“Stuck, if you want to understand women, Anglin has been writing great essays lately explaining how our society through feminism, abortion, corporate work, et cetera has created completely dysfunctional and destructive women.”

+ 1,000

With regard to AP’s referencing Andrew Anglin, here is a post Anglin made as part of an ongoing discussion about an article by Jim Goad that appeared on Counter Currents. (I’m only providing a bit of background, although Anglin’s remarks here do not really require it in order to address the ideas conveyed).

Obviously, everyone knows my positions on these issues, which are more or less the opposite of Goad’s above stated positions. I don’t really want to try to analyze specifically what he is trying to communicate, as I do not understand it. I think it is easier to speak to the larger movement of right-wing male feminism.

I am very much opposed to the male feminist procedure of claiming that anyone who expresses ideas against feminism is just angry that they can’t get laid. Using this shame tactic is clearly just a way to silence discussion. As with everything else, the ideas should be addressed based on their validity, and anyone refusing to do that and instead claiming that the person making the argument has something wrong with them and therefore the argument should not be addressed at all cannot be taken seriously.

We’ve all seen this in other areas:

You just don’t like blacks because you’re jealous of their monster horse cocks
You just don’t like gays because you’re secretly gay
etc.
It’s a way to prevent open discussion.

The good news is, there is a way to really simplify all of this, with a very straightforward question:

Was It A Good Idea To Liberate Women And Bring Them Into Public Life?

Was it a good idea to liberate women and bring them into public life?

For all of history, before the late 19th century, women were not a part of public life, and were considered property. This was the case across virtually every race and culture, excluding some parts of sub-Saharan Africa and probably among Australian Aborigines and related groups (Paupans, etc.).

Because there was a standard that existed throughout all of history, and presumably all of prehistory, it seems to me obvious that those arguing in favor that change, which was at least solidified through Jewish social revolutions, are the ones upon which the burden of proof falls to present an argument in favor of this change.

Obviously, it is more or less impossible to argue that society at large has benefited in any way from the liberation of women, and the list of negatives is so long as to probably include almost every negative thing that has happened in the last 100 years.

Framing things in this way pretty well buries any kind of psychoanalysis about “you’re just angry you can’t get pussy, bro.”

(As an aside, you can also go into the fact that the most attractive, richest, and powerful people on earth have been divorce-raped, which means that the problem is about a lot more than “getting laid.” But I almost feel that engaging on that level is below me, as the problems are so obviously self-evident that it’s like being asked to explain why it’s bad to huff glue.)

Of course, the standard response from male feminists is that it is impossible to take away women’s rights.

But if we accept that, then what we are then talking about is not that it’s totally reasonable for women to have rights and anyone who disagrees is a pathetic loser who can’t get laid. We’re saying “yes, this is a ridiculous situation, but we have to figure out a strategy to deal with it.”

Well, writing essays on the internet is not a strategy to deal with it. Using any form of logic to communicate information to women is not a strategy for doing anything.

What you would instead do is look at what motivates women, and figure out how to exploit that.

The conclusion you would come to, very quickly, is that what motivates women is:

Being attached to centers of power and social status, and
Exploiting groups of men for emotional and material resources

So, you would then figure out a way to exploit those things, which would require you to have power, which you can’t do without building something. Involving women in your project effectively means you will never build anything, which means that the obvious thing you should do is avoid being involved with women at all, and instead appeal to men.

Given that claiming that any man who claims that anyone who is unsuccessful with women is a pathetic loser is not going to help you build anything with men, given that basically no men in the Western world are successful with women.

You also have to ask what possible benefit you can get from having “right wing women” involved in your organization, assuming you do not control a government. I guess this goes back to the issue of what exactly is being communicated in general. There was maybe a theoretical argument for this if you are looking at electoral politics, but I don’t think anyone serious is doing that at this point.

So, the whole conversation strikes me as completely non-serious.

The goal of dissident right-wing politics should be to appeal to young men, period. Talking to those men about how to deal with women could be valuable, but that is completely unrelated to trying to convince women to join a political movement. Women have never been political, and they are not now. Women’s involvement in politics is entirely based on instinctive notions of what will benefit her. There is no concept of right or wrong, or any form of idealism, or long-term civilizational security in the mind of a woman. We often note the significant gap between the voting patterns of married and unmarried women.

CNNVoteByMaritalStatus2012-1 (1).png

Of course, given the way women’s brains function, there is no clear delineation between “what is personally materially beneficial” and “what is emotionally satisfying.” A woman’s emotional satisfaction with her decisions is largely or entirely based on arbitrary notions of morality as defined by the state/media.

So, if the question is “how can we convince women as a group to accept our political doctrine while we remain a marginalized minority?”, then my answer is “you can’t.” I would follow that up with “but why would you want to?”

Finally, I just want to say that I have no desire to fight for a new political order in which women maintain sexual liberation and political enfranchisement. In fact, one of my main social goals is to restore the traditional sexual norms which existed all through human history before the modern era. Frankly, I consider anyone who believes in women’s liberation as a liberal, and I might even go so far as to say that a belief in the social and political enfranchisement of women is the defining value of liberal ideology.

Discuss.

That New Yawk bitch wouldn’t shut the hell up. Are people up there so cucked out that no one even carries a switchblade anymore?

And the Left would condemn us all to riding on mass transit.