tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post1626874478416010375..comments2024-03-02T12:39:23.745+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Kate Bolick tells us whyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-49093661799952598612011-10-31T23:47:42.296+11:002011-10-31T23:47:42.296+11:00Silly WN types, thinking that race will be at all ...Silly WN types, thinking that race will be at all relevant when their hypothetical children grow up.<br /><br />Follow the latest biotech news much? Didn't think so.narcisonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43509418224226321972011-10-31T07:41:06.748+11:002011-10-31T07:41:06.748+11:00Nonsense. You are stuck in some cyclical view of s...<i>Nonsense. You are stuck in some cyclical view of society when there is no evidence to support it whatsoever. Name a significant liberal innovation in politics or culture that has been reversed.</i><br /><br />Did I say anything about inovation? No. I stated how societies go through periods of conservatism and liberalism. Right now we're in the liberal era. Apologies for being blunt but you're starting to strike me as a liberal writing.<br /><br /><i>I have yet to see such a constraint that has proven anything but temporary.</i><br /><br />That's the entire point.<br /><br /><i>They were attacked but traditionalism owned the high ground of society. The situation is reversed now; liberalism owns the high ground of society and traditionalism is feebly and ineffectually trying to attack it (or more accurately, to resist its further advance).</i><br /><br />Not really. When traditionalism and religion became attacked it lost the high ground of society little by little. You seem to be mistaking the <i>massive social capital built</i> by conservatism for conservatism itself. As of now the capital is rapidly dwindling and that's when pure liberalism comes into play. Which is why you're seeing less "conservatives" and more ineffectual attacks. Most were never conservative in the first place. And we don't have a lot of attacks because we're only recently starting to organize and building some form of movement.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-76375575568865271342011-10-31T02:35:56.629+11:002011-10-31T02:35:56.629+11:00There was no traditionalist political party in Aus...<i>There was no traditionalist political party in Australia in 1945.</i><br /><br />There most certainly was in the US and Britain. In any event, I suspect BOTH the political parties in Australia in 1945 would be considered hopelessly reactionary by the standards of today's Australian progressives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-9669186517581781082011-10-31T02:33:11.356+11:002011-10-31T02:33:11.356+11:00You're stuck and persist in this linear view o...<i>You're stuck and persist in this linear view of societies when it is mostly untrue.</i><br /><br />Nonsense. You are stuck in some cyclical view of society when there is no evidence to support it whatsoever. Name a significant liberal innovation in politics or culture that has been reversed.<br /><br /><i>He doesn't see the "unprincipled exception" of liberalism where a non-liberal value constrains liberalism in its purest form.</i><br /><br />I have yet to see such a constraint that has proven anything but temporary.<br /><br /><i>Traditionalism and religion were attacked beforehand. They were attacked during the French Revolution, the Enlightment, the era of Darwinianism (theory of evolution) and other periods.</i><br /><br />They were attacked but traditionalism owned the high ground of society. The situation is reversed now; liberalism owns the high ground of society and traditionalism is feebly and ineffectually trying to attack it (or more accurately, to resist its further advance).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-67947559050962022562011-10-30T06:28:54.469+11:002011-10-30T06:28:54.469+11:00Ours doesn't. Our society is a ratchet that on...<i>Ours doesn't. Our society is a ratchet that only moves left, not a pendulum that swings back and forth.</i><br /><br />You're stuck and persist in this linear view of societies when it is mostly untrue.<br /><br /><i>Liberalism did, but it did not attempt to rule consistently by its own principles in all spheres of society - this only began to happen during the course of the twentieth century.</i><br /><br />I think Anonymous clearly disregards this factor. He doesn't see the "unprincipled exception" of liberalism where a non-liberal value constrains liberalism in its purest form.<br /><br /><i>I totally disagree. Traditionalism owned society at least until 1945 and arguably until the 1960s.</i><br /><br />Truly? You are incorrect. Traditionalism and religion were attacked beforehand. They were attacked during the French Revolution, the Enlightment, the era of Darwinianism (theory of evolution) and other periods.<br /><br /><i>There was a free market of ideas. Traditionalism LOST. That is why liberalism now dominates.</i><br /><br />We'll see.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-27630105103496605462011-10-29T22:54:00.211+11:002011-10-29T22:54:00.211+11:00Traditionalism owned society at least until 1945 a...<i>Traditionalism owned society at least until 1945 and arguably until the 1960s.</i><br /><br />There was no traditionalist political party in Australia in 1945. There was a Labor Party and a newly formed Liberal Party. The Liberal Party stood for classical liberalism; it was, as Menzies put it, a "progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise".<br /><br />Politics in 1945 was just the same as politics in 1985 - a contest between a left-liberal party and a right-liberal one. And at both times you had a commercial class which tended to be right-liberal and an intellectual class which was mostly left-liberal.<br /><br />That was the straitjacket of Australian politics. Traditionalism in 1945 not only did not "own" society, it was nowhere to be seen.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70006995054492391372011-10-29T15:27:09.366+11:002011-10-29T15:27:09.366+11:00traditionalism did not "own" society.
I...<i>traditionalism did not "own" society.</i><br /><br />I totally disagree. Traditionalism owned society at least until 1945 and arguably until the 1960s. <br /><br /><i>We have had a liberal establishment for a long time, and liberal control of the media and education systems</i><br /><br />"A long time" means only a few decades. Schools and the media remained largely conservative until the 1970s.<br /><br /><i>there has been no free marketplace of ideas in which liberalism and traditionalism have battled it out.</i><br /><br />There was a free market of ideas. Traditionalism LOST. That is why liberalism now dominates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-221148660283886282011-10-29T12:41:24.909+11:002011-10-29T12:41:24.909+11:00If traditionalism was incapable of defeating liber...<i>If traditionalism was incapable of defeating liberalism when traditionalism "owned" society and the cultural high ground, what reason is there to think that traditionalism can win now that liberalism owns society and the cultural high ground?</i><br /><br />But traditionalism did not "own" society. Liberalism did, but it did not attempt to rule consistently by its own principles in all spheres of society - this only began to happen during the course of the twentieth century.<br /><br />We have had a liberal establishment for a long time, and liberal control of the media and education systems, and its support amongst the monied elite, has meant that there has been no free marketplace of ideas in which liberalism and traditionalism have battled it out.<br /><br />That doesn't mean that liberalism is destined to rule forever. In 1975 it seemed as if the communist bloc was a permanent fact of life - that it had won in the "marketplace of ideas" - but that ideology was soon to fail.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-17786887367749094632011-10-28T22:04:21.434+11:002011-10-28T22:04:21.434+11:00Civilizations don't travel in a linear line to...<i>Civilizations don't travel in a linear line towards utopia. Societies go in cycles. </i><br /><br />Ours doesn't. Our society is a ratchet that only moves left, not a pendulum that swings back and forth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-57349218480242388012011-10-28T22:03:16.927+11:002011-10-28T22:03:16.927+11:00For most of Western history liberalism did not see...<i>For most of Western history liberalism did not seek to rule by its own principles alone as the only source of authority or value; there was a fusion with more traditional values.</i><br /><br />It is true that liberalism was not immediately, totally victorious. However, it <b>is now</b> totally victorious; none of its gains can be reversed without abandoning certain hallmarks of western civilization like "democracy" and "free speech".<br /><br /><i>there never was some kind of great showdown between the massed forces of liberalism and the massed forces of traditionalism.</i><br /><br />That ought to tell you something right there! Namely, traditionalism is so weak that it never had the will or capability to mass its forces to defeat liberalism.<br /><br />If traditionalism was incapable of defeating liberalism when traditionalism "owned" society and the cultural high ground, what reason is there to think that traditionalism can win now that liberalism owns society and the cultural high ground?<br /><br /><i>How can we tell if traditionalist ideas will succeed in the marketplace of ideas if they are never put out there?</i><br /><br />Traditionalist ideas <b>are</b> out there and <b>have been defeated</b> in the marketplace of ideas. That is why the idea that "you can't turn back the clock" is almost universally accepted.<br /><br /><i>One thing traditionalists are up against is that many Western men are dispirited and don't have the heart to resist - they would rather find a multitude of ways of giving up.</i><br /><br />A further sign that traditionalism has been defeated in the marketplace of ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70042758383473645012011-10-26T07:36:13.113+11:002011-10-26T07:36:13.113+11:00In any event, whether traditional western values a...<i>In any event, whether traditional western values are suicidal or not, they have proven themselves unable to withstand the onslaught of liberalism. They have clearly failed in the marketplace of ideas and in the arena of political combat.</i><br /><br />But that doesn't describe what has happened. For most of Western history liberalism did not seek to rule by its own principles alone as the only source of authority or value; there was a fusion with more traditional values. <br /><br />It was during the course of the twentieth century that liberalism became progressively more radical in seeking to impose its own principles alone as the ruling principles of society.<br /><br />And the problem with resistance is that the political culture by then was caught in a combat between left and right forms of liberalism. <br /><br />So there never was some kind of great showdown between the massed forces of liberalism and the massed forces of traditionalism.<br /><br />How can we tell if traditionalist ideas will succeed in the marketplace of ideas if they are never put out there? <br /><br />(Lawrence Auster, by the way, without any institutional support, has managed to build a considerable readership: 3,000,000 hits in the month of August of this year; my own site has been doubling its readership every year.)<br /><br />One thing traditionalists are up against is that many Western men are dispirited and don't have the heart to resist - they would rather find a multitude of ways of giving up.<br /><br />I think that will continue until the more spirited (or the more stubborn!) amongst us create something solid for those who are demoralised to attach to.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-54619736595576889542011-10-26T03:59:26.481+11:002011-10-26T03:59:26.481+11:00More of that 'wog' pride. Look you are eit...<em>More of that 'wog' pride. Look you are either European 'white' or you aren't. Like i said in another topic. Faux Europeans...</em><br /><br />Ah, but am I white? Or a "Faux European"? It's all so confusing.Twentynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-78496960126970528492011-10-26T03:38:41.897+11:002011-10-26T03:38:41.897+11:00In any event, whether traditional western values a...<i>In any event, whether traditional western values are suicidal or not, they have proven themselves unable to withstand the onslaught of liberalism. They have clearly failed in the marketplace of ideas and in the arena of political combat. Why side with the weak horse that is destined for the rubbish heap of history? Liberalism or Islam are the strong horses.</i><br /><br />Civilizations don't travel in a linear line towards utopia. Societies go in cycles. We have renewal, rise, stability, decay, decline and fall. We're currently somewhere between the decline and the fall and this is where liberalism is at its strongest yet its weakest. The best thing about liberalism is how its suicidal and bites the hand it feeds on. Its essentially a parasite and can only destroy, never create. Destroying seems easier than building. The key is for liberalism to let go of "unprincipled exceptions" and abide to the maximum (in its purest format). This will accelerate its demise quicker. Conservatives shouldn't aid liberalism either.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-90422243714763744742011-10-25T22:04:46.130+11:002011-10-25T22:04:46.130+11:00But it's not your community which despises you...<i>But it's not your community which despises you. It's the political class within it, which has much influence over the media and education system.</i><br /><br />Your "native" community (Australian whites) definitely despises you. That this is the result of the liberal elite indoctrinating Australian whites to despise themselves is beside the point.<br /><br /><i>And this political class would love for you to give up your own heritage (which they despise) in order to join Islam (which has favoured "other" status). Joining Islam means you are going along with the wishes of the people who are attacking you.</i><br /><br />At the same time, Islam hates western liberalism, so you'd be joining a community that shares your feelings about liberalism and that would actively encourage you to be as socially conservative as you like (as opposed to your current community, which actively encourages you to avoid being socially conservative and attaches low social status to conservatives).<br /><br /><i>The better option is to get together with some of the 95% of those within your real historic community who aren't part of the liberal political class and live according to a better and less suicidal set of values.</i><br /><br />You think that 95% of white Australians are not liberals? Of this I am skeptical.<br /><br />In any event, whether traditional western values are suicidal or not, they have proven themselves unable to withstand the onslaught of liberalism. They have clearly failed in the marketplace of ideas and in the arena of political combat. Why side with the weak horse that is destined for the rubbish heap of history? Liberalism or Islam are the strong horses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29329216751866826742011-10-25T14:30:56.405+11:002011-10-25T14:30:56.405+11:00Twenty said...
"I'm mixed-central-Europea...Twenty said...<br />"I'm mixed-central-European, so I'm sure I'm not white enough for you in any case"<br />More of that 'wog' pride. Look you are either European 'white' or you aren't. Like i said in another topic. Faux Europeans...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39456193390253978462011-10-25T13:53:42.285+11:002011-10-25T13:53:42.285+11:00@Bartholomew
The Argentines who are white have re...@Bartholomew<br /><br /><em>The Argentines who are white have remained so precisely because they have not followed your advice, i.e. married without consideration of race.</em><br /><br />Uhm ... who said race wasn't a consideration? Anyway, man, I'm mixed-central-European, so I'm sure I'm not white enough for you in any case. So don't lose anymore sleep about the racial composition of my future children, 'K?<br /><br />(I was tempted to tell you that I'm black or Jewish -- or both -- just to screw with you, but I figure the truth will do.)<br /><br /><em>I didn't say they wouldn't inherit any advantages. I said that they wouldn't inherit your whiteness.</em><br /><br />Well, no. You were really vague about what, exactly, my children wouldn't inherit:<br />"[I]t's just that white men can far out-compete Third world men. <br /><br />It's an unfair advantage your own mixed-race children won't be able to inherit."<br /><br />Now you clarify:<br />"And it's your race that makes you stand out against the Third World men, a race your children won't share."<br /><br />You know, later on you ask what I'm calling "racism". This is pretty much it right here -- the disproportionate attention to and emphasis on "race" as some sort of a genotypical thing apparently independent of any phenotypical expression.<br /><br />Besides, hell, if I have children with a castiza, they'd normally be considered espanol by the old rules. So another reason for you not to worry your little head about it.<br /><br /><em>In a generation, it'll be your sons watching the prettiest local girls, the girls they've grown up with all their lives, going for rich, foreign white men.</em><br /><br />You haven't spent much time around latinas, have you? They like their rich white countrymen, too.<br /><br /><em>I think you'll have a tougher time dismissing their appeals to fairness at that point.</em><br /><br />No ... fairness is bunk.<br /><br /><em>It isn't wrong to say that children should look like their parents.</em><br /><br />And I've got a better shot of having a son that looks like me in Latin America than if I marry an Ameriskank. (Rim shot!)Twentynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52181718637540109042011-10-25T11:21:41.989+11:002011-10-25T11:21:41.989+11:00It's a pity this type of feminism won't di...It's a pity this type of feminism won't die, with these cultural self destructive women. What we need is a type of counter balance of family and community. These building blocks are still functional in society, in majority white communities. So it's no where near over.<br /><br />I'm starting to think this hate feminism thing is killing chances of young white women, by turning off white men. A counter balance is needed for traditionalist or women who want white man to counter balance this. <br /><br />White women need to get it out there that they want us still, we need to shout louder then the feminists basically. As that is what wins the cultural political war, is by who screams the loudest, not necessarily the best argument. Other wise radical feminists would not exist, the only reason they do is they scream there message louder. <br /><br />We are all to certain degrees more liberal then our parents were unfortunately. <br /><br />One question you can ask a white woman of preferable marriageable and child bearing years is...<br /><br />"Do you want your children to look like you?" <br /><br />"Yes" Means even if this white women is progressive, subconsciously she still holds onto traditional values. Women like this are harder, yet persevering with them pays off. As you CONVERT them back to our culture, we start winning the culture war. My wife was one such women.<br /><br />Though my wife was put down the road of the dangerous path by a hopeless first Husband, who was a first school love. They married young. <br /><br />So in a sense I helped preserve my culture by brining her back from the brink. <br /><br />I all so believe we have to adapt to the times, these hyper-sexed women need to be satisfied, and if a Man can do this, the chances are she will stay with you, and the bond becomes even stronger. <br /><br />Fact is women in there mid to late 20's early 30's will be more hyper sexed, as they start to hit there sexual prime. We need to adapt to the times.<br /><br />I just think there is room for the traditionalist, conservative and the adaptive in the cultural preservation movement, as the more we persist the more we will skewer the culture back to tradition, even if adoptions are needed, to counter the liberalism. <br /><br />Love this site by the way, and keep up the good fight.Craignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-12697628372590268182011-10-25T09:44:58.894+11:002011-10-25T09:44:58.894+11:00Twenty wrote,
"There are all kinds of people...Twenty wrote,<br /><br /><i>"There are all kinds of people in Latin America. Met many Argies?"</i><br /><br />The Argentines who are white have remained so precisely because they have <i>not</i> followed your advice, i.e. married without consideration of race.<br /><br /><i>"But I'm puzzled by your claim that mixed-race children wouldn't inherit any advantages;</i><br /><br />I didn't say they wouldn't inherit <i>any</i> advantages. I said that they wouldn't inherit your whiteness. And it's your race that makes you stand out against the Third World men, a race your children won't share. In a generation, it'll be your sons watching the prettiest local girls, the girls they've grown up with all their lives, going for rich, foreign white men. I think you'll have a tougher time dismissing their appeals to fairness at that point. <br /><br />It isn't wrong to say that children should look like their parents. That's a self-evident truth. Is that what you're calling "racism"?Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-74305787489188932032011-10-25T07:52:15.063+11:002011-10-25T07:52:15.063+11:00But I'm puzzled by your claim that mixed-race ...<i>But I'm puzzled by your claim that mixed-race children wouldn't inherit any advantages; frankly, you seem pretty racist, so I'd assume that you'd think a half-white would have an edge over a non-white. Or are you of the "one-drop-of-blood" school of thought?</i><br /><br />I myself am biracial with my father being African and my mother Caucasian. Some of the disadvantages are higher rates of depression (I experienced one) and identity issues. For example I sometimes don't know whether I should marry and have a child with an African or a Caucasian because I want to continue the lineage of <i>both</i> of my parents. The only routes would be (A) Not care about my family's lineage and continue mixing until any prominent race is 'extinguished' and create a multiracial individual or (B) Preserving my family's heritage through illegitimacy (marry an African man and have a child with him but have a child out of wedlock with a Caucasian man too). The problem is that I'm a virgin and chaste and waiting until marriage so while illegitimacy is an option if I have a child out of wedlock I won't offer my virginity to my future husband. If I have a child inside the marriage then that would be adultery. I could just choose to preserve only one lineage but that would be saddening for myself because the other part of me wasn't preserved and one of my parent's bloodline stopped at me. And that's just a couple of disadvantages/problems I listed.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62341232880511733782011-10-25T07:39:42.062+11:002011-10-25T07:39:42.062+11:00I think Twenty that we should reject liberalism (w...I think Twenty that we should reject liberalism (whether it's women's rights activists or men's rights activists) and stop aiding a modern society that despises orthodox religion and traditional conservatism while building our own communities. Attacking and destroying what is evil is right but we need to build and sustain what is good as well. It's one thing to be smart about the fight, it's another to give up the fight. Globalization is increasing malaise worldwide. Other countries are experiencing liberal Westernization unfortunately.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-48714102119663836632011-10-24T15:27:35.307+11:002011-10-24T15:27:35.307+11:00@Bartholomew
So to strike back at our women, you&...@Bartholomew<br /><br /><em>So to strike back at our women, you're going to have...foreign-looking kids. You're destroying your own line just to get back at a bunch of women who won't care anyway.</em><br /><br />1.) I'm not (primarily) doing this to "strike back" at anyone. I just want the best like I can have for myself and my progeny, and it ain't here.<br /><br />2.) Re: "foreign-looking kids". There are all kinds of people in Latin America. Met many Argies?<br /><br />3.) Re: "destroying your own line". I don't see how having 4 kids with a woman whose genotype might not pass muster with you is more damaging to my line than having 1 with a WW. And in a more patriarchal culture I'll have a better shot of passing on my values, &c.<br /><br />4.) Re: "women who won't care anyway". Well, again, it's (shockingly!) not all about them. And they'll care (a tiny little bit, if they are smart enough to notice) when my productive capacity is withdrawn from a society that depends upon it to feed the transfer regime.<br /><br /><em>But even the most arrogant white woman is better than some foreign gold-digger.</em><br /><br />An interesting argument, with which I'm not sure I agree -- I'm reminded of the old joke about an honest politician being one who has the decency to stay bought. But I think you overlook the possibility that not <em>all</em> foreign women are heartless, conniving gold-diggers. (At least, no more so that the anglo variety of their sex.)<br /><br /><em>Third world women aren't any purer of heart than white women; it's just that white men can far out-compete Third world men. <br /><br />It's an unfair advantage your own mixed-race children won't be able to inherit.</em><br /><br />Third-world women are products of their environments, which haven't driven them as insane as our WW. Western men do have some advantages relative to 3rd-world men: Greater access to resources due to the ease of making money in the West, and a sharper understanding of female psychology due to the Darwinian SMP here. (They have disadvantages, too.) But I'm puzzled by your claim that mixed-race children wouldn't inherit any advantages; frankly, you seem pretty racist, so I'd assume that you'd think a half-white would have an edge over a non-white. Or are you of the "one-drop-of-blood" school of thought?<br /><br />And what's this "fair" nonsense?<br /><br /><em>Fight for your own women. There's one out there for you, man. Don't lose heart.</em><br /><br />Thanks, I guess, but I'm not eager to risk my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to prop up a sick society that seems to have little use for me, and that has either neglected or actively opposed my interests for 50 years.Twentynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-68532235305702384512011-10-24T13:26:10.480+11:002011-10-24T13:26:10.480+11:00The idea that a man should simply "go out the...The idea that a man should simply "go out there and date plenty" is pretty funny in the light of the fact that most women want men to pay their way.<br />So the only men who can "go out there and date plenty" are the ones with money.<br />Congratulations, you win the gold digger who can move to your emotions.<br />Not only that, "go out there and date plenty" ignores the very real risk of aversion conditioning.<br />If you keep running into women who enjoy playing games ... you will very soon develop the idea that that is all they are good for.<br />Why isn't there any suggestion for women to start making their own choices and taking the consequences? Why do men always have to initiate?<br /><br />Also remember that the New Scientist in 2008 stated that for women in Australia and New Zealand born from 1975, fully 30% would never be able to find a partner.<br />Time to "re-engage with Asia"... unless they happen to be racist.P Raynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-18801618901604012372011-10-24T10:33:26.135+11:002011-10-24T10:33:26.135+11:00Twenty said,
"I'm lighting out for Latin...Twenty said,<br /><br /><i>"I'm lighting out for Latin America, baby! It's not too far gone, and hopefully the self-imolation of the West will serve as a useful and highly visible lesson to them. Y'all have fun now!"</i><br /><br />So to strike back at our women, you're going to have...foreign-looking kids. You're destroying your own line just to get back at a bunch of women who won't care anyway. That's not just self-immolation, man, that's <b>pointless</b> self-immolation.<br /><br />Listen, I'm 29 and pretty unhappy with the choice of white women around me too. But even the most arrogant white woman is better than some foreign gold-digger. All women look for strength (e.g. physical, social, financial, etc.) in a man, just like all men look for beauty in a woman. Third world women aren't any purer of heart than white women; it's just that white men can far out-compete Third world men. <br /><br />It's an unfair advantage your own mixed-race children won't be able to inherit. It's unfair to nonwhite men, and it's unfair to your own kids. Fight for your own women. There's one out there for you, man. Don't lose heart.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-32076900283562166242011-10-24T10:07:52.989+11:002011-10-24T10:07:52.989+11:00There are some in the men's movement who have ...<em>There are some in the men's movement who have talked themselves into the idea that it's impossible to have a good, fulfilling marriage and that being a player or an eternal bachelor is a great lifestyle to lead.</em><br /><br />Strawman. What about those men's movement who have realized that it's pretty unlikely to build a good, fulfilling marriage in the West, and that no marriage is better than a bad marriage?<br /><br /><em>I was never a player, but I did the MGTOW thing for a period of time. I found it not liberating but soul destroying.</em><br /><br />I must have missed the part of this conversation in which I stated my enthusiasm for either the PUA or MGTOW lifestyle. They both kinda suck, but both are better than the meat grinder of a bad marriage and divorce theft. I just pointed out that men who follow them are <em>doing something</em> to change the rules of the game by altering the payoffs of that game to women.<br /><br /><em>My marriage, in comparison, has been highly fulfilling.</em><br /><br />Good for you. My lifetime returns from blackjack are positive, but I don't recommend it as an investment strategy.Twentynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-88065767756628891232011-10-24T10:07:40.579+11:002011-10-24T10:07:40.579+11:00"But the statistics seem to show that the lar..."But the statistics seem to show that the larger problem is white women having to compete with women of other races to get a white husband.<br /><br />Traditionalist white men should take heart from this and use their advantage in relation to dating white women."<br /><br />What an absurd statement! A traditionalist man would not even consider dating a woman of another race.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com