
I don’t get all huffy when the sorry state of white men is pointed out. It happens to be true, even if I believe myself exempt from much (not all) of the general criticism.
But, at the end of the day, you’re correct that our PR on this issue sucks. We’ve got to figure out a way to make legitimate criticism, but at the same time articulate an appealing vision. We don’t seem to be doing that on the female front. Part of this probably stems from the male propensity to “attack, attack, and then attack some more.” After a hearty breakfast and some time spent exposing the horror show that we call life in the modern Kwa, attacking can become a habit. It might well take a WN female to create an approach that is more palatable to the “fairer” sex.
I think Denise has really flipped out. I think she is just an agent provacateur.
“deranged and hateful”
I’ll confess, MGLS, I sometimes find it hard to distinguish an overweening desire to appear ‘respectable’ and cowardice. As what is ‘respectable’ is so often merely hollow pretense or merely empty headed conformity, and both earn my unqualified contempt.
I’ve asked my future wife to write some posts here from the perspective of a Radical Traditionalist woman.
Perhaps the debate on this thread, which she seems to find quite interesting, will finally compel her to do so. 😉
She is a Nordish preservationist, of course, so she meets Mark’s requirements as stipulated in post #88.
“I think Denise has really flipped out. I think she is just an agent provacateur.”
LOL! Nah, she’s just a chick. Well meaning, but prone to flipping out. Can’t live with ’em…you know the deal. So you take the good with the bad. Where else but from a chick could you get the “choreographed” line above? Great stuff, and I mean that. I like her writing style, definitely not what you’d get from a man. Of course, you pay a price with oversensitive freak outs. Hopefully, she’ll chill out and be fine.
MLGS – Kemp is the cancer. Kemp is absolute trash. He is a total subversive. His mission is to disrupt and destory. You are too vacous and butthead stoopid to see that.
Now answer my questions, you moron. You drooling pathetic loser.
You and Abuttplug can write about WHAT YOU DO IN THE REAL WORLD, before you DARE address me again.
Robert – I started writing my rebuttal this evening. I want to finahs tomorrow, when I have the time to write properly I discussed this issue, and the tone, with the very lovely gentleman I am seeing right now. Between other topics.
Can everyone please cut out the sniping? Keep in mind there are guests reading these threads. A bloodbath in the comments doesn’t make the best impression.
“Oh, can everyone just cut it out?” The best thread in weeks… perhaps Hunter has a period? You allowed it, let it fly, man…
That’s great news, Robert! Looking forward to that. Every Nordicist woman I’ve come across is beautiful, intelligent, and the best kind of lady.
Lena, I believe Svigor is referring to your highly emotional response to the article in question.
Some of the men here can be just as caddy, reactionary and overly emotional as a woman, a non-white woman at that. In fact I thought Denise was a sockpuppet of one of them.
Of course this generates a lot of controversy, the only thing that would generate more would be if a woman wrote something similar about men.
Robert – I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a gentleman at all. I think gentleman are lovely. I really do. You can ask mine, if you choose to. I’ve “intoduced” you, after all. I am a perfect lady with him, because he is a delightful and very romantic gentleman with me. He’s thoughtful, intelligent competely confident in his masculinity – and he’s not threatened by me at all. He has no reason to be. He knows how to talk to chicks. He likes women (Quel suprise!)
I wish more of that sort where involved in White Nationalism. Very few of those types, posting on this thread, are.
If any-one cares to bother – the very first thing I wrote on this thread was that I essentially agreed with White’s premise. Several of the posters herein put forth excellent suggestions, on how to handle voting.
My entire theme revolves around the reality that there is never ever ever gonna be an etnostate, nor a White Homeland, unless WN males learn how to speak to, address, and and woo women. Some of you do. Most, apparently, do not.
As far as my nastiness and vitriol – some of these cretins never ever learned to take what they dish out against women. You all ought to have learned that basic social exchange in kindiegarten. What went wrong?
Anyway – a lot of you do not like the taste of what I’m dishing out, do you? How did that Leonard Pitts guy put it? “Cry me a river”. I can dish it out. And it’s not very nice, is it?
That Lockloser article infuriated and caused despair in the active WN females I know. Many wrote to me – for consolation, and solidarity.
None of you ever answered my question regarding why you enjoy insulting and humiliating White females so very, very much (although Divine Comedy did a bang up job of doing if for you).
I have more questions – what do you think your nastiness will accomplish?
Young attractive White females have all kinds of incentives to do all kinds of things, that act against their own long term interests. They don’t know any better.
What incentives are any of you supplying to educate them, and make them want to be involved in any of this?
I spoke briefly to my pal in CA tonight. I caught up with her when she was handing out treats to poor homeless White kids. (what do any of you DO for White children?).
She’s decided to eschew the IHR meeting next week. She’s going to do something fun, and useful, with other people, who have sought her wonderful company, and will sho her an excellent time.
Good for her.
Hunter – calm down. Keep a supply of virtual smelling salts, at the ready, if the guest begin to feel faint.
(Jesus God. What will so many of you do if you actually have to deal with urban warfare. et al?)
Trainspotter – I know your posts well. Glad you like the imagery!
You are on the Exemplary Cool Dude Fun To Be with List.
Sadly – it’s a short list.
Now – I am cheering up my outraged fellow female WN. They are mightily enjoying my Righteous, Justified, Well Deserved, and Long Overdue Harsh – and that’s all that matters – and you all will eat it. You will eat it.
Every last crumb. .
Lena,
Given your negative reaction, I found that to be an interesting comment: “the best thread in weeks.” I’ve been researching “buyer personas” lately. The idea is actually pretty simple: we should write content for the various types of people who read our website.
One thing is clear: we don’t have enough content on OD that is geared toward a female audience. This thread happened to be about women. To be sure, it was a negative thread, but it was also one of the only threads specifically about women that comes to mind here.
Everyone chimed in with their own two cents. We should have more of these discussions about gender dynamics. It is an underexplored issue. The role of women in the White Nationalist movement and a future White ethnostate would excellent material for a page or two.
We need more pages full of timeless content and less “blog of the day” posts.
Wow, lots of great comments here. Earlier in my life I would have agreed with the notion of denying the vote to women but an objective review of history and how we’ve reached this point would suggest that White men have failed the system as much as women have. After all, it was white men, not jews, that gave the nigger the vote before white women. It was White men that determined who could come to this country and opened the gates to Hebrews and it was White men that happily sold off our valuable assets to said invaders.
I agree with what hunter said about restricting suffrage to both sexes and base it on age, intelligence and virtuousness. This would apply especially to candidates.
I like the Iranian system, where you have guardian councils, expediency councils, assembly of experts and a supreme council that all keep a watchful eye on the democractic process there. It seems to work well and could be a model for building and keeping a white ethnostate together. Women can all be a part of that.
I also would set higher age limits for women and men to vote, along with a pre-election test on issues and certain disqualifications like criminal records, homosexuality or overall base morality. In no way should money or asset wealth be a qualification to vote. It means NOTHING.
Denise certainly has courage, you have to give her that. I don’t think half of the men here would have the nerve to challenge her in person. LOL!
Denise, no one who reads your comments can deny that Kemp is correct.
I will address you and your unhinged rants whenever I please.
You ought to answer my question. Why would any man want anything to do with an unhinged, profane, semi-literate lunatic like you?
That Lockloser article infuriated and caused despair in the active WN females I know. Many wrote to me – for consolation, and solidarity.
This may be beyond your comprehension, but once again, Locklin is not a white nationalist, Alternative Right is not a white nationalist website, and white nationalist men strongly oppose miscegenation and Asiaphilia. You, on the other hand, viciously attack white men and have jungle fever.
I started writing my rebuttal this evening.
To reiterate, I disagree with this post. However, those who agree with it must be elated that a buffoon like you will be posting a “rebuttal.”
Denise:
“That Lockloser article infuriated and caused despair in the active WN females I know. Many wrote to me – for consolation, and solidarity.”
This comment, along with your remark regarding the wayward female IHR supporter, sends the message that WN females are just as capricious as the rest of American women. What sort of person interpolates the invaluable historical research undertaken by revisionist historians with a single thread on a blog unrelated to revisionism or its proponents, and suggests that the former is somehow unworthy of support as a result of some vague, tenuous association with the latter?
“None of you ever answered my question regarding why you enjoy insulting and humiliating White females so very, very much”
I do not engage in such behaviour.
“Young attractive White females have all kinds of incentives to do all kinds of things, that act against their own long term interests. They don’t know any better.”
This is one observation upon which we can all agree, so let’s do something about it! 🙂
“What incentives are any of you supplying to educate them, and make them want to be involved in any of this?”
I have brought several women into White Nationalism, one of whom I plan to marry, and all of whom are healthy, well adjusted young ladies. I am just a lowly blogger, and I do not have the resources to implement the sort of grand, folk-building incentive programs I would like to offer (NS style mortgage subsidies to support family growth, etc.), but I do my best to advocate such principles in what I consider to be a reasonable and responsible manner.