Aug 182012

I have been thinking a lot about the importance of male spaces.  There has been a feminist war on the existence of any and all male spaces based on the principle of if men are doing something, no matter what it is, without women, then they have to be stopped immediately.  This is also applies to predominantly male spaces like STEM employment, video games, “geek culture”, etc.  It’s no surprise that we have seen a feminist/female assault against these areas such as the constant blather about sexism in video games and Obama’s attempt to apply Title IX to STEM.  Whiskey has talked about how (female) Twilight fans (including the “Twi-moms”) took over Comic Con and ruined it.

We are running out of male spaces.  The feminization of game is being attempted.  There have been several attempts to turn the MRM into being all about women.  (The most recent attempt was the LadyMRAs reddit which was supposedly about women helping the MRM ended up exposing its real agenda when they became rabidly insane against MGTOW.)  The only real space that has managed to completely resist and fight off feminization and feminist invasion is MGTOW.  At least one reason for this is because women in general see the MGTOW as hostile to women (regardless of what men in the MGTOW space are actually doing).

Knowing that MGTOW has been the only male space to resist feminization and feminist invasion because it is (de facto) hostile to women, then is the only way to preserve male spaces by making them hostile to women?  8ball commenting at SWAB’s blog thinks that this could be the case:

I’m starting to wonder if it’s even possible to have a male-only space that isn’t hostile to women. And contrary to popular belief, this isn’t because I think any gathering of men will inherently turn misogynistic, rather the opposite.

Any space that isn’t completely alienating to women will eventually be …. “invaded” (for lack of a better term) by women, who will then insist that it conform to their sensibilities. Look at Geek culture for example.

You can see this happening in places like The Good Men Project. Most of their readers are women, a good percentage of their articles are not even remotely about men, and another significant percentage are about how men’s lives affect women. And even when the article is about men… often it is written by a woman.

I’m not sure how good of an example The Good Mangina Project is since it was started by male feminist men, but in thinking about it, 8ball has a point that even The Good Mangina Project now has a much higher percentage of women authors and women commenting and less articles even tangentially relevant to men than when they started.  In a way, this does show that male spaces have to be hostile to women to defend against feminization and feminist invasion.  While The Good Mangina Project didn’t start out as a true male space, it shows that any space that is feminized will become more feminized over time.

I’m certainly willing to listen to ideas on how to protect male spaces without making them completely hostile and alienating to women, but at this point, I can’t see any other solution to protecting male spaces.

May 212010

The History Channel has always been questionable when it comes to the rigor of explaining history, but it has really completely lost it by broadcasting a program on demonic symbolism in the design of Washington D.C.  Whiskey had this to say:

History Channel is run by the same woman who now runs Lifetime. She’s your typical Malibu crystal channeler new Age lunatic.

Rielle Hunter with an MBA.

Women eat that stuff up of course. She’s the one that dumped all the military history in favor of women’s psychic ghost hunter shit.

And this:

As late as 2003, History Channel had mostly military history, particularly WWII. It was nicknamed, “the Hitler channel” because it had lots of WWII stuff. Because, duh, men are fascinated by military strategy, there was lots of documented in WWII, and the campaigns were easy to understand (as opposed to Korea, poorly documented and a forgotten stalemate) or Vietnam, a defeat essentially.

What happened, as Peter notes, ratings were not really important (for now) so the idea of “making it more hip” by getting a bunch of women to watch stuff about the Da Vinci Code (women are the main audience for that crap) was sold to the parent holding company.

Of course, if channels go ala carte, then ratings matter. Or possibly, people could in a deepening and lengthening recession, drop cable altogether.

I predicted that even the Weather Channel will fully succumb to this.  Is it time to start the countdown clock to the death of the Weather Channel yet?

Mar 252010

Any of you who have been reading my blog for a while know that I am fundamentally anti-conspiracy theory.  That’s because I want evidence, and conspiracy theorists can’t provide an actual shred of evidence.  More importantly, they can’t even get basic facts right.

One conspiracy theory you may hear is that WWII was engineered by bankers, Zionists, the Global Association of People Who Pick Their Noses, or reptile aliens.  Whiskey blows that out of the water by presenting some historical facts:

Globalman — It is the height of stupidity to deny that WWII was anything but the failure of the supine Western democracies to stop first Imperialist Japan in it’s slicing up China, and then Hitler’s Third Reich and plans for European wide conquest (to recreate a grotesque parody of Rome).

Churchill was only made PM after the manifest failure of “Peace in Our Time” Chamberlain. Roosevelt had to drag along the isolationist, pacifist America (and only Pearl Harbor galvanized the US for war). WWII ended the British Empire, and the French, and the Italian. It destroyed Russian demographics (at least 20 million dead there alone). It made almost no one rich (most European and many British banks failed) and cost the lives of half a million US war dead.

Churchill and others argued to stop the Third Reich and Imperial Japan while the cost was cheap and the outcome not in grave doubt (the Axis almost won the Battle of Midway, Atlantic, North Africa, Stalingrad, Kursk, D-Day, everything had to go miraculously right for the allies). Instead we got a war that ended Europe as anything significant in world affairs, cost half a million American lives, and could have easily led to US defeat and occupation (America was basically unarmed in 1941 — Patton manuevered with trucks labeled “tank”).

It is not very flattering when you ignore the mountains of contemporary documentary evidence for tin-foil lunatic conspiracy theories.

Whiskey is definitely right.  It’s not flattering to conspiracy theorists.

Mar 232010

Whiskey said over at The Spearhead:

It is easy to blame folks like Oprah, or Greer, or Friedan, or Steinem.

But the fact remains, you “can’t cheat an honest man.” All these kooks did not mesmerize or hypnotize innocent women against their will and use evil powers to convince them to do things against their own interests.

They provided a convenient platform and justification for what women have always wanted to do anyway. This is, really, women at their core. Not all women, to be sure, but most of them. Particularly younger women.

Whiskey is a man who gets it.  Lots of people like to blame female bad behavior on some external force whether it’s elite feminists, the super rich, the Democrats, socialists, groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, and/or mythical conspiracies like the Illuminati.  While elite feminists, the super rich, Democrats, socialists, and others had a hand in it, the fact of the matter is that women were never “tricked” or “brainwashed” into their current bad behavior.  Yes, what we have now wouldn’t have been possible without the support of men at the top, but it also wouldn’t have been possible without the support of women.  Whiskey correctly points out this is what women wanted.

It’s easy to put all of the blame on some group of elites.  After all, the elite is only made up of a few people which means only a few people to get rid of.  Consider this.  What happens if you eliminated every elite female supremacist individual at the top tomorrow.  If it was all “brainwashing” or “tricking” women would start a process of “snapping out of it”.  This is not what would happen.  Women would continue to act the same way.  Why?  Because it’s what most of them want.

Feb 132010

Steve Jobs iPad Koolaid

Here is paradise, you will find no hardware from Apple.  There are no macs, no ipods, no iphones or any other Apple hardware in paradise.  If you own any Apple hardware, you are not in paradise.

You should know by now that Apple is the SWPL (Stuff White People Like) computer producer.  It’s number 40 on the Stuff White People Like list.  Just look at the picture of Steve Jobs with the new ipad maxipad above on the left.  (Don’t ask me if I think the maxipad will do well.  I don’t make predictions based on a man with his own reality distortion field.)  He is wearing one of the SWPL uniforms.  In addition to being very SWPL, Macs are now very female (which is connected to their SWPLness) at least according to fellow Spearhead contributor Whiskey:

Finally, Apple stores. They used to be (2001-2007) male dominated places where geeks and nerds and the tragically hip all mingled. NOW? Its a total estrogen fest. I went there recently and helped out a guy buying a new Mac. About 75% of the salespeople were women, and about 85% of the customers were women. Macs are very “girly” now. Which is sad.

The kool aid part of the picture above came from this link that has a similar view as mine about Apple hardware.  (I recommend you read that page.)  He talks about someone who is excited to be a part of the “mac community” after 35 days of owning a mac and correctly points out that its a computer and not a social movement.  This is an extension of the SWPLness of macs.  I’m not going to own a mac because I’m not interested in being part of that kind of a “community”, especially when its led by a man with a reality distortion field (hence the koolaid pic).

As Apple becomes more SWPL it’s no surprise that Apple hardware is getting more locked down.  Apple is declaring war on tinkerers. If you want to do something that isn’t approved by Apple (or AT&T in some cases because Apple decided to hog tie themselves to AT&T in the US) you’re out of luck.  Some people will claim that Apple is associated with “free thinking creativity”.  They’re wrong.  All of the supposedly “free thinking” artists, musicians, and “creative professionals” are not free thinking.  They have beholden themselves to political correctness and SWPL thinking.  It makes them a perfect fit for Apple.  Groupthink runs deep in the Apple world which is why Apple can’t allow iPhone apps that mention Android and Steve Jobs flings shit at Adobe and Google.

I know quite a few people who are really into things like free software and open source software.  Being extremely into software freedom, they avoid Apple whenever they can.  They might want to use their computers in non-Apple approved ways.

I know I will might be accused of being PC, Microsoft, Intel, Linux, Adobe, and/or Google shill for writing this post.  It’s not that I’m pro any of those things.  I’m against the Apple way (a SWPL way) of doing things.

Nov 222009

Depending on your perspective this will either be good news, bad news, or you don’t care.  Kristen’s STD results came back, and yes I actually saw them.  And she is STD free so you know what that means.  She was really ready to go.  Everything from the way Kristen dressed to what she said and did was screaming take me now.

I have to admit I was nervous.  Some of you know I did some “research” on a few things and that did help.  While it didn’t make me an expert, it did prevent me from getting lost and looking like I had never done this before.  Kristen suspects nothing.  I was worried about not being able to get it up and things like that.  I was able to relax.  We had dinner beforehand, and I did drink some wine so took the edge off.  (I also made sure not to drink too much so I didn’t end up with “whiskey dick”.)
It was fun of course, and there were some new experiences for me.  Some of them were pretty mundane.  For instance, I have been sleeping in a bed big enough for two people for many, many years, but I always slept in the middle.  This is the first time I slept on one side of a bed that size.  It may seem silly and mundane to you, but its was new to me.
I was expecting some angels to come down from Heaven after this, but that didn’t happen from the way many people claim getting laid is so important to being taken seriously.  The mysteries of the universe weren’t revealed to me.  It wouldn’t have to have been all of them, just a few would have been enough.  We will see tomorrow if I get a raise at work.  Lots of people claim that virginity loss is required to have real, high paying jobs.  Given that I was pulling down a massive salary before losing my virginity, I’m expecting that tomorrow I will start earning a salary of at least $250,000 a year.  (Given my current salary, it has to be raised to at least a quarter of a million dollars for those guys to be right.)  If this doesn’t happen tomorrow, then you guys can make it correct by sending me money.  Since this is a one time payment, all you guys who believe that financial success and sexual/relationship success are tied together, must send me at least half a million dollars ($500,000) total between all of you before I will admit you’re right.

One thing this experiment has shown me so far is that there was no “improvement” involved.  I have read plenty from people who claim that going from not getting laid to getting laid means that you have “improved” yourself in some nebulous way.  It’s nebulous since self improvement in all other cases is clearly objective.  Regardless, I didn’t change myself in this experiment.  I didn’t “improve” myself in any way.

Kristen made me breakfast this morning, and when I say made breakfast I mean actually made breakfast (specifically omelettes).  I take this to mean I must have done at least a halfway decent job in nailing her since I would assume that women don’t make breakfast for guys who failed to satisfy them in bed the previous night.
Even now after having sex, there is still a great deal I’m still feeling out and getting comfortable with.  I don’t have a good grasp of just how sexually aggressive I should be.  There is a lot to be said for turning a woman’s expectations that you will be sexually aggressive as soon as possible on its ear and making her beg for it instead.  Sofia at GirlGame said that being chased sexually gives women a position of power.  It seems like a good idea to deny that power.
I still amazed at how easy so much of this was.  Of course, the idea that this would be like getting blood from a stone has not left my mind yet, so compared to that anything is “easy”.  I am also noticing something along the lines of all I have to do is tell Kristen (or Rachel) that I want something and they deliver.  Is that part of being dominant and them being submissive?  I really don’t know (yet).  Like I said, I still feeling my way around so much of this.
I know many of my haters are really pissed now since they can’t call me a loser virgin anymore.  I expect some invention from them to come up with ideas to work around this problem.  I look forward to reading the nonsense they come up with.
Sep 222009

For those of you who follow Welmer’s blog, you know that he was working on a new online magazine style blog dealing with various issues men deal with.  It’s here, and it’s called The Spearhead.  Contributors include some of the most respected members of the MRA and MGTOW communities, Welmer, Novaseeker, Whiskey, PrimeElusive Wapiti, and Ferdinand Bardamu.

Sep 122009

Since 9/11 one thing we have heard Bush and others say is that we had to go to war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (or more accurately had to stay there) was to “liberate Muslim women”.  It’s right up there in stupidity with trying to create a democracy in the Muslim world as a reason why we have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While I supported getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam (and still do), the fact of the matter is that the US shouldn’t be in the business of democracy building in the Muslim world (at least not without some form of de-Islamification) or trying to liberate Muslim women.

The Shah of Iran came the closest to creating a modern state in a Muslim country.  (Whether it would end up democratic by any standard is a debate that is irrelevant for the purposes of this blog entry.)  Since Iran retains a great deal of its pre-Islamic Persian heritage (something that is not Islamic), the Shah had a better shot than anyone, anywhere in the Muslim world of doing this, yet he failed spectalularly.  One of the reasons why he failed was opposition by women.

Most analysis of the Shah and what he tried to do says that he was on the side of women’s rights.  The Shah claimed so himself similar to how Bush and other Neocons claim to be fighting to liberate Islamic women.  While what the Shah was doing did technically increase women’s political freedom, this doesn’t tell the whole story.  The Shah vs. Khomeni with respect to women is framed as women’s rights vs. patriarchy.  This is not correct because Islam is not patriarchal in the sense that we in the West think of patriarchy (i.e. monogamy, etc.)  Islam is institutionalized hypergamy through limited polygamy.  In Islam a man can have up to four wives.  (In some places Muslim men can have even more wives.)  This means that it is possible that up to 75% of men could never get a wife under Islam (assuming a male to female ratio of close to 1:1).  Whiskey points out that 12% of Muslim marriages are polygamous while in Saudi Arabia its as high as 30%.  This allows women to share an “alpha” male and explains why so many Iranian women were opposed to the Shah’s banning of the chador.  Intentionally or unintentionally the Shah’s plans to make a modern state were on the path of taking on the institutionalized hypergamy through limited polygamy of Islam one way or another.  This would mean that women would lose the ability to share “alpha” men that Islam granted them.  (This is in addition to the fact that the chador like the burka denigrates men.)

Even knowing this why were Iranian women so against the Shah because wasn’t he granting them increased political freedom?  The Shah was doing that, but outside of a handful of women, women aren’t interested in political freedom.  I was reading another MRA blog recently and someone pointed out how once the government/elites were done taking all freedom away from men, they would start taking away the freedom of women.  Someone else correctly pointed out that women aren’t going to notice or care that the government/elites are taking away their freedom.  Whether its in Iran or the West, outside of a handful of women, women aren’t interested in freedom.

This gets us to why wars to “liberate Muslim women” and create democratic states in the Muslim world are pointless.  Muslim women like other women aren’t going to care that you are fighting a war for their political freedom since they aren’t interested.  Take these women plus the men who aren’t interested in freedom due to Islam and there is no way a free and democratic state could ever be created in the Muslim world (without de-Islamifying the country to create enough men who are interested in political freedom).

Aug 122009

I have been out of town so I haven’t had the chance to cover the recent Pittsburgh shootings. Others have already covered it. However there are two things I have noticed that bear mentioning:

  1. Lots of money does not mean a man will be invested in society. If you check out the blogs I linked to, an idea that comes up a lot wrt Soldini is how men are increasingly not invested in society. In Soldini’s case this is despite having a very high paying job and a net worth of $250,000. In other words, men you would expect to be invested if not highly invested in society are not. I can say that is true of myself as well. While I’m not going to reveal my net worth here, I also have a high paying job and have saved/invested plenty of money. Has it made me invested in society? Absolutely not because this is the ultimate case of, “no good deed goes unpunished”.
  2. Soldini hadn’t had a girlfriend for about 25 years. There is no reason why this makes sense on the surface (so we need to dig deeper). I already covered his money. Take a look at what he looks like. Before he cracked he probably was a decent enough guy. Plenty of women should have wanted him since he had plenty going for him even compared to most men. Those of you who have read enough of my writings know that I’m 31 and that I have never had a girlfriend and never had any women interested in me. Since I started posting under this account, I have gotten lots of emails from men in the same and similar situations. (Even before that I had talked to plenty of men in similar situations as well.) There are two types of situation I have encountered. The first is like me, never had a girlfriend ever in their lives. The second is they had a girlfriend/sex several years ago but not now. That story typically goes something like this: When they were poor(er), they had no trouble finding women who were interested in them. However, now that they make $70K, $80K, $90K, or more they can’t find any women interested in them to save their souls. On the surface this makes no sense. There are theories, but the fact is this is a real phenomenon and it seems like this describes Soldini.

We will see more of this type of thing in the future. As more men realize that all of the work they have done is meaningless because the social contract between men and women is broken, a few will crack. I also anticipate this will lead to more demonization of upper-middle class and lower-upper class men. Most men in this situation aren’t going to crack, but they are going to be angry and want to do something about it. Think about this. If a bunch of men like Soldini who had lots of money got together imagine what they could accomplish.

Aug 052009

Marvin Minsky, a leading AI researcher at MIT, once said about the difference between general fiction and science fiction, “General fiction is pretty much about ways that people get into problems and screw their lives up. Science fiction is about everything else.” and “But aside from the science fiction, I find it tedious to read any ordinary writing at all. It all seems so conventional and repetitive.” This is important when looking at what is happening to science fiction on television.

Recently, Whiskey wrote about how “Syfy” is adding several gay characters to various shows. This isn’t as bad as what is coming out of Britain. There’s a spin off of Doctor Who called Torchwood. In Torchwood pretty much all the main characters have had at least some type of homosexual experience on the show. Two of the main characters have an ongoing homosexual relationship. One of the characters, Capt. Jack Harkness, isn’t even just gay or bisexual. If you do a search on that character you can find the writers talking about how he’s “omnisexual”. Basically, he’s willing to have sex with anything, men, women, aliens, etc. The creator of Torchwood, Russell Davies, has even admitted to having an agenda by saying that by the 51st century (where the character is from) everybody will be omnisexual. It’s worth noting that Torchwood is what Russell Davies wanted to do with Doctor Who, but the BBC put a stop to it (because Doctor Who was traditionally a “kids’ show”).
Torchwood is basically slash fiction on TV. What slash fiction is when someone takes a TV show or a movie and writes some “fan fiction” and adds homosexual relationships. Slash fiction started when the original Star Trek series was first on TV. Women (since slash fiction is primarily written by women) started writing Kirk/Spock stories (notice the slash there) where Kirk and Spock had a homosexual relationship. If you have seen even one episode of Star Trek you know this is completely absurd.
All of this is basically a war against real science fiction. What these women and gays are doing is trying to turn science fiction into general fiction. Remember what Minsky said, General fiction is pretty much about ways that people get into problems and screw their lives up. Science fiction is about everything else.” In other words, lots of general fiction on TV is nothing but pointless relationship drama. Science fiction is about everything else such as (straight) men doing things, inventing things, building things. With slash fiction and the introduction of gay characters on science fiction shows, these people are trying to convert science fiction into more of the homogeneous mass of relationship drama. This is in addition to the obvious agendas to normalize all sorts of deviant behavior.
What these people are doing are even more dangerous than that. We all know about men who as boys were inspired by science fiction to go out an invent things and develop technology. Science fiction inspired these men to advance civilization. This attempt to convert science fiction into general fiction is effectively a war on the advancement of civilization.
Jul 272009

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot asked me:

I understand why you think the best way to live in this world is MGHOW, but I am curious about how you picture a perfect world. How would women behave? What would be the roles of men and women? Would government intervene in or regulate what women are allowed to do? I would love to see a post from you regarding this.

All right, but this has the caveat the perfect world will never exist.

The short answer is that women would act in such a way that they supported civilization not attacking and threatening civilization like they do now. Women’s behavior isn’t just outrageous or noxious. It threatens to destroy what has been built by men over the last 6000 years. Even being neutral so that women didn’t advance but didn’t threaten civilization would be an improvement.

I’m not really that concerned about what the roles of women should be. The reason why their roles were controlled by culture/society was because it was understood the damage that they could do to civilization. However, as we see now that isn’t sustainable. Think about how many centuries of civilizational advancement were lost because women destroyed various historical civilizations.

Similarly, government regulation of women doesn’t matter to me that much either for the same reason. It could possibly work, but it isn’t sustainable either (besides having its own problems). Civilization is made up of people and when 50% are effectively against civilization the rest are constantly going to be involved in a rear guard action to keep civilization from collapsing. This is much of the history of the last 6000 years.

Barring any real options to get women to stop trying to destroy civilization (since the perfect world doesn’t exist), we have to take away their power to do so. That’s where technology comes in. Through technology we can remove women’s power to destroy civilization. Women can go back to the caves if they so wish and the rest of us can continue to develop civilization unimpeded. This also means the use of idea of MGTOW to protect ourselves from women.
Jul 222009

Here are two reasons why all men should oppose socialist health care:

The problem with rationing health care is that it creates permanent winners and losers, with the losers having no investment in society, because society has no investment in them.

Already buried in the bill is a demand for quotas for doctors to be so many Blacks, Hispanics, etc. Affirmative Action Doctors. Because it provides raw patronage results.

The political alliance in the Western world is Women, non-Whites/Muslims (depending on nation) against Straight White Men. Aimed at maximizing spoils politics by minimizing whatever Straight White Men get in spoils and such.

Already Obamacare folks are talking about how older people have a “duty to die” (a recurrent theme among Dems, dating back to the former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm). Mandating meetings between those post 65 and “experts” on “dying with dignity.”

There’s also demands for special access to women and non-Whites for health care.

Socialist health care is bad news for men everywhere.
Jun 222009

Both Welmer and Whiskey have been talking about advertising recently. We all know advertising is very anti-male. Whiskey provides some examples. To me the ultimate example is the infamous “Suzanne Researched This” commercial from Century 21 in 2006:

Which of course has been parodied:

What we have he is an example of how advertisers are targeting women and think that they can completely ignore men and belittle them. In theory, this violates the rules of good advertising since you don’t want to antagonize any potential customers. However, they like almost every other advertiser is only advertising to women since they figure women will extract money from men. (As an aside this is how the housing bubble happened. The housing bubble was primarily a female caused economic bubble. After all the guy in the commercial knows the house wasn’t worth what they were going to pay in 2006, but the wife “loves” that house unlike her husband. If that commercial happened in reality they would be foreclosed on soon. More on this in a subsequent blog entry.)
Since so many companies are in the business of selling junk to women paid for by men, what does a company that sells to men look like as far as its advertising. It’s a bit difficult to find such examples. Even beer doesn’t qualify, but I found one.
The company is called Asus. They’re a manufacturer of various computer parts, motherboards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Among guys like me who build their own computers, Asus is known for high reliability and high performance hardware. The computer I’m typing this on is filled with Asus parts. Needless to say its clear their customer base is pretty much male. How much advertising does Asus do? Little to none. Instead the money spent on advertising is spent on engineering.
Thus we are forced to conclude that advertising is primarily about getting women to buy junk with male money since companies that have a primarily male customer base know advertising is pointless.
Jun 122009

Please read Part 1 of the Alliance series.

Groups like the Klu Klux Klan and political parties like the British National Party are referred to as “right wing” groups and parties. This is not the case. In fact, they fit in well with the Alliance.
Recently, there was a shooting at the Holocaust Museum in DC. JihadWatch has documented some facts about the shooting and related issues which are relevant.
From the second link:
1. The shooting at the Holocaust Museum yesterday demonstrates yet again that, contrary to the imaginings of libelbloggers, real white supremacist neo-Nazis are not pro-Israel, but rather hate Jews (as well as Christianity).
2. The Aryan Nations has stated: “Islam is our ally, and the 1500 cults all claiming to be ‘Christian’ are our opposition.” (It’s important to remember that real Neo-Nazis and the like are not Christian nor do they claim to be Christian. They are Pagan revivalists.)
3. White supremacist David Duke has traveled to Syria to express his support for the jihad against Israel. (Another fact about David Duke: Several years ago David Duke tried running for office as a Republican. He failed. Before that he tried running as a Democrat twice. He did better as a Democrat.)
The reasons why these facts are important is that the politics of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc. is SOCIALIST but with racism. Even the term Nazi tell us this since it is short for National SOCIALISM. For all intents are purposes anti-semitism now is all leftist.
In Europe the situation is similar. Much has been made about the “right wing” victory in the recent European elections. While real right wing parties such as the UK Independence Party won seats, many of the victorius parties were not right wing, they were simply racist socialists such as the British National Party and various anti-Gypsy Eastern European socialists. To use the example of the BNP, as they put it, “We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens.” The BNP has also said that they would make the British NHS a “first world wonder”. In other words its clear from this and their other policy positions which you can read about that they are socialists. I even once heard the BNP described as Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright for white British people. It’s an apt comparison. (And to show more similarities Wright claims that Jews won’t let him speak to Obama.)
What does this have to do with feminism? For that I am going to go to Whiskey who wrote on the Belmont Club (both blogs I highly recommend) here:

I’m not convinced that the Left is out of the mainstream. Certainly it’s policies of mass immigration, destruction of the middle class, heavy government spending, find a lot of supporters.

At least in the short term, certain groups win. A lot. From the Left. Chief among them, women. Who benefit from social spending, which both props up single motherhood (no messy personal choices) AND female employment (most government social workers and education workers and health workers are women). Indeed the desire for preferences makes female workers advantaged and outside competition with White Male peers….

The long run DOES happen, however, and it seems that the long-run costs have come due: personal safety a crisis point even for women in fashionable areas, lack of ability to pay for increased female-centric government employment, Muslim political figures threatening the spoils politics by taking more than their “fair share” of the goodies.

I believe Leftism in the West was built on nothing more complicated than gender based spoils politics, in explicit alliances against the out of the native White male (who lacked family connections). Leftism going out of favor is nothing more complicated than previously junior partners (mostly the Muslims) taking most of the pie away from White Women.

White women retain their innate hostility towards native White men, AND the system (free market capitalism) that rewards high risk preferences (among White men). No one in Europe who is White and Female is likely to have a strong appetite for free market risk, since the winners will be mostly White Men, not White Women.

The BNP and parties LIKE IT that combine socialist risk-leveling, AND Nationalism (benefiting White Women) seem poised to pick up the most votes in long-term trends.

IF Leftist internationalism is failing, it’s failing because it’s core, White Women, are getting shafted in the spoils divisions.

While I would like to see some hard numbers documenting these ideas, it does explain the rise of the BNP and other faux-right political parties and how its connects to feminism. One of the problems with the Alliance is that the weaker links such as the feminism-Islam link are subject to stress. In the end everyone in the Alliance is in the Alliance because its their only way to power, but as soon as they really get it or think one of the other parts will, they will stab the other members in the back. (I will go into this in more detail in Part 3: The Iranian Revolution Model.)

Connections between the faux-right and feminism also exist as far behavior is concerned. On Dr. Helen’s blog if you scroll down to the end of the comments on this story, there’s a guy, “Pablo” who claimed to see one of his female employees crying and punched out some customer that supposedly caused her to cry. While this “Pablo” is most likely a troll and the story, fake, (after all there would be criminal charges and law suits against “Pablo” if this story really happened), there are hotheads who would do such a thing so it has happened many times somewhere. How is this different than when the KKK would beat up or murder a black guy if a white woman said that he even just looked at her funny? It isn’t. If you think about it, it reads nearly exactly the same.

What we have seen here is that racist socialism is not really opposed to feminism at all.

Translate »