Sunday, January 22, 2017

Making men the enemy

One of the reasons both women and men often refuse to identify as feminists is because they have a sense that feminists hate men.

When feminists are on the defensive they will often deny that they have animosity toward men. They will claim that they just want an equality that will benefit men too.

But sometimes they let the cat out of the bag. For instance, a feminist writer for Slate magazine, L.V. Anderson, was very upset with white women after Trump's election. A majority of white women voted for Trump, thereby ensuring his victory. Here is L.V. Anderson's response to these women:
...white women decided they didn’t want to vote on the side of “everyone else.” They wanted to vote on the side of white men...The shocking results of the election prove that most white women don’t consider themselves part of the coalition of nonwhite, nonstraight, nonmale voters who were supposed to carry Clinton to a comfortable victory. Most white women still identify more with white men than they do with black women, Latina women, Muslim women, transwomen, and every other woman...White women sold out their fellow women, their country, and themselves last night. Most white women don’t want to be part of an intersectional feminist sisterhood...

According to L.V. Anderson, politics is all about a coalition of "everyone else" pitted against white men. White men are the enemy. She believes that white women should also be pitted against white men. Her vision of politics is one in which women as a class act against men as a class.

Little wonder that people think that feminists see men as the enemy. And here is the thing. L.V. Anderson wants white women to help defeat their own sons, husbands, brothers and fathers. She can't understand why some white women wouldn't sign on to this agenda. She truly believes that a white mother should pit herself against her own sons.

It is a monstrous belief.

There are some good signs that younger, political white women are beginning to reject this kind of politics, but more on that later.


  1. "There are some good signs that younger, political white women are beginning to reject this kind of politics, but more on that later."

    That would be very good news! But so far, I am not seeing this in Europe.

    In Sweden, they looked in detail at gender and age distribution for the different parties about one year ago. The anti-immigration party had a total support of 21%, but this was made up of 29% of the men and only 13% of the women.

    In the youngest age group (18-24) the female support was only 1.8%. Instead, they support radical left wing and feminist parties.

    Since we had some discussions about feminism and Islam merging in the west, you may find this interesting:

    "Organizer For DC Women’s March, Linda Sarsour Is Pro Sharia Law with Ties To Hamas"

    Many people find the concept of feminists and Islamist joining forces absurd, but it is really time to wake up. It is happening.


    1. Yes, I saw the Linda Sarsour story and intend to post on it.

      Your statistic for Sweden is certainly not good. The small shift that I've noticed is happening in the U.S. There are now a significant number of young women there on social media who have shifted to conservative/libertarian/white nationalist politics.

      My own view is that the way the left is developing will alienate some white women. First, intersectional politics will place white women low in the pecking order on the left. Second, a more aggressive racial politics aimed at whites will trigger the fear impulse of some white women.

      For years I couldn't understand how white men could stand to be leftists when they themselves were constantly under attack by the left. And, sure enough, a point was reached when significant numbers of white men broke with the left. It's possible, I think, that the same will happen with white women - we'll see.

    2. "a point was reached when significant numbers of white men broke with the left. It's possible, I think, that the same will happen with white women - we'll see.

      That does seem possible. I hope that you will be proven right.


    3. Look to the film 'The Red Pill' and you will see what is to come. Many leftists ill wake up to thier bigotry and hatred, and change thier behaviour. Those that dont will harden thier beliefs in the other direction. The Left has been fomenting racialized civil war for 5 decades at least. They are likely going to get it in the next couple years, and frankly i have zero sympathy for the consequences they will suffer as a result. 2 Timothy 3 comes to mind in this case. As does Revelation 3:16

  2. The bottom line is that nature abhors a vacum. White men are weak and this creates a feeling of contempt towards them from women, children, minorities, Muslims and even animals. This is universal , a law of nature. Regardless of the mifestation of this contempt from simple disrespect or more blatant aggression and hostility, it is ultimately irrelevant as the root cause of this is the same and to believe that younger women reject this , or that immigrants and Muslims reject this is naive, a matter of wishful thinking.

    White men are the authors of their own destruction. They abandoned the patriarchy, turned against their own religion and embraced atheism and its daughters socialism and liberalism. They fail to protect their own borders and cultures allowing these to be overrun by inferior men of alien countries. They fail to protect their own women and children from predatory Muslim gangs. The paedophile Muslim gangs of England and the mass sexual assaults of German women are humiliations the Muslims have inflicted on white men. Women are the first spoil of war. The white men have no reaction, they are unable to protect their own women and children.

    Unable to protect their own countries and women, they invade foreign lands to "export democracy" to people who do not want it and "liberate women" from oppression. These women do have men, fathers, brothers, cousins who look out for them and would killl any man who raped their daughters.

    The leaders of the French and German nationalist parties are women. Where are the male leaders? Too occupied with fornication, promiscuity, perversion and gambling to be bothered with matters of crucial importance. That is how the enemies perceive white men. Many men blames the elites who destroyed the culture. But the elites could not have done it without the complicity of the ordinary man.

    1. Too occupied with fornication, promiscuity, perversion and gambling to be bothered with matters of crucial importance.

      I agree with some of your comment. However, I think there's more to it than Western men abandoning the patriarchy in favour of fornication. People are influenced by the culture they live in. The liberal culture we live in has for generations encouraged the idea that there are no public goods, only personal/private ones. In other words, a person might be very proud of their Scottish heritage, but this is something that is a personal matter for them, it has no bearing on public policy. The ideal liberal man does not seek to carry important goods into the public realm (he is there to police the ideal of not carrying important goods into the public realm). So he is not a bearer of value - but a passive consumer of the culture of others or of the value bearing other. He recognises no higher duties. At best, he gives himself a role within the private sphere of the family. At worst, he wants the mechanics of life to run smoothly (the trains to run on time).

      It would be an easier task ahead of us if it really were the case that men knew that they should be defending their civilisation but were just too busy sleeping around to do it. Instead there is a more difficult task of rupturing a long-standing understanding of who the ideal man is and what he is committed to.

    2. There is nothing new under the Sun. Our path as a sex now mirrors our path as a sex in the Garden of Eden, because we still have the same weakness Adam did. Our failure to learn and address our weaknesses as a whole, indeed our propensity to ignore reality in favour of self interested short time thinking IS, in my view, 'Original Sin'. Truth should be, but isnt, our primary focus.

  3. Your reply to my comment does not seem entirely rational. Natural Law and the normal human conscience create a sense of morality and common good which does not have to be actively propagated to people. Most men should know by instinct that the rape of children and sexual assault of women is wrong and that aliens who perform these acts should be apprehended and driven out. Yet there is no reaction..This is bizarre, an event almost unprecedented in history where men actively surrender their country and women to foreign invaders.

    Even a dog knows it should defend its home. Whilst most people are sheep and the leaders dictate culture, the leaders are a reflection of the people hence your comment makes no coherent sense. There is no such being as the ideal man and liberal culture does say that there are no public goods. It says that the public goods are ideological and abstract i.e. Tolerance, diversity rather than biological i.e. Race. Liberalism is divorced from objective reality and encourages a world of subjective fantasy but the normal individual or animal can still under such circumstances retain an instinct of self preservation.

    The liberal atheist experiment has shown that white males are incapable of civilisation outside the frame of strong hierarchical and religious authority.

    1. Anon, I have two liberal brothers and a liberal father, so I have experience of the phenomenon at close quarters. It is simply not within their mindset to recognise that they have a tradition to defend, nor that there is a risk from foreign aggression. They have been psychologically stripped of this.

      As for public goods, you need to read my booklet that is posted on the sidebar. It goes something like this:

      1. Liberals assert that there are no objective moral goods that transcend the individual and his desires.
      2. Liberalism therefore has an aspect that is both permissive and transgressive.
      3. However, liberals do give value to the act of self-determining one's own subjective moral goods. It is not what is chosen that matters, but the freedom of choosing and the dignity of self-determining that has value.
      4. For everyone to be able to do this requires that we do not, in our choices, interfere with the rights of others to similarly define their own subjective good.
      5. Therefore, liberalism does end up generating a kind of moral system, based on the good of "non-interference with the choices of others".
      6. The kinds of qualities that fit this liberal moral system include: openness, respect, tolerance, non-discrimination, equality etc.

      Finally, I did not say that an ideal man exists in practice - but all societies have an ideal of what a man should aspire toward. In a liberal society, the ideal man is a kind of spectator or consumer of the diverse cultures of others. He does not project a culture or character of his own. The ideal liberal man pursues lifestyle choices involving career, travel, cuisine, sports, sex, shopping and TV. He tries to make his wife happy by providing money and helping with the children. He is as open and accepting as he can make himself to others and his main concern is if other members of his group show signs of not being as open and accepting. He is a man of glass that one might look through without seeing anything - he would be proud of being described this way.

      And if you accept the liberal first premise - that there is nothing that transcends the individual that has any objective or inherent worth - then maybe it makes sense to be this way.

      People only begin to reject liberalism when they begin to have a feeling of love and loyalty toward some good that is larger than themselves. Something that they feel they belong to, or that represents a beauty and truth that helps to give meaning to existence, or that is an "essence" in the world that they too can embody and develop toward.

      Western liberal culture went through a period of mocking and trashing a responsiveness to these things. You will notice that the more radical liberals still do this - they have an instinct to pierce at the heart of the traditional life - they mock, they desecrate, they belittle, they make ugly.

    2. You appear to suggest that the liberal man is a complete loser and that he should be open to and tolerant of the sexual abuse of his women and children by alien male invaders. This goes beyond liberalism and is in fact a complete abrogation of manhood.

      Liberalism is not about non discrimination and tolerance. It is totalitarian system which inverts the moral order sanctifying perversion and denigrating honour. Liberalism is therefore highly intolerant of Christianity, European culture, monarchy, white males. White men who don't push against this system are complicit with it.

    3. Anon, in an objective sense they are losers. But subjectively they wouldn't see it this way. It is ingrained in them that they do not belong to a group that either needs to be or ought to be defended. So in their mind they are not losing, because what exists to them is their own individual lifestyle. If you have a job and get to watch the TV shows you want etc. then you are winning. And you are a good guy because, unlike those other white people, you don't discriminate, you are open to all the changes happening around you, you identify with the "other" etc.

      As for your second paragraph, it is true that liberals have inverted the moral order. You describe a particular facet of liberal modernity well. But I don't think you can reduce liberalism to one facet (I sometimes do this for the sake of simplicity myself but I do it to open up new readers to an understanding of what is happening - it's not the complete treatment.)

      So when there is a traditionalism to be attacked and undermined, there are liberals who will do it by mocking and desecrating - by "denigrating honour" as you put it.

      But there is also a philosophical liberalism - think, for instance, of J.S. Mill. He pushed for the system we know today, in which each person autonomously selects their own schema of life and allows others to do the same, thereby maximising individual liberty. The thing is, he said he was confident that when given this liberty, individuals would choose to behave like English gentleman (if they were educated). We now know with certainty how false his assumption was. But if you read his works, he wrote in a high-minded philosophical way.

      It is important to explain how a philosophical liberalism is wrong - for instance, how its first principles lead to logically to radical and negative outcomes.

    4. "The thing is, he said he was confident that when given this liberty, individuals would choose to behave like English gentleman (if they were educated). We now know with certainty how false his assumption was.!

      Liberalism is a philosophy and in particular it is a philosophy derived from atheism. Its aim is the overthrow of the moral and social order and its replacement with chaos as an intermediate phase between monarchy and totalitarianism. JS Mills and others who write similar works do not seriously believe what they write. Their job is to make the naive and the foolish believe it. Humans have never behaved like gentlemen unless society has enforced it. Humans are by nature, sinners, pone to folly and evil and often weak and ignorant.

      JS Mill pushed the ideals of the enlightenment which are Masonic and intended to create a permanent state of revolution. He even questioned his own theories about building a "just society" and is alleged to have attempted suicide during one bout of depression.

  4. "Many people find the concept of feminists and Islamist joining forces absurd"

    This is entirely predictable. The left is a willing tool of Islamic conquest. They think they can tame the monster after it eats their enemies. They are fools.

    1. They think they can tame the monster after it eats their enemies.

      Well put. And it is not just Islam - it seems to be a range of forces aligned against us. You would think at least a few would see the writing on the wall. When you see people waving around "white lives matter too much" signs; or when white women are told by their "sisters" to shut up and listen and examine themselves constantly for their sins - these are clear indicators of what is to come.