');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Kevin MacDonald Archive
Dissident Relationships: Reply to Kevin MacDonald
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks

      Editor’s note: This is a reply to my article “Ideas on Maintaining Relationships with the Less Committed in a Dark Age.” My comments are in bold.

      As a White, female spouse of a male TOO contributor, I read with special interest Kevin MacDonald’s recent essay on how to maintain relationships among the less-committed. His essay suits me to a T. I have long been uncomfortable with my husband’s political writings—partly because I disagree with some of them, partly because of his use of a pseudonym, and partly because of the potential consequences for both us and for society. MacDonald’s essay has the laudable goal of creating better family relations, but many of his points are condescending or miss the mark. I offer my thoughts below.

      As I read his essay, the main point seems to be the difficulty of maneuvering (and maintaining) a personal relationship with someone who is not in total agreement with your own ideology, and specifically the way in which he expresses that ideology. For sake of simplicity, I will assume that the “dissident writer” is a White male, and that the “significant other” (SO) is a White female; this should cover the vast majority of the 200-some TOO contributors.

      I wonder, first of all, about the motivation for such a piece. I don’t know if Prof. MacDonald has (or had) an SO, and if so, if she is one of the “less-committed.” Does he speak from direct experience? Or is he hearing things second-hand from his many correspondents? If he has no firsthand experience, he is perhaps in a poor situation to comment. And in any case, he is obviously not himself one of the beleaguered SO’s, and thus is unqualified to address things from that perspective.

      KM: Yes, I have a significant other and yes, she is less committed. Like many people, she is far less interested in politics than I am.

      Second, I fear that my reply may well be a futile effort because I am a woman who engages in political discussion, and women’s voices seem undervalued and underappreciated in alt-right circles. MacDonald seems to have in mind women who apparently avoid political discussion in order to dwell on family, friends, and hobbies. I never looked at it that way (nor does my husband) because we know that women (and men) can engage in activism and still have time for hobbies/interests. So, from my point of view, this article could be addressed to any couple whose viewpoints differ on political issues, especially considering our current political climate.

      MacDonald raises the interesting case of Anne Morrow Lindbergh, and so I will begin with some thoughts on her situation. I will then look at the problem of relationships specifically, and then close with some critical thoughts on the whole “White interests” movement.

      The Lindberghs: A Case Study

      I enjoyed the reference to the Anne Morrow Lindbergh diary entries, which were all drawn from the fifth (and last) volume of diaries and letters (War Within and Without, 1939–1944). Anne, like many SOs, finds herself in a role that she did not ask for.

      My similarity to Anne is the concern I experience for my husband’s reputation. I also struggle with understanding his intended end game. A bigger issue for some SOs is the realization that the dissident writer intends to instigate others to a negative (i.e., violent) outcome. The SO is often left to explain (uncomfortably) this behavior to family and friends. I do think that most women prefer personal interaction and dialogue over publications or speeches. We see it as a quicker way to resolution, or at the very least to understanding intent. I would also lean toward supporting a situation—even a White identity movement—that was intended to help humankind rather than hurt a particular group. Anne has “the greatest faith” in Charles as a person, and she understands his intent. However, some dissidents act only in their own self-interest, often emanating insecurity and a combative intent in their rhetoric. Charles Lindbergh is hardly a dissident in this regard.

      As a famous and respected person, Charles had intended to simply write a speech naming the people and governments he saw as “war agitators” in an effort to inform the American public and avoid involvement in the war that was at that time contained to Europe. He was not bitter or hateful toward the agitators as a group of people, nor as individuals. He stated the truth as he saw it. Lindbergh did not intend for his speech to lead to violent retributions. It is the reaction of the public (actually the press in his case) to the dissident’s words or how they understand the intent, that leads to potentially unwarranted scrutiny. If we describe the contributors of TOO as dissidents in the sense that they are pro-White and anti-Jewish, we assume that they know that their “truth” could be detrimental to entire groups of people.

      KM: Yes, but not saying anything is certainly detrimental to the traditional White majority. Some people have to speak up. There always going to be conflicts of interest in politics. That’s what it’s all about. Anonymous seems to see things entirely from the standpoint of possible negative repercussions for the targets of dissident writers—e.g., Jews in the case of Lindbergh. But again, the big picture is that Lindbergh was trying to avoid a catastrophe in which millions would die. In such a situation, the hurt feelings of Jews who were accurately portrayed as an important force promoting the war mean nothing. Even possible violence by lone individuals or small groups motivated to action by Lindbergh’s comments (and in the absence of Lindbergh’s endorsement) would be of trivial compared to the war; I am aware of no record of anti-Jewish violence occurring as a result of Lindbergh’s speech, and of course TOO does not advocate violence as a solution.

      ORDER IT NOW

      Thus, the SO finds herself on the outside of this fraternity but with the opportunity to play the role of moderator. Charles’ speech included statements that Anne believed would not be welcome in her community. This played a part in her fear, although her greater fear was for her family’s ostracism. She foresaw that his intentions would be misunderstood. MacDonald quotes Anne as sensing “that this is the beginning of a fight and consequent loneliness and isolation that we have not known before.” She does not, however, let this potential outcome stop her from supporting her husband. She continues to speak to him about her feelings and beliefs, and he listens—even revising his wording to better address his audience and potentially assuage dissent. From my experience, this is the best option we have when those outside of the relationship seem short-sighted or are quick to judge, as perhaps many of our family and friends can be, and as Anne’s were. Of course, there are people we do not know who may act upon our words, and being mindful of these reactions is always prudent in public discourse and publishing. Dissident writers hold that responsibility.

      As MacDonald points out, Anne states, “I cannot explain my revulsion of feeling by logic.” Correctly, she knows this is not always possible. And yet, she in fact goes on to give something of a “logical” analysis; I think she underestimates herself. It is possible to know the truth of an issue and yet still realize that that very truth may be hurtful and misunderstood by others. That is often the case in my situation. How can I question what I have not personally researched, especially if my misgivings are based on feeling and not on logic? Being aware of this natural reaction makes the experience less intimidating.

      On the day of the speech, Anne writes, “I am afraid of the effect of his speech…and the effect on him and the cause. He says that the point is not what the ‘effect’ will be on him … but whether or not what he said is true and whether it will help to keep us out of war.” Charles’ point is that he tells the truth, and he is not concerned about the resulting effect on him. This is what my husband says as well. He ignores the fact that there may be an effect outside of himself. The SO has the choice to buy into the ideas written or buy into the resulting effects. She finds herself in a dilemma when she cannot reconcile the intent of the writing with what she fears of the end game. She must tackle this herself; and further on I discuss what the dissident writer may do to help her.

      As stated, I believe that many SO’s find themselves highly concerned with consequences. Many dissident writers throw empathy out the window so as not to weaken their position. However, if there is concern for your SO, some acknowledgement of unintended effects would put the dissident writer in a much better position to make his case. This, in my opinion, is necessary when one is engaged in criticism or one-sided ideologies. Dissidents can act without foresight or in ignorance of the potential consequences, or they can moderate their points based on the effect on others. As Anne points out, her worst fears were confirmed when Charles was “attacked on all sides” (not physically) after his speech—by the Roosevelt “Administration, pressure groups, and Jews, as now openly a Nazi.” Anne wanted to avoid this; not strictly for fear of her situation, but to avoid a misunderstanding of the ideology behind her husband’s speech because it was not one of hate but of concern for his country.

      I find it insightful that Anne asks and answers the question as to why she senses that it is wrong to name the Jews as being pro-war “even if it is done without hate, bitterness or criticism” as she does. Her answer is “because it is segregating them as a group, setting the ground for anti-Semitism.” She recognizes that naming or blaming of Jews is an agitator based on historical context. This is unsettling to her because she knows that it will instigate hatred, and for that reason should be moderated. She is not considering the truth of the statement (as Charles is). In the end, the truth is more than some influential people want to hear, and Anne’s fears are realized.

      Anne understands that what may have been Charles’ intent brings about the opposite result. This is very common today and dissident writers should understand that this may be a result of their rants, speeches and articles. I do not single out the alt-right. This is true of any group that does not moderate their attacks on others. This does not mean to moderate views necessarily, but is a suggestion to moderate the mode of attacks. Anne states that “more passion is being aroused” by statements of fact that were intended not to arouse but to quell passions.

      KM: Again, I worry that too much emphasis is being placed on the possible effects that dissidents’ words may have on others. Certainly, my writing has offended the ADL and many individual Jews as well as many others on the left. I do worry that someone who claims to have been influenced by my writing will go and blow up a synagogue or something. But that can’t be helped. There are always people out there who are prone to violence as a solution for everything. But that is no reason for me to stop writing. If there is no dissent, then what I regard as the forces of evil—forces that would utterly destroy the people and culture of the country I grew up in—would have no push-back at all. As it is, we are relegated to relatively tiny corners of the internet and oftentimes to conventions held in secret, whereas those who hate us are beaming their messages 24/7 into the living rooms, classrooms, and movie theaters across the entire country. Our demonstrations are greeted with violence aided and abetted by police, government, and ultimately the courts. Our meetings are held in secret, whereas our enemies can easily muster thousands in prominent public spaces without any fear of violence. And despite our relatively weak position, they are doing everything they can to completely stifle dissent, abrogate the First Amendment, de-platform and demonetize sites like TOO and Red Ice, and ultimately legislate prison terms for politically incorrect speech as has already been done in many parts of Europe at the behest of the same forces promoting censorship in the U.S.

      Present-day Relationship Conflicts

      ORDER IT NOW

      MacDonald points out that a typical situation might be that of a wife/girlfriend being “terrified of it becoming known that she is associated closely with someone” who is setting themselves up for social ostracism. “Typical” makes it sound like a widespread problem. It is a bit of a mystery to me as to why he would think this is a pervasive issue. From my experience, this is an over-generalization of a woman’s reaction. As a wife of a dissident writer, and knowing SO’s in similar situations, I would not use “terrifying” in my description of the typical situation. I do, however, understand that in some situations the dissident does put his ‘innocent’, ‘less-committed’ family in potential unwanted peril. But in fact, in many cases, the SO is the only thread keeping the dissident from anarchy.

      KM: It’s quite different being the SO of a well-known dissident writing under my own name as opposed to the SO of a pseudonymous dissident—the former is much more terrifying for many. I don’t understand the idea that the SO may be “the only thread keeping the dissident from anarchy.” That certainly doesn’t apply to me.

      MacDonald seems to speak for women in this piece, far too often. For example, “men are far more concerned [than women] about politics and distribution of power.” I guess he would know better than I, since he is a man. It does not mean it is necessarily a good thing. He also states that “men tend to suffer more [read: die] when there is a(n)…takeover.” I don’t know about that. Once you are slaughtered, your suffering ends. Being taken as a concubine (against your will and all that comes from that) might lead me to question who actually suffers more. Let’s just say there is suffering by all during war/takeovers.

      KM: My comments on men being more concerned about politics stem from evolutionary psychology. You interpret me to be concerned about mental suffering. I am concerned about evolutionary fitness: Male fitness is much more affected by the distribution of power than is female fitness. In nature, the vast majority of females mate, while males typically have to achieve a position in the dominance hierarchy to mate. (If you want to see the brutality of male competition, watch the National Geographic videos now available on the Disney streaming channel.) This has shaped the male brain—the fundamental premise of evolutionary psychology, well-supported by the research.

      MacDonald mentions “that doxing would result in social opprobrium” and he assumes “that your significant other is not a social justice warrior.” He assumes that the wife/girlfriend is “intolerant of conflicting opinions” and that she may be “fueled by hatred toward people” with strong right (nationalist) views. He also states that “such people are impossible to reason with, …spew hatred… accompanied with ungrounded assertions of moral and intellectual superiority.” I am not sure where this is coming from; there is a lot of hatred spewed toward other ethnicities when reading some White identity diatribes (maybe less true of TOO articles). I think MacDonald’s assumption is a prejudiced description of an SO with liberal views. It was an inappropriate point for him to make.

      KM: Believe me, I know some such people personally, and they are every bit as hateful as I describe and every bit as willing to cut off all contact with dissidents. The point in my article was that I was not going to be talking about such people because they are hopeless. If the SO of a dissident is like that, the best advice is to leave the relationship or stop being a dissident. I am talking about people who are sympathetic but less committed—people who are attracted to the relationship but not on board with the whole package. That, incidentally, is my experience.

      Absolutely correct is his assertion that there are pressures on employers to punish dissidents. Companies are all too willing to fire those who dissent. Maintaining a low profile is understandable when threatened by loss of livelihood. In my case, my husband and I have experienced the consequences of failing to conform. Capitalism does play into this issue, and dissident writers could/should spend more time questioning the issues caused by it. Capitalism allows employers to call the shots and mold its employees in their thoughts and deeds—by desire or demand. For sure, it is another possible effect that your SO must be willing to risk for the sake of supporting your ideas.

      MacDonald addresses the fact that “being ostracized from polite society may not bother activists personally.” This was previously discussed as something Charles Lindbergh addressed as well. This comes from their belief that they are right-minded (even if not open-minded), and often fueled by like-minded friends (if only in cyberspace). But how could a worldview be based on cyberspace relationships when the first priority for most humans is to have real, face to face interactions? Apart from dating websites, eventually those “sympatico mates” must meet face-to-face.

      KM: I agree that online relationships are ultimately unsatisfying. That’s why it’s important to have conferences, such as AmRen does. I usually go to several conferences every year (most held in secret or under police protection) and I enjoy meeting people, putting faces to names, and talking in relaxed, informal environments.

      I agree regarding use of a pseudonym. MacDonald states that it is necessary and desirable for many, but that this does not completely solve the problem. Often the reason one is used is that this option “protects” the SO. That being said, it seems to me that having a pseudonym gives permission to live two separate lives. It begs the question: which one is the real you and which one includes the SO? The alternate identity gives a license to say things one would not say in public. It is just a matter of time before it no longer works. Better to be up front understanding the importance of being your genuine self and accepting the consequences. I would be surprised if the pseudonym option makes your SO ‘feel better,’ as their real issue should be with the dissident’s ideology and intent.

      ORDER IT NOW

      KM: Obviously, I don’t use a pseudonym, and I think it’s important that some of us do this. I have had pseudonymous writers on TOO who have not been doxed in over 10 years. I am sure that a government agency or a determined hacker could find out real names but it seems to me to be quite rational to continue using a false identity as along as possible in cases where there would be dire consequences, such as loss of livelihood. In my case, I had no excuse because I had tenure at my university. All they could do was unleash their hate—which they did.

      White and Right

      Because White identity is typically bound up with feelings of being threatened, White identity ideology is self-interested by definition. In my view, some dissident writers appear to have concern only for their own personal interests (disguised as White interests). This is not a persuasive position, assuming you are writing so that other less-informed people will join in your efforts. Even so, it is not a persuasive position if you want your SO to join in. It is always better to have her support than to have her sabotaging your efforts.

      KM: I am curious what writers you think are only concerned with their personal interests. I can’t think of any. It’s all about the future of White people and the forces arrayed against us, and the great majority of us are doing it at great personal cost or potential cost, social or financial.

      Accordingly, what Lindbergh does similarly (as an American who happens to be White) is to admit that his intent is for Americans to understand the upcoming danger of entering the war so that they are saved from the consequent peril. However, he is able to put himself in the shoes of the British and the Jews, recognizing and stating that they have obvious interests in the war. He shows some empathy for the position they are in. This seems very different from what SO’s are now faced with when understanding their partner. This is the dissident’s lack of ability to put themselves in anyone else’s shoes. From my experience, dissident writers seldom acknowledge that they understand why the other side acts or believes as they do; in addition to lack of recognition that if things play out as they wish, someone will reap extreme negative consequences. This is a mindset that so many SO’s cannot reckon with.

      KM: A lot of my writing is directed at understanding why White people think the way they do about these issues. Much of this has appeared on TOO, and my recent book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, has an entire chapter (106 pages) on it. I think that all of us on the dissident right have been there. We were brought up in liberal-left culture, and many of us, like myself, began our political journey on the left. As outsiders and former adherents to liberal-left culture, we are in a good position to understand why they think like they do—oftentimes better, I think—than they themselves are able to.

      One issue not discussed by MacDonald is the dissident writer’s intent (writing as a researcher and truth reporter vs. writing as a propagandist or political ideologue). The first thing I look for when being given the opportunity to pre-read my husband’s writings is the integrity of his research. When (if) the White interests movement grows, its members may have different ideas of the means needed to reach the end game. The common thread is that it is pro-White and anti-Jewish in nature. As an SO, I work to moderate the negative (anti) nature of the writings in favor of the positive (pro) aspects. It is a weak argument to portray yourself as the victim.

      White identity politics is somewhat perplexing to me and short of being of genuine. Whites make up a small percentage of the world’s population. Why would the world respect or support an ideology when it shows a disregard for 90% of humanity? With that said, I have no disagreement with the facts of the matter, as research has proven much of it true (referring to the Jewish control and debasing of the White culture). There is a high-quality, well-documented case to be made and the TOO contributors have done a good job at this. The question remains what to do about it. And some of the alt-right views on this are too much in line with the tactics that they claim to be against. A better approach may be to use the dissenter/SO relationship as an indicator of how to approach the topic with the larger population to gain the momentum that will be needed to address such a pervasive issue. Of course, the dissedent must be open to considering opposing views.

      KM: I don’t see why it should matter what other groups think of us. The point is we have interests and they are not necessarily incompatible with a reasonable interpretation of the interests of other peoples. A common idea on the dissident right is universal nationalism (e.g., Frank Salter)—the idea that different people should have their own homelands. I accept that as a reasonable solution. But what the globalist establishment wants is an end to White political, cultural, and demographic predominance in any country while not applying this ideology to countries like Korea, Japan, African societies, Israel, etc.

      True free speech should be heard from whomever wants a voice. The First Amendment is (contrary to MacDonald’s opinion) valued by all sides as is the fight for justice. Although I lean toward believing that people can be reasonable when faced with dissenting views, I am in agreement about talking to your SO about the very real dangers of being a dissident of any position (not just on the right). MacDonald suggests pointing out “that many people are being attacked these days.” That point is obvious and somewhat condescending, unless your SO has been living in exile. She also knows that attacks from either side are not often justified. Using the example of Trump supporters being harassed with impunity is very hypocritical. Disruptions are planned almost every time a highly publicized event occurs. These disruptors often plan for violence. It is documented that Trump invites this behavior against those who do not agree with him (although I am not condoning it). MAGA-hat wearers are not the only people being called out publicly. Anti-Trump people get called out every day in alt-right speeches and at protests/rallies. Democratically elected lawmakers have received death threats because of their support of gun laws. Most SOs know there are real dangers and would most likely agree to punishment, when warranted, on either side.

      KM: Sorry, but the First Amendment is definitely not valued on all sides. Speakers are routinely shut down, harassed, or disinvited as a result of actions by the left on college campuses; riots have occurred, as at UC-Berkeley over conservative speakers being invited. Demonstrations even by Trump supporters are attacked on the streets of cities like Portland, with little or no attempt by the government to stop them. The vast majority of this is left-on-right violence, not the reverse. And because I believe that Jews are very powerful in the U.S., realize that free speech is not at all a Jewish value—not only absent from traditional Jewish communities, but quite apparent in the contemporary world where Jewish organizations have uniformly supported “hate crime” legislation throughout the West. Jewish organizations, such as the ADL, and organizations with prominent Jewish funding and Jewish staff members, such as the SPLC, have taken a lead role in getting people and organizations de-platformed from social media and financial institutions. Just recently, Pres. Trump signed an executive order on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement that will be a devastating blow to criticism of Israel on college campuses and elsewhere.

      And frankly I resent being called condescending for pointing out that many people are being attacked these days. In my experience, it has been effective with the less committed to point out that people like Tucker Carlson and Trump administration officials have been harassed in public. This is because they are in the mainstream enough to have TV shows or be employed in the government. Many SO’s think that dissident-right ideas are disreputable. It helps to tell them that we aren’t the only people being attacked, but that people with much milder ideas are being attacked as well.

      Yes, attacks are happening against people on both sides. But it’s quite clear that the vast majority of the violence and harassment is coming from the left. Are leftists forced to hold meetings in secret or be prepared to fight if they decide to demonstrate in a city like Portland? I think not. Are leftist speakers denied platforms at universities? Rarely, and only if they are prone to doing things like criticizing transgenderism (perhaps because of its effects on women’s sports) or Israel. The left has a virtual hegemony in the culture and they want to keep it that way.

      I have an issue with the statement that “your significant other may relate to the fact that the censorious left is shutting down many ideas that were entirely mainstream and respectable just a few years ago.” This is probably true. However, mainstream ideas are only mainstream for a short period of time before they become law (or no longer law), tradition, or simply out of fashion. They evolve based on cultural input. If we do not invite new ideas, which often replace the old, we risk stagnation. I think it is the censorship that we object to, and on that I agree.

      KM: We on the dissident right are very involved in trying to understand why the culture has changed so much. If you want to read my opinion on what happened, I suggest reading The Culture of Critique for starters. The culture doesn’t just change by happenstance or drift. People do their best to shape culture in the direction they think will serve their interests, and in my opinion, the main shifts in the last 50 years have come about because of Jewish activism. I have done my best to rigorously support that proposition.

      This may bring us close to “the wall-to-wall propaganda and ubiquitous surveillance by government” which no one wants—even the left. MacDonald tags the left with supporting big tech. Clearly, each side supports big tech (except maybe TOO contributors who are in a quandary, as without tech they would have no platform!); and it is a very big issue. It is without a doubt one of the biggest issues we continue to fight against, and it is aided by capitalists (liberals and conservatives alike). Trump pedals propaganda constantly as well as supporting government surveillance (especially of non-Whites). There is blame to share, and this issue needs to be addressed by all sides. We do indeed have to stand up to this.

      KM: Big tech is far from neutral in the culture wars. Notoriously they are on the left, and they are much influenced by the ADL which has formed partnerships with Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft to combat “cyberhate,” including pressuring You Tube to remove accounts associated with the Alt Right. We don’t see them removing or shadow-banning accounts of people on the left.

      Of course, Trump pedals his point of view, like all presidents have done; I am unaware of non-Whites being targeted specifically by government surveillance. If so, there would be a deluge of lawsuits by the ACLU, etc.

      Finally, it’s common on the dissident right to critique capitalism—not only because of the political proclivities of big tech, but because they have colluded with the open-borders crowd to promote immigration because they get cheap labor. Virtually all the big American companies are committed to liberal/left positions on issues such as LGBTQ+, race, and immigration. They will not sponsor people like Tucker Carlson who is so hated by the left, with the result that all his sponsors are small companies looking for a niche market.

      ORDER IT NOW

      These issues may threaten all that we (collectively) value. I do not consider myself a “dyed-in-the-wool social justice warrior” by any stretch of that term. However, these issues threaten humanity, and MacDonald is suggesting that if we tap into women’s maternal instincts, they will understand. It is again condescending to generalize women as MacDonald does in this piece. The women I know are not more conservative when married and as they have gotten older. I have not lived in a shell; but have had the opportunity to know and been active in my community and my workplace with women and men of all sides of the political spectrum. From my experience, the older they get, the more enlightened they become, making them more open-minded. Using the words “buck up” is like saying ‘shut up and put up,’ and I recommend avoiding this way of getting your SO on board. It also seems to me that you claim to want to avoid making her fearful; but you want to warn her about evil in the world. If you want to reach your significant other; treat her like an equal.

      KM: I am not being condescending but simply pointing to well-replicated findings. In claiming that women are more nurturant than men and that this affects their politics (resulting in the well-known gender gap on issues pulling for empathy, such as refugees, welfare programs, etc.), I am well within the research mainstream (reviewed in my recent book). And yes, marriage has a big effect. These findings of course do not necessarily apply to individual women. They are statistical patterns.

      I understand the suggestion by MacDonald that the dissident writer keep their obsession with politics out of “day-to-day conversation.” That is probably what I would prefer in my situation as well. However, since how a person views the world drives all their actions, it is not possible in a real relationship. Keeping your ideology in the closet is not a recommended way to pursue a relationship or keep an existing one intact. Modern day women have been showing for decades that we want open and communicative relationships. Covertly discussing these ideas (especially when the consequences of the end game are so relevant for all of humanity) is a major mistake. Maybe that is how it has been done in the past, but aren’t we searching for better solutions?

      KM: Sorry, my advice stands. Talk politics with people who are interested in politics. Why talk politics with someone who doesn’t much care? It can only lead to dissension or boredom. The key to good relationships is finding common ground—to talk about things that both people are interested in.

      Closing Thoughts

      I have suggested above some of the things that should not be done when trying to maintain a relationship with the less-committed SO. The two best options for your SO, if you seek to obtain a positive relationship, are for her to: 1) buy in to your ideas, or 2) buy in to the risks. There are multiple ways of approaching your SO. They include moderating your level of dissent as well as explaining your intent. Keep in mind that this may be a continual process, maintaining respect for each person’s right to have their own ideas. Tone down the condescending, demeaning, and sexist comments, because nothing will result from your ideology without the female White race on board. If you intend to go forward with oppressing our views, you will never achieve your end game.

      Anne and Charles Lindbergh may have had differing opinions as to how much finger-pointing should occur when blaming others for world issues, but their honesty with each other is what kept their relationship strong. Hiding the true nature of dissent will never work in relationships. If the choice is shutting down versus keeping lines of communication open, an SO would always choose keeping lines of communication open. With any SO, it is always a bad idea to tiptoe around a topic. That is, unless you are prepared for future conflict and spending your life alone.

      I would like to close by quoting Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s introduction to her final volume of her diaries. Her story was (in her words)

      “an intensely personal story of two individuals: a complex man and his struggle to follow what his background, his character and integrity demanded; and a complex woman of quite a different background, who must reconcile her divided loyalties in a time of stress.”

      As I am well aware, issues of divergent political values between couples is a complex and difficult problem, and requires effort and compromise on both sides. Generally speaking, the men contributing to TOO are intelligent and well-meaning. And surely their SO’s are similar. Perhaps “live and let live” is the best advice here, if a true meeting of the minds is impossible.

       
      Hide 174 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
        []
      1. KenH says:

        A bigger issue for some SOs is the realization that the dissident writer intends to instigate others to a negative (i.e., violent) outcome.
        Not sure this “SO” of a male TOO writer is speaking specifically about TOO or all websites that fall under the umbrella of The Jewish question/White nationalist/race realism, but TOO’s articles are extremely scholarly and meant to educate and inform the reader…..not exhort them to violent acts. The arguments and facts presented are those that Jews with their media censorship have been concealing from us for a very long time.

        The First Amendment is (contrary to MacDonald’s opinion) valued by all sides as is the fight for justice.

        Talk about naive in the extreme. Is she aware that Silicon Valley tech companies, under ADL and SPLC influence are deplatforming dissident pro-white individuals? Establishment conservatives have been largely silent about this and the only liberal who’s voiced concern over this is Tulsi Gabbard who I don’t trust to do anything about it if she had a chance of getting elected.

        And the “end game” is to wake enough white people up so that they will hopefully start acting in their own self interests and forestall mass murder and genocide that is being planned for the white people of the West. The window for using our dwindling free speech rights is closing fast and if that happens then we’ll only have the second amendment to fall back on and much bloodshed and suffering which most wish to avoid.

      2. Tusk says:

        White identity politics is somewhat perplexing to me

        I can tell.

      3. Politics does make strange bed fellows. Apparently this man married someone from another planet, because his wife obviously has no idea about what is happening on earth!

        • Agree: Wally
        • Replies: @KenH
      4. KenH says:
        @OilcanFloyd

        She strikes me as someone from a somewhat affluent and sheltered background who’s had little contact with diversity. Usually people like her who don’t see what all the fuss is about regarding mass immigration and anti-white racism have had few negative experiences with diversity or if they have they just dismiss it as “just one of those things” and not indicative of the racial character of blacks , latinos, etc.

        Or they are just hopelessly brainwashed and if they’re women are afraid of what their gal pals might think of them.

        • Replies: @silviosilver
        , @freedom-cat
      5. Rosie says:

        In nature, the vast majority of females mate, while males typically have to achieve a position in the dominance hierarchy to mate. (If you want to see the brutality of male competition, watch the National Geographic videos now available on the Disney streaming channel.) This has shaped the male brain—the fundamental premise of evolutionary psychology, well-supported by the research.

        This is a scholarly-sounding statement of the false trope that women are traitors by nature, so far as I can tell. I wonder what good KMac thinks will come of promoting it.

        These lionesses hardly seem sanguine about the idea of their cubs being slaughtered, but White women, I suppose, are another story.

        • Replies: @Alfred
      6. It is a weak argument to portray yourself as the victim.

        That’s why Jews have never managed to get anywhere.

        (Now excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing.)

        • Replies: @Just passing through
      7. @KenH

        Those reactions are utterly commonplace. I don’t think it’s a gender issue at all.

        I’ve gotten much the same when I’ve talked racial politics to good friends. These are good guys who you can drop n-bombs in front of and they wouldn’t bat an eyelid, and they have no more use for muslims or green-haired lesbians than we do. And yet on the few occasions I’ve tried talking pro-white issues, they listen suspiciously and then pose excruciatingly idiotic questions like, “But isn’t there one you like? (ie in relation to blacks).

        The first few times this happened, I wanted to rub my eyes in disbelief. Dude, I’m talking about the future of our kind’s existence on this earth, and you’re worried about whether I can think of one that I like??? Well, if I tried, I could probably think of dozens, but what possible difference could that make compared to what I just said?

        My experience has taught me that people really are worried that if they agree with anything you’re saying, they’re going to have to start “hating” everyone else. It doesn’t matter how calm or rational or objective you are. (In fact, that might even make it worse, at least for some personality types.) It’s frustrating to deal with, but this is a real fear people have.

        Fortunately, I don’t think it’s necessary to aim for any ‘full conversions.’ If you simply achieve agreement (even just tacit, unacknowledged agreement) that ‘it’s wrong to be anti-white’ or ‘whites are people too’ or ‘society [or the media] is getting too anti-white’, then eventually people will make their way towards more far-reaching conclusions on their own.

        • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
      8. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:

        White Nationalism is still far from coming to grips with the Woman Question. Everything she wrote assumes that women overall, have any significant agency to do anything but follow the diktat of men in power. They don’t. At present, that power fills their heads with a million anti-white ideas and images all too familiar to that 50% of readers here who aren’t hasbara. Right down to the idea that a woman can or should be reasoned with. Even a woman married to a White Nationalist.

        • Agree: Robert Dolan
        • Replies: @Rosie
        , @Anonymous
      9. Rosie says:
        @anon

        Everything she wrote assumes that women overall, have any significant agency to do anything but follow the diktat of men in power.

        Everything these people say always boils down to a claim that women aren’t human.

      10. G. Poulin says:
        @Rosie

        No, everything they say boils down to a claim that women are different from men. Which is true — there are different kinds of human beings.

        • Replies: @Rosie
        , @Sam J.
      11. Rosie says:
        @G. Poulin

        No, everything they say boils down to a claim that women are different from men. Which is true — there are different kinds of human beings.

        Except that every comparison they make between men and women inevitably denies that women possess the qualities that distinguish human beings from animals or mechanical automata, such as the capacity for rational, self-directed action (“agency”). Other human qualities that various misogynists deny we have: empathy, artistic talent, philosophical curiosity, etc.

        Women literally never, ever get the better of these comparisons. If I were a misandrist, I might harp about how men are subhuman on account of their lesser ability to resist their sexual drives, but I’m not, so I don’t. That’s the difference between me (pro-White) and them (anti-woman).

        • Troll: Tusk
      12. Face it…..Lana Lokteff is a one in a million pearl in a sea of sellout Ann Lindberghs.

        • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
        , @Liza
      13. Rosie says:
        @Rosie

        From the dissident right dictionary:

        troll = a girl winning an argument with a misogynist on TUR.

        • Agree: TKK
        • Thanks: Bill Jones
        • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
        , @eah
      14. @Rosie

        Women should he at home doing woman things and not be involved in political movements in real life as they serve only to destroy the dynamic of the movement. Almost all women in the Dissident Right have turned out to be attention-seekers preying on young White men’s insecurities, these young White males are colloquially known as ‘beta orbiters’

        The woman will instinctively sense an opportunity in the heavily male Alt-Right and embed herself within it, knowing that despite her opinions not being very ground-breaking, she can get twice the attention of a male for doing half as much work. WN cucks will climax when they see a blonde bimbo repeating old Alt-Right talking points.

        You can be pro-White by having kids and talking to other pro-White women about raising kids the appropriate way. Not by interjecting in male discussions giving ideas through your female world-view which you cannot ditch, just as males cannot ditch their male world-view.

        The truth is, most ‘pro-White’ women are just attention seekers, if they were really #tradwives, then they would shut their mouths, do their duties and not make a big fuss out it.

      15. Alfred says:

        I am in eastern Europe.

        TheOrientalObserver.net

        (TOO) is not available.

        However, I have VPN so I was able to read the original article.

        • Thanks: Alfred
        • Replies: @Just passing through
      16. @silviosilver

        “…My experience has taught me that people really are worried that if they agree with anything you’re saying, they’re going to have to start “hating” everyone else…”

        That is due to the success of Jewish propaganda which has framed the whole debate in a “love-or-hate” choise. Especially women fall for this trick.

        • Replies: @sally
      17. @Rosie

        “…Everything these people say always boils down to a claim that women aren’t human…”

        The term “homo sapiens” suggests rationality. Unfortunately women are more emotional than rational.

      18. @Robert Dolan

        Yes, such women also exist, and they are much appreciated.

        We are engaged in an existential war. We shouldn’t care much about “what others think of us”. They are lemmings anyway.

        As for not hurting the feelings of our enemies, they want our destruction, hurting their precious feelings is only the beginning.

      19. Alfred says:
        @Rosie

        I have lived in countries in the Middle East where women are supposedly powerless and disenfranchised. I have also noticed that in all these societies the men do their utmost to seek the approval of their womenfolk. If you want to do business with a man in that region, you have to butter up his woman first. That is just the way things work.

        I don’t think it is that different in the West.

        Men and women have different skills and attributes. For a woman to try and copy or compete with a man is really futile. That is not her forte. The idea that women are subhuman or whatever is ridiculous.

        It is indisputable that many more men have no children than women. That was because women decided that these men were unfit to become fathers of their children. OTOH, you will find that successful men often have kids with more than one woman. Again, it was the choice of women. This has nothing to do with a Mongol invasion. Women make the really big decisions.

        In the video of the lionesses defending their offspring, there is one component left out. The biological father of these cubs was not around. He is clearly superior to the male who tried to sneak in. That is why the females turned against the outsider. They knew that the new male was unable to produce offspring comparable to those they already had. Funny how that part of the equation was missing. 🙂

        • Replies: @Mike P
      20. @Rosie

        Very funny. And more or less true. I do think you are getting the better of this argument.
        But please do check out my statement below.

      21. I think K Mac pretty much sticks with the empirical data about males and females. There is a difference between the sexes physically and evolutionarily and this will always have social and political consequences. All exceptions granted, men and women will differ in somewhat important ways on the way they see the world. For example, women seem to have much more empathy for immigrants than men I know including me and this female empathy enables the left to gut us as a white nation state.

        But these perhaps natural differences don’t mean we men and women – though maybe in disproportionately male numbers – can’t ultimately unite behind such issues as borders, a de-zionized foreign policy, the J Question, and our racial future as a viable thing We aren’t going to see exactly eye to eye on the details but we can surely agree to disagree somewhat, compromise, make deals and move forward.

        However, I don’t think there is going to be any going back to patriarchy which I think is what a lot of male WN’s want or think they want I think there is NO chance of that given the changes in the status of women over the last 50 years and if white nationalism depends 0n a return to patriarchy, then white nationalism is finished White women will not go back to some supposedly ideal time of mutually respectful sex relations. In the meantime((( ))) wil be lovin the continuing political division between our sexes.

        We men should not forget that we need our other half politically or maybe a third of them anyway I’m guessing that many gentile white women of less than higher class status will come in to WN once they see what their future is going to be in the great multicultural society that liberal white women will avoid in their gated communities. But non elite white women will not do so or not do so quick enough if they think the WN Patriarch is waiting to pounce. So why don’t we white guys lighten up?

        • Replies: @Alden
      22. What clinches the argument is that Charles Lindbergh was correct, and because his correct views were not heeded, millions died, the overwhelming majority of them non-Jews and also not in the other two categories Lindbergh named.

        Those of us who engage in Lindbergh-like activity seek to prevent (well, that hasn’t happened) — try to prevent another war.

        It’s that simple.

        • Agree: BannedHipster
      23. eah says:
        @Rosie

        I’ve seen your comments before, and don’t think you’re a troll — but you were rather extreme in your previous comment (#11), e.g. “every comparison they make between men and women inevitably denies that women possess the qualities that distinguish human beings from animals or mechanical automata, …” — also in this comment on another thread –> link:

        By that logic, it would be absurd for a woman to date a dissident Right man, since he subscribes to an ideology built around hating White women.

        You ought to reconsider.

        Generally, current politics seems feminized — in particular, liberal politics seems overwhelmingly feminine, e.g. the whining about kids in “cages” on the border, as if an unrestricted invasion by mestizo peasants and other misc third-worlders is the better option — this feminization is largely (not entirely) due to women, so in that sense it’s understandable men who identify as Dissident Right may have reservations, even suspicions, re women as political figures.

        It was white, Christian men who invented the concept of chivalry toward women, and they are still its most committed practitioners, in all aspects — a little understanding, maybe even support, from white women while we try to save western civilization isn’t too much to ask, is it?

        • Thanks: sayless
        • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
        , @Rosie
      24. gotmituns says:

        Women should never publically criticize their husband.

      25. Alfred says:
        @Rosie

        These lionesses hardly seem sanguine about the idea of their cubs being slaughtered, but White women, I suppose, are another story

        To a person, male or female, outside the bubble you are living in, the interpretation is quite different.

        To me, this video shows that lionesses will not allow a feeble, pathetic, shy, hungry male lion fuck them.

        If the intruder had been much stronger and more self-confident, the story might have been very different. The lionesses would have been submissive and allowed him to kill their cubs. They would have immediately gone on heat and he would have fuck them.

        I think that adding a human feminist interpretation to what animals actually do is like getting mice and ducks to speak.

        Gone To Pieces | A Mickey Mouse Cartoon

        • Replies: @Liza
      26. @eah

        The smile on the face of that second woman in the picture says you all you need to know about the usefulness of women in any political debate about existential questions.
        And now back to the kitchen ladies!

        • Replies: @Vaterland
      27. @silviosilver

        Portraying yourself as the victim only works when you are in the minority, this is why White South Africans can get media coverage on Tucker Carlson.

        It is a sort of cognitive dissonance to claim that Whites are the victims (who are the victimizers?*) while simultaneously pushing the notion of superiority over others.

        *Most often the victimizers are portrayed as Jews. As we know Jews are the minority so this claim combines with the notion of superiority is kind of absurd. With things like colonisation, a small minority of Whites exerted control over a majority of Blacks, this was obviously due to differing abilities and it would be ludicrous to claim the Whites somehow managed to wrest control over these cultures despite being inferior.

        If you are the only smart person in a class, it would be believable if you said you were being held back by the majority of idiots, but if your class was full of smart people like yourself with one or two intellectually inferior people, it would be bizarre if you claimed that this minority of inferior people were holding the entire group of smart people back.

        The logical conclusion from this is either

        1. You are just being deluded

        2. This inferior and destructive minority is also being helped by a considerable portion of the smart majority.

        Maybe option two is the better choice when dealing with the Jewish Question? After all, how did these Jews manage to infiltrate and reach the top echelons of WASP society without much trouble? It’s not like people back then were tied down by political correctness and there were many interesting publications such as The International Jew serialised in Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent.

        Why are White Nationalists not able to convince the government to fight wars on behalf of White South Africans or in the past, White Rhodesians? While a small clique of Jews can mobile the US armed forces to fight infinite wars for Israel? Is it possible that many Whites are on the same ideological boat as Jews? And that the likes of Kevin MacDonald are not advocating for White Nationalism, but rather ‘Low to middle IQ White nationalism for low to middle IQ White people who are being screwed over by Jews and high IQ White people’? (That is a mouthful, will have to come up with a better name in the future)

      28. Belchazar says:

        This was a good discussion. I highly rate Kevin McDonald and all his study, especially his. I am thankful for people like Kevin who have dissected on the spiritual level the conflict that is in place because to me it an affirmation of Galations 4, it is all there.

        But there is a point to be made about how we deal with this. And in my opinion it is this. The dissident person needs, once they have achieved the understanding of the truth, to learn DISGRESSION, WISDOM and REAL LOVE. That means the ability to know the time and place to express that truth, It also means doing so in the right spirit. This is bad news for some of us – Jesus Christ said we must love our enemies. Quite obviously that is not going to save us from conflict with them, as it did not in his case as he pointed out their hypocrisy, but we still need to have a good spirit to people who want to do us harm. It is all solved if we are serving the gospel of Jesus Christ and Gods truth more than we are serving our own race.

        People looking on can tell if our complaint is coming from the more spiritually poor place of anger in self defence versus the stronger position of defending what is just out of love for all, that includes love for ones own race and what is owed to your children, but also for ones enemies. It does not mean compromise on important issues, but yes it does mean showing concern and understanding, and trying to keep the emotion down because people who don’t get it see that more than they hear your facts, it is true. And this is someone who probably thinks the situation is worse than Kevin thinks.

        I am learning slowly, but as a christian I suggest that ones anger about all this must be subjugated to the only one who can actually fix this – Jesus Christ. And once again it is quite obvious that even he wont be able to fix this for everyone and those who persist will face a terrible judgement, one that, no one would wish their worst enemies. So this is the attitude to have, that all may turn from rebellion to the higher planet, which is the kingdom of Jesus Christ, one can rant till the cows come home about their own race and miss the great wedding ceremony of Christ – no point in that either.

        • Replies: @DinoN
      29. There is no such thing as “anonymity” on the internet. A pseudonym works with “hiding” one’s identity from the casual reader, but not with any “hate speech” monitors equipped with technology to track down the identifying i.p. number attached to the post. This sort of tracking is common within intelligence services both public and private and those on the “right” are far and away the targets. “They’re making a list and checking it twice/[they] know when you’ve been naughty…¨” The reader is free to guess who “they” might be.

      30. JackOH says:

        “I also struggle with understanding his intended end game.”

        For most dissidents, there are likely multiple endgames in play. Developing subject matter expertise, writing a good letter, swaying opinion slightly in a favored direction, cultivating good judgment about when an opportunity presents itself, and so on.

        What I think the writer intends, though, is something like: When does the dissident know he’s (or she’s) successful enough so that he (or she) can go back to ordinary day-to-living?

        Very tough question.

        When I was a smalltime activist writing and speaking for the general public in my community, my endgame turned out to be exhaustion. LOL. I had hoped that someone important and reasonably honest would ask me, “Hey, JackOH, what the heck are you getting at?” That never happened. What did happen was that important people took offense, and simply retaliated.

        That’s a harrowing experience to learn that community leaders are perfectly willing to engage in criminal and civil misconduct to enforce narratives that they want to have stable. That means stepping on dissidents.

        (My citizen-activism is TL:dr. I didn’t approach money people on my own initiative for several reasons. I didn’t fully understand my subject matter, plus I’m too low in the food chain to gain a personal and honest audience with local movers and shakers, so I feared being “turned” into another shoeshine boy in some bullshit civic organization.)

        • Replies: @Just passing through
      31. Richard B says:
        @KenH

        “I have long been uncomfortable with my husband’s political writings” (“long been uncomfortable”, then why are you still with him?)

        partly because I disagree with some of them, (some of them?)

        partly because of his use of a pseudonym, (says “Anonymous”)

        “and partly because of the potential consequences for both us and for society.” (you mean consequences of punishment to a power that demands blind obedience to its illegitimate authority? What’s wrong with you? Nothing about the consequences to us all being held hostage by such a power, like the loss of our basic freedoms and how that might effect the problem-solving process within each and every social-institution under their control? The very social-institutions we are a part of and depend on. Again, what’s wrong with you?).

        “MacDonald’s essay has the laudable goal of creating better family relations, but many of his points are condescending…”

        Says the woman who, with one exception, condescendingly refers to Kevin as “MacDonald” throughout her entire screed.

        In fact, this woman reminds me of what a wise man once said to me a long time ago, “If women want to truly be free they need to learn some manners.”

        “the dissident’s lack of ability to put themselves in anyone else’s shoes. From my experience, dissident writers seldom acknowledge that they understand why the other side acts or believes as they do…”

        Compare this with what she said at the very beginning.

        “If he has no firsthand experience, he is perhaps in a poor situation to comment. And in any case, he is obviously not himself one of the beleaguered SO’s, and thus is unqualified to address things from that perspective.”

        Talk about the “lack of ability to put themselves in anyone else’s shoes.” And, while we’re at it, and again, talk about “condescending.”

        Apparently, Kevin, and not just Kevin, is “unqualified” because “he has no firsthand experience.”

        If the only way to be “qualified” is to have “firsthand experience” then what’s the value of “empathy”?

        Or, how about this one,

        “It is a weak argument to portray yourself as the victim.”

        Says the person who refers to herself and others like her as “beleagured.”

        I could go on but I’d never finish. Because it’s like this throughout the whole thing.

        Her entire response to Kevin is chock-o-block full of embarrasing and stupid contradictions like these, spoken, moreover in the tone of voice of a shaming parent. Dunning-Kruger much?

        And make no mistake about it, contradictory thinking is the norm for people who have zero self-awareness, zero intellectual humility, and absolutely no experience or training (and it takes training) in questioning their own assumptions.

        Which means she just assumes she’s right.

        Hope they don’t have any children. Especially boys.

        Talk about “a mindset so many cannot reckon with.”

        It’s impossible to have sufficient contempt for people like this woman. But I’m willing to try.

        And she certainly has it coming.

        • Replies: @Kim
      32. Richard B says:

        Am I the only one who read this woman and thought “Why did they marry in the first place? Or, Why are they still married?” Or, “I smell a divorce.”?

        This woman’s response read like something from a woman totally frustrated with her inability to completely control her man.

        Maybe that’s the only reason she’s still with him. Because she wants to see if she can control him. Who knows?

        After I finished reading what she wrote I went from “Who knows?” to “Who cares?”

        At no point while reading her did I get the impression that she loves her man.

        One thing’s for sure. I walked away from this one so grateful for my experience in this regard.

        To the extent it’s been an issue it’s always been easily resolved. And for a reason devoid of any complexity, ie; Because we love each other.

        I couldn’t imagine being with someone who wasn’t interested in what concerns me, and visa versa.

        It has nothing to do with being in lock step with each other. It’s something so basic, so fundamental, and so important, that who has time for unnecessary conflict?

        But this woman sounds positively antagonistic and condescending. All the while, of course, lecturing others for being, you guessed it, “condescending.”

        In my own case I think not being an ideologue, not being of the Right or Left, and having my reasons grounded firmly in cultural history and human behavior, has helped in terms of my relationship with women.

        It’s definitely helped make things more manageable.

        Not because I’ve ever gone in-depth with the woman in my life about the reasons.

        But because I’m comfortable with myself as a result.

        So I’m not anxious to lecture or willing to be lectured to.

        They get who I am and what I’m about and visa versa. If not, we part company.

        But all of this “SO” hand-wringing is just sick and twisted.

        If you’ve “long been uncomfortable with my husband’s” yada yada jaba jaba, then get the hell out of the relationship.

        Or maybe he needs to man up and give her the boot.

      33. @JackOH

        The motivation of many people seems to be giving one’s life a higher purpose. Not on some sort of spiritual sense but more as a hobby. I certainly enjoyed learning a lot about history when following Alt Right material as well as Communist material.

        For those who are further up the food chain, if becomes a full time job and I reckon ego comes into it quite a bit. There always seems to be some kind of infighting in Alt Right circles.

        • Replies: @JackOH
      34. Oracle says:

        Women need to embrace the traditional role of having families and caring for our children. Feminism, from our enemies point of view,was to destroy families and thereby reduce our numbers. That was the ONLY goal.

      35. @Alfred

        MacDonalds website is called The Occidental Observer. Unless I am mistaken and you are talking about something else?

      36. it seems to me that having a pseudonym gives permission to live two separate lives.

        Indeed this is how you have to live and act in a totalitarian society. And you thought it was a “democracy”.

      37. Why is she married to him? Also, how much is he simping? That plays a major role.

        What she is proposing, is the exact thing we meed yo jettison. Whites have way too much empathy for hostiles, myself included. For all the talk, I’ll still shell out my last dollar to a homeless negro, and skip lunch.

        For some reason, women don’t understand the inevitability of conflict. They seem to think that by playing nice, and looking out for the other side’s feelings, you can have perpetual peace. This is false. Completely false.

        Their insistence on this is about as misinformed as the constant discussions of the virtues/vices of colonialism are. The truth is, colonialism has nothing to do with why they hate us. The hate us out of ENVY, and they are angry, not about some historical wrong, but instead about HUMILIATION, which they constantly experience when compared to whites. The actions of whites are irrelevant in this.

        Blacks, for example, hate liberal whites as much, if not more, and there’s nothing you can do about it ahort of suicide.

        Imagine being a black woman. A phenotypically “West African,” Bantu woman. Could you ever really feel equal to nonblack women? The wide nose, prognathism, sloping forehead, huge cheekbones, dark skin, and bald head, will always be sources of great insecurity, so long as other women exist. Their men will always prefer other women to them, due to these traits. It’s cold to suggest, but maybe the collapse of black fatherhood has more to do with black male disdain for the women of his race. Black women use pregnancies in a desperate attempt to keep the interests of these men, despite the fact that the men simply see them as a temporary sex partner, easily discarded once even the faint possibility of a nonblack woman becomes available. Yet these women are expected to find peace with white women?

        Imagine being high I.Q., a multimillionaire, with great institutional power, yet your face is that of a rat, and your body totally disgusting, even as a young man. You might resent white women and men both. You might even force these women, unattainable completely, outside of coercion, to watch you masturbate into a potted plant, or to give you fellatio in exchange for a film role. You might even see it as vengeance.

        No matter how wealthy, or powerful a Jew gets, he still resembles a Jew. His good-looking counterparts are all in the Israeli military. He is always going to look like a medieval monster relative to other races of men.

        You cannot run, hide, surrender, or make peace. Our ancestors decided to take on the savior role the Jews offered them, not ever thinking it would be revoked two generations later. We “made the world safe for democracy,” and now the wretches we “saved,” have decided we are useless.

        Every white baby born is a revolutionary act. It doesn’t matter if you’re “ready.” You wait that long, you’ll never have children. By bringing a white into existence, you do more good than a million essays.

      38. Mike P says:
        @Alfred

        They knew that the new male was unable to produce offspring comparable to those they already had.

        They knew no such thing – they were simply following their instincts.

        You might equally well say that they were simply testing the intruder – if he could win against two or more lionesses, then he would have proven himself superior; the lionesses would then have “known” that it was o.k. to let him kill their cubs and forthwith sire some new, improved ones.

        • Agree: Alfred
        • Replies: @Alfred
        , @Rosie
      39. Vaterland says:
        @Franklin Ryckaert

        Since this image from a railway station close by is, yet again, posted I suppose I should mention that the WQ (women question) is indeed massive in this country.

        If only East German men could vote, the AfD (nu right populist) would be the strongest party.

        If only West German women could vote, the Greens (Cultural Marxist/baizuo) would have ~40%.

        Americanized, brainwashed, liberal, feminist, childless, secularized Christian, wessicuck matriarchs are killing this nation. Simple as.

      40. Modern day women have been showing for decades that we want open and communicative relationships

        Nope. They have claimed that they want such relationships, because they are told that it’s the right thing to think.

        Women form their world views with a very strong weather eye on the Mean Girls: women are deathly afraid of ostracism, even if the in-group (at a workplace, say) is entirely comprised of Oprah fans.

        Also: it’s instructive to run the ‘SO’ parts of this text through a basic writing-fist analysis… it was almost certainly written by a man., who was attempting to suppress strong philosemitism.

      41. Alfred says:
        @Mike P

        Quite correct. You phrased it better than I could. 🙂

        But it adds up to the same thing. These felines are ruthless. Calculating.

        Ever see a cat select the strongest of her offspring and abandon the others? That is what they do when they cannot raise all of them.

        So many zoo-keepers think that they have something going with a feline, One day they make the mistake of turning their back to the animal and they get killed instantly.

      42. Dr. MacDonald has the patience of Job.

        “Anonymous” illustrates the worst of female neuroticism, the inability of women to deal with conflict, even the battle of ideas, as well as the worst of Western liberalism (in the sense of MacDonald’s new book on Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.)

        “Anonymous” betrays her own claims, and proves MacDonald correct, by essentially prematurely negotiating surrender instead of engaging in the fight. She wants to “see all sides” and avoid confrontation because in the event her husband – and White men in general – loses, she’ll be welcome as a concubine for the enemy tribe.

        As to a certain commenter in the thread, she just illustrates typical feminist misogyny – she worships typical masculine qualities while denigrating typical feminine qualities, to the point she claims that anyone exhibiting feminine qualities is “less than human” and “subhuman.” Feminists are the real misogynists.

        No man thinks women are “subhuman” because they are less violent than men, for example. Nor do normal women – only feminists do.

      43. J1234 says:

        S.O. = superior officer

      44. @gotmituns

        Agreed. Such a thing is the epitome of disloyalty, and loyalty is something that SO knows nothing about.

      45. Liza says:
        @Alfred

        The lionesses would have been submissive and allowed him to kill their cubs.

        Yes, I have heard of this happening. I guess the human female more-or-less equivalent is where a woman will kill or at least abandon her children when a man she has the uncontrollable hots for comes along.

        • LOL: niceland, Alfred
        • Replies: @Rosie
        , @TKK
      46. Portia says:
        @Rosie

        A word of advice: On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog (even if disgusting, too-numerous misogynists propagate dog-specific canards). So just choose a male e-persona. These people don’t deserve good faith or candor. Much like the left hates whites, these men hate women. So lie to them. Some good ones will eventually distinguish themselves and if you meet IRL, you can out yourself. Otherwise, why bother?

      47. Liza says:
        @Robert Dolan

        Face it…..Lana Lokteff is a one in a million pearl in a sea of sellout Ann Lindberghs.

        Lana has spread hate for Boomers on her videos. You know – like we can help it when we were born. She throws in “of course, a few Boomer men have done some good for our cause etc…”

        Oh, puke.

        I guess her husband either agrees with her or wants to keep the peace.

        • Replies: @Tucker
      48. Bernie says:

        “Disruptions are planned almost every time a highly publicized event occurs. These disruptors often plan for violence. It is documented that Trump invites this behavior against those who do not agree with him (although I am not condoning it). MAGA-hat wearers are not the only people being called out publicly. Anti-Trump people get called out every day in alt-right speeches and at protests/rallies. Democratically elected lawmakers have received death threats because of their support of gun laws.”

        Huh? There were 639 documented attacks against Trump supporters from 2015 -2018 https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/

        Where are the similar attacks against anti-Trump rallies? Even if those death threats against anti-gun lawmakers are real, where are the videos of them being attacked and beaten?

        There are none as these types of attacks are almost entirely one-way traffic.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
      49. sally says:
        @Franklin Ryckaert

        Agreement with a content recognized as dissident, is quite different than acknowledging and supporting the author who wrote into content. The objectionable content brands the author, promoter and distribution center and, by association, everyone who supports the content narrative or the author of the narrative.
        Because those objecting to the dissent are offended, they impose punishment, and that imposition of punishment incites the punished into hating everyone else? rephrased from Franklin Ryhchaert @16 <=but is it really the message in the dissent or the dissenter the objectors are opposed to? Maybe it is something else..?

        I think it is that any conflict or competition with the psychology of mind control messages and narratives tends to interfere with and even to inhibits the ability of the mind control professionals to obtained intended outcomes from their mind control projects: hypnosis needs full undivided, uninterrupted attention.

        Propaganda cannot be Jewish, political or right or wrong, its a descriptive word token. Presentation of Content that produces understanding in the mind of the persons who engage in the media content discover some of it to be propaganda. Propaganda is description of a narrative, supported by facts, proposition and lies.

        In order to classify content it is first necessary for a receiver to engage and understand the content. I do not disagree with your point that "the Success Zionism has enjoyed in trying to take control and ownership of the entire world is, in large measure, due to Jewish ownership of the means to produce and distribute propaganda." Seems to me conservatives should find a way to present content with narratives that compete with promotions of Jewish causes or the economics of Zionism.

        Insertion advertising centers on "contents that has an audience" and you ask why? The reason is, someone in the audience may take its narrative seriously. But the hidden beast is that content outlets are dominated by Jewish and Zionist interest. Think about a political contest, such as the presidential race.. (the competition is the entertainment derived from competition between candidates).. US Citizens cannot vote for the President or the VP of the USA <= the USA constitution Article II persons seeking to be President or VP are to be appointment NOT BY VOTE of USA citizens who go to the polls thinking their vote matters< look at Article II, Section 1, paragraphs 2,3,4 [1789] and its 15 years later amendment [1804, the 12th amendment] to the USA constitution.

        Since it is impossible for the vote of a USA citizen to determine the outcome of presidential electiont; why do the candidates, the media, the political parties, in fact the entire political arena bend over backwards to spend billions in political advertising? Why do the candidates and the media the constitution refuses to count your votes in the process that fills the jobs of President or VP? The answer has long been hidden.. in constitutional mum bo jumbo. Could it be as simple as keeping the masses divided so they can keep them subdued?

        Corporate advertising provides bread and butter support for media production and distribution centers. Narratives which promote Jewish interest and Zionism over capitalism are often found in content distributed by Jewish owned media outlets. Without corporate advertising Zionism would fail and the Jewish power, often derived from the support of Zionism, would be significantly reduced. Line 22, front page 1 of the IRS form 1120 (grants corporations a 100% deduction for advertising expenditures made by for profit corporations). Why is this relevant?

        Corporations are spending your money to control your mind. It is important because a 100% deduction against income (sales) for contributions given in support of media is disguised as advertising. Disguising the support, allows privately owned corporations to transfer corporate income directly to private, Jewish owned Zionist friendly media outlets, completely tax free.. Sales pass directly to Jewish Owned Media outlets without net impact on the corporations bottom line. The annual dollar value in these fully deductible corporate transfers amounts to trillions. It you want to slow down Jewish narrative favorable content distribution, I suggest to lobby for disallowing any corporation a deduction of any kind, if that corporations makes a transfer to a media producer or content distributor. Transferring corporate sales as a deductible cost allows corporations transfer the cost of content production, distribution and media to the customers of the privately owned corporation. This simple transfer mechanism is a major component of Jewish power and Jewish Power is a major determinant of successful Zionism.

        Many NGOs and most government agencies also support media that deliver content which is zionism favorable, because they also engage in advertising that support content producers and media distribution centers. Many born again Christian media also produce and distribute content with narratives in media which promote Zionist needs (Zionism is not a Jewish thing, its a highly destructive, winner take all, system of economics). It is important for the sake of clarity to distinguish, content by the understanding it evokes in those who engage it. It should be not be classified by its author, or by the ownership of the media distribution center that makes content available. Classification of content as propaganda should be based on the impact of the narrative on the audience.

        The war for morality and entitlement to qualify of life is fought in the media; and in the rules that get made into law, and in the community that host one’s upbringing. Control over human cognition is the object of the war. The only cognitive warriors I am familiar with at this time seem to be Jewish and all of them are divide and conqueror experts.

        • Replies: @Kim
      50. Owen C. says:
        @Rosie

        This is the Unz Review, not Buzzfeed.

        • Replies: @TKK
      51. DinoN says:
        @Belchazar

        If Jesus Christ did say “Love your enemy” then He is the only one who believes it!

        • Replies: @Belchazar
      52. anon[416] • Disclaimer says:

        ” . . . first of all . . . I don’t know if Prof. MacDonald has (or had) an SO, and if so, if she is one of the “less-committed.” Does he speak from direct experience?”

        So a sh*t test, right out of the gate. Any CH fans ’round chere are welcome to bat this one away. I’ll start: “I’ve had dozens, but they were all deep in your less committed category. After all, every cute literature major loves a fascist.”

        • Replies: @I Have Scinde
      53. She is right to suggest that without the help of the gentile white Christian women, the White Christian race has an uphill, nay, Herculean battle on its hands but white men would rather elect a mulatto … what has the Bible in the form of Christianity though it’s largely semitic in nature, done to the mentality of White Christian gentile men that after electing forty three members of their own kind they elected a half black man but wouldn’t touch an Elizabeth Warren with a ten-foot pole? Elevate the women to their rightful place by your side or perish fighting them!

      54. The following article and the comments are worth reading:

        https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/10/how-to-live-as-a-dissident/

        There’s also a lot to learn from how dissidents operated in the old USSR and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately their anti-communist struggle was co-opted by the West to promote liberal capitalism instead of taking it into a different direction. There will always be the threat that any popular rebellion will be diverted into a colour revolution to benefit capital and imperialism instead of the people, nation, race.

        My advice is that if you have something to lose be careful, very careful. Your opinions are not like dirty laundry so no need to hang it out for all to see – they want you to show your head so that they can cut it off. Just let the resentment and discontent in the majority build up and do what you can to help it along, and one day it may boil over so as to make what happened to the Stasi and Securitate, and their controllers, look like a picnic.

      55. qca says:

        I feel like this boils down to the fact that Women have difficulty understanding the necessity of ‘the vanguards noble sacrifice’.
        Asking your man to stop fighting against evil because you are afraid of the consequences is not going to work if he happens to be a man of good character.

      56. Of course, Trump pedals his point of view, like all presidents have done; I am unaware of non-Whites being targeted specifically by government surveillance. If so, there would be a deluge of lawsuits by the ACLU, etc.

        If Trumpy had been pedaling his FAT baby boomer ass on a bicycle in Florida instead of riding in a golf cart to his next next greasy cheeseburger and french fries with a big side of onion rings, he wouldn’t be a waddling walrus baby boomer fatso. Trump most likely eats a big fat greasy cheeseburger after every other hole on the golf course. Cheeseburgers are delicious, but MODERATION Trumpy!

        Trumpy peddles the point of view of that evil and immoral Jew billionaire named Shelly Adelson.

        Adelson wants Trump to push mass legal immigration. Trump does what Adelson wants him to.

        Adelson wants Trump to refrain from deporting the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA. Trump lets the illegal alien invaders be without much concern.

        Adelson wants to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel. So far Trump has resisted starting a war with Iran but if killing a senior military figure ain’t war, then I don’t know what. Let us just say that Trump doesn’t want to launch a full scale invasion of Iran, but sanctions and Death From Above are war nonetheless.

        Adelson wants cheap labor for his casinos and other properties and Trump is a bought and paid for politician whore of the Republican Party Cheap Labor Faction.

        Adelson is a billionaire Jew who has bought and paid for the entirety of the Republican Party and Adelson has bought and paid for Trumpy like a three dollar whore.

        Trump has deliberately attacked the ability of young White Core Americans to be able to enjoy Affordable Family Formation by encouraging mass legal immigration and by screaming about flooding the USA with mass legal immigration “in the largest numbers ever” and by refusing to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

        The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire has deliberately attacked young White Core Americans by using mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons to destroy the ability of young White Core Americans to be able to enjoy Affordable Family Formation.

        Mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration combine to increase housing costs, lower wages, increase income inequality, overwhelm hospitals, swamp schools, harm the environment, bring crime and infectious diseases to the USA and make it harder for young White Core Americans to enjoy AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION.

        • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
      57. Rosie says:
        @eah

        Generally, current politics seems feminized — in particular, liberal politics seems overwhelmingly feminine, e.g. the whining about kids in “cages” on the border, as if an unrestricted invasion by mestizo peasants and other misc third-worlders is the better option — this feminization is largely (not entirely) due to women, so in that sense it’s understandable men who identify as Dissident Right may have reservations, even suspicions, re women as political figures.

        I disagree completely with this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with empathy playing a role in politics. In fact, without it, you’re likely to wind up with a dystopian hellscape. The only question is who gets to decide what pictures make the rounds.

        This one:

        Or this one:

        It was white, Christian men who invented the concept of chivalry toward women, and they are still its most committed practitioners, in all aspects — a little understanding, maybe even support, from white women while we try to save western civilization isn’t too much to ask, is it?

        No, but expecting us to remain silent while our fundamental rights are threatened is indeed too much to ask.

      58. Rosie says:
        @Liza

        Yes, I have heard of this happening.

        He’s lying. Lionesses defend their cubs from strange male intruders, and they do so as a group.

        Of course, they do go into heat if they stop nursing, I the same way that women return to fertility when they stop nursing. The difference between humans and lions is that we remember and they move on.

        • Replies: @Alfred
        , @Marshall Lentini
      59. Rosie says:
        @Mike P

        You might equally well say that they were simply testing the intruder – if he could win against two or more lionesses, then he would have proven himself superior; the lionesses would then have “known” that it was o.k. to let him kill their cubs and forthwith sire some new, improved ones.

        You might very well say that, but then, you’d be demonstrating very clearly that you actually prefer the most cynical, even hateful explanation among the alternatives. That is, you like the one that confirms your bias against women, even though you don’t have any actual evidence one way or the other. You refuse to give women the benefit of the doubt and you are eager to think the worst of us.

        You are entitled to your biases, but you are not entitled to play the dispassionate scholar and claim to have the evidence on your side. You have shown yourself as a misogynist with an axe to grind.

      60. Sol says:

        Damn. Truly tldr. Maybe I will try again later. Should I ask her for dating advice too?

      61. @Rosie

        There is absolutely nothing wrong with empathy playing a role in politics. In fact, without it, you’re likely to wind up with a dystopian hellscape. The only question is who gets to decide what pictures make the rounds.

        The only question is who gets to decide what pictures make the rounds.

        The control of the electronic financial currency and the electronic propaganda apparatus is the thing.

        The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire has ramped up the censorship and de-platforming on the Internet because they got a glimpse of the power of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA and they didn’t like it.

        The ruling classes in all European Christian nations are trying to corral and sequester all the electronic propaganda — and print and public gatherings — in order to prevent the core ethnic populations from putting a stop to mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and other anti-White nonsense.

        The anti-White and anti-Christian ADL is pushing for mass censorship to block free speech and open discussion of many topics.

        Trump and the Republican Party are doing nothing about censorship on the Internet because they want the range of opinions to be narrowed to safe confines that don’t upset the donors and the other special interests that have bought and paid for the rancid Republican Party.

      62. eah says:
        @Rosie

        No, but expecting us to remain silent while our fundamental rights are threatened is indeed too much to ask.

        This is LOL nonsense, and I won’t address it, other than to say you seem overly emotional (and therefore may indeed be the sort of woman I personally would prefer not vote).

        I disagree completely with this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with empathy playing a role in politics.

        An analogy: years ago, I used to write email to reporters with bylines on stories about illegal immigration, amnesty, etc, saying basically: we no longer have a problem of relatively few illegals whom we could and probably should accommodate — instead we have millions of them, more every year, and so many immigrants generally that the whole ‘look and feel’ of the country is changing: it’s being demographically destroyed.

        I’ll say the same now about “empathy”: we can no longer afford it, or so much of it — excess and misplaced empathy is part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

        I’m a White Nationalist — I want to preserve America as a majority white nation — I don’t want amnesty, nor any more non-white immigrants, refugees, etc — I don’t give a damn about kids in “cages” on the border; I refuse to dispense any more “empathy” to random foreigners, when the future of my country and race is at stake.

        There is no majority white country that is, or has ever been, a “dystopian hellscape” — we’re trying to prevent America moving further in that direction — you are unable to see this.

      63. RodW says:

        It’s a mistake to say that Jews are content to leave non-White societies alone. They try to wreck every society they enter.

        Japan was mentioned as one place Jews are happy to leave homogeneous, but creepy Japan-resident ‘journalist’ Jake Adelstein constantly criticises Japan’s ‘lack of diversity’, and cuck Whites in Japan then parrot the same line.

        Unfortunately certain ministers within the Japanese government seem to have bought the notion that lack of a foreign criminal underclass is holding the country back and is busy trying to import one. Jews like Adelstein applaud these moves while loudly lamenting that ‘progress’ is too slow. Adelstein isn’t the only one of his kind in Japan, but he’s the most prominent. The Japanese alt-right rightly loathe and vilify him as a pernicious Jewish wrecker.

      64. Rosie says:

        As to a certain commenter in the thread, she just illustrates typical feminist misogyny – she worships typical masculine qualities while denigrating typical feminine qualities, to the point she claims that anyone exhibiting feminine qualities is “less than human” and “subhuman.” Feminists are the real misogynists.

        You have it exactly backwards. It is my interlocutors who worship masculine qualities and denigrate feminine qualities. If you don’t understand that, I don’t know what to say to you.

        Consider Alfred’s comments above. He suggests that women don’t love our children, and would be fine with them being destroyed so that we can mate with a fitter male. This is quite literally insane.

        You see, women either have too much empathy, or not enough, or even none at all. To one misogynist, we are calculating reptilian creatures incapable of normal mammal bonding. To another, we’re empathetic to a fault, such that we shouldn’t have any political power.

        The only thing misogynists agree on is their hatred of and/or contempt for women; they all have different, and often contradictory pretexts for their hatred.

      65. Evolutionary psychology itself suggests that this woman is concerned only with her own evolutionary fitness rather than that of her mate separately or any great notions of white superiority. His being a dissident sauveur of the white race is not helping to improve her evolutionary fitness when within the group you have far more competition than outside of the group. She is not worried so much about keeping up with the Jews as she is keeping up with the Joneses, hence her disdain for the capitalism which puts in stark contrast her lot and that of a Gisele Bundchen, married to a white man who kisses the Ring of a Jew – and profits her and her offspring handsomely by it.

        She will likely cash out by initiating divorce proceedings sooner rather than later pending the sinking of her sorry ship, and who can blame her?

        • Agree: Alfred
      66. Rosie says:
        @eah

        This is LOL nonsense, and I won’t address it, other than to say you seem overly emotional (and therefore may indeed be the sort of woman I personally would prefer not vote).

        Are you trying to gaslight me?

        Misogynists post on this site on a near daily basis about how we need to put a stop to, inter alia:

        The education of women
        Women suffrage
        Women’s right to earn a living free of quid pro quo sexual harassment.

        I don’t give a damn about kids in “cages” on the border; I refuse to dispense any more “empathy” to random foreigners, when the future of my country and race is at stake.

        Do you really not give a damn? If so, there’s something wrong with you.
        Or do you just not think we should sacrifice our race and country for the benefit of said children in cages? If so, that is perfectly normal, of course. Which is it?

        There is no majority white country that is, or has ever been, a “dystopian hellscape” —

        If we could take the way back machine to Victorian England, I suspect we could find some 4 year old chimney sweeps working to spring their father from debtor’s prison who would emphatically disagree with this assessment.

        You know, your post with the picture of the girls with the “refugees welcome” sign is entirely self-refuting. Here you claim that women are easily manipulated by pictures, precisely as you fall for ridiculous Jewish propaganda about White women because pretty, blond girls.

        Three girls in a picture do not represent White women, as any teen with a passing familiarity with the notion of representative sampling could tell you. The fact is that 53% of White American women voters cast their ballot for mean ole Trump. Many of those who didn’t simply knew better than to believe a rich man would do anything about the border, and subsequent events have proven them correct.

        But even to the extent that it is true that women are less likely to vote for right-wing parties, it’s not our fault White men allowed themselves to be manipulated into handing our media over to the Jew. You wanted to be good sports, so here we are. Attacking women is not going to get you out of this situation. You have to dislodge Jewish power, and once you’ve done that, you won’t have to worry about women being brainwashed by a hostile elite. Surely you don’t think White men would be stupid enough to make the same mistake again, do you?

        • LOL: eah
        • Replies: @Rosie
        , @Alfred
        , @eah
      67. Kim says:
        @sally

        Propaganda cannot be Jewish, political or right or wrong, its a descriptive word token.

        Of course propaganda can be Jewish.

        1. It can be Jewish in style – Jewish anti-social propaganda has a distinct style as much as does Chinese communist party propaganda

        2. It can be Jewish in the sense of being of or belonging to the jews.

        Overall, your propaganda I would classify as being especially jewish in style in that it is “tedious”.

        Tedious jewish arguments involve making statements that are obviously contrary to plain reality -e.g., there are more than two sexes, there are no races, etc – and which are ludicrous and easily dismissed yet which are nonetheless effective propaganda because they waste the time and the energy of any opponent who wishes to respond to them.

      68. Rosie says:
        @Rosie

        The fact is that 53% of White American women voters cast their ballot for mean ole Trump.

        Come to think of it, if women are as influenced by TPTB as you claim, I suppose it would follow that many more would have voted for him but for the media hostility against him. In which case, you must believe that women are, in fact, instinctively very anti-immigration.

        Indeed, the data we have suggest that White women are indeed at least as anti-immigration as White men. Oh, lookie here…

      69. @Rosie

        I disagree completely with this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with empathy playing a role in politics. In fact, without it, you’re likely to wind up with a dystopian hellscape.

        How can you claim that you’re “winning” any arguments here with this sort of thing?

        eah didn’t remotely say that “empathy” has no role in politics. What he said was that it’s wrong for us to give up on enforcing border laws because of a few children in cages.

        And, by the way, he’s right: none of those kids are dying – those “cages” aren’t concentration camps, after all. Yes, it’s a hardship – but that hardship is balanced by the fact that enforcing border laws would, in the long run, improve our country and, quite probably, improve Mexico too.

        You claim to be pro-white, eh? Then stop putting words in people’s mouths and misrepresenting their positions. We have enough Jews doing that already.

        Wanna know why people think you’re a troll? Because you consistently fail to actually argue with people’s real positions. I don’t think you’re a troll, but I do think your style of discussion here is entirely tiresome.

        • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
        • Replies: @Rosie
      70. @eah

        Rosie mischaracterized your earlier argument, which is a sign of intellectual immaturity. It would have been better to point this out.

      71. @gotmituns

        Nor should men publicly criticize their wives, at least in my opinion (and I support the return of patriarchy).

      72. @Rosie

        “…There is absolutely nothing wrong with empathy playing a role in politics. In fact, without it, you’re likely to wind up with a dystopian hellscape. The only question is who gets to decide what pictures make the rounds…”

        It is not an either-or question. We can be strict on immigration, legal or illegal, without losing our humanity. Refugees who are in danger of drowning can be rescued but after that should be send back to their countries. Most refugees are not in mortal danger, they are simply economic refugees in search of a parasitic life at our cost. Real refugees should be helped in refugee camps in their own region, and after the crisis is over be send back to their countries. We should be willing to pay for that.

        BTW, the picture of that drowned boy was indeed especially chosen to manipulate the public emotionally. He was the son of Syrian refugees who had settled in Turkey and integrated economically there for already two years. Then the father decided to “become a refugee”, enter Europe and enjoy free medical care to have his teeth repaired. He paid professional refugee smugglers who overloaded their boat, which was the cause of his son drowning.

        The so-called “refugee crisis” is artificially created to manipulate us emotionally to accept our own demographic dispossession. We can reject that without losing our humanity, but reacting only emotionally will not help.

      73. Rosie says:
        @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

        eah didn’t remotely say that “empathy” has no role in politics. What he said was that it’s wrong for us to give up on enforcing border laws because of a few children in cages.

        Pull yourself together, Mr. Burns. You have to understand that I write comments here at unz because I’m a busy mom who has to work this in a few minutes at a time. I don’t have the time to sit and write perfectly polished papers with nothing but the most carefully chosen words.

        I do my best to accurately represent other people’s positions.

        Here is leah’s position, as I understand it:

        Women are to blame for immigration because we’re too empathetic to out groups, whereas decisions should be made based on rational calculations of the head only.

        Now, if this is wrong, tell me why. Don’t go attacking me as “intellectually immature,” even as you ignore the creeps on this site who routinely tell outright lies about women.

        Back to the merits. Here is my actual response to leah’s actual position. Come to think of it. I’m not going to write anything. I’m just going to post a picture. Perhaps you recognize this symbol?

        Just as a home needs a balance of yin and yang, so does a polity.

      74. TKK says:
        @Liza

        As Chris Watts also did for a horse faced, repellent hag- stuffing his little girls in oil tanks after strangling them as they pleaded for him to stop.

        And there was strong evidence he was bisexual. More estrogen causes sociopathic responses to vulnerable populations?

        Middle Eastern and some Asian mother in laws fit the description in their treatment of daughter in laws or unfavored children.

      75. TKK says:
        @Owen C.

        And they differ how?

        • Replies: @Owen C.
      76. geokat62 says:
        @Franklin Ryckaert

        Great comment, FR… agree 100%

        If I might, I’d recommend one minor revision to the following statement:

        Most refugees are not in mortal danger, they are simply economic refugees in search of a parasitic life at our cost.

        I would refer to most of these individuals crossing the border as economic migrants, not economic refugees.

      77. Owen C. says:
        @TKK

        Rosie is a crypto-feminist troll. The whole “this is the Unz Review, not Buzzfeed” thing is a rhetorical device.

        • Replies: @Rosie
      78. Rosie says:
        @Franklin Ryckaert

        The so-called “refugee crisis” is artificially created to manipulate us emotionally to accept our own demographic dispossession. We can reject that without losing our humanity, but reacting only emotionally will not help.

        I agree completely with everything you said here. There is no reason that solutions can’t be found that protect our interests and honor our moral obligations (whatever we determine those are) at the same time.

        We’re not allowed to talk about any alternatives to White dispossession because of YKW.

        • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
      79. JackOH says:
        @Just passing through

        JPT, thanks.

        I did have disproportionate influence in my community, but good sense (which I had to recover-LOL) told me at one point that I was likely to make little more headway, and that throwing in the towel was the best thing to do. I have a very large pile of writing, some of it published, and the remainder editable into something of publication quality. When I gather some energy I plan on doing that editing, tucking the manuscript into archival boxes, and donating copies thereof to some local libraries.

        I learned a lot about my America. Much of it’s grim. The pessimism I see on these pages seems to be warranted. My sense is most Americans sort of know there’s something profoundly wobbly about the conventional wisdom that’s filtered through the gatekeepers of mass media and educational institutions and much street-level opinion. Our political leaders are pretty much corporate chattel or would-be corporate chattel, so there’s probably little chance those Americans will have their anxieties addressed through politics.

      80. Alfred says:
        @Rosie

        He’s lying

        If I am lying, why are those gamekeepers in the video so excited at having once seen such an event?

        Surely sex-starved partnerless lions trying to get some sex is not such a rare event? 🙂

        You are trying to put yourself in the position of those lionesses and projecting. You and I have absolutely no idea as to what is going on in the brains of those creatures.

        Similar behavior is also seen in male lions, among other species, who also kill young cubs, thereby enabling them to impregnate the females. Unlike langurs, male lions live in small groups, which cooperate to take control of a pride from an existing group.[1] They will attempt to kill any cubs that are roughly nine months old or younger, though as in other species, the female will attempt to defend her cubs viciously. Males have, on average, only a two-year window in which to pass on their genes, and lionesses only give birth once every two years, so the selective pressure on them to conform to this behavior is strong.

        Infanticide (zoology) – by males

        • Replies: @Rosie
      81. @Rosie

        Saving human lives is always a moral obligation if the means to do so are present, but that does not automatically imply to right to immigrate (and enjoying royal welfare).

        Also the poverty in the Third World is not entirely of those countries own making. The West supports Third World dictators who sell out their countries’ resources for low prices to international corporations. Honest trade with technical advice could be of help. Together with rational family planning this could end the whole “refugee crisis”. The West is also responsible for many wars in the Third World. Think Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. The same global elite that tries to force upon us the acceptance of refugees is responsible for the crisis that created them in the first place.

        • Replies: @Commentator Mike
      82. Belchazar says:
        @DinoN

        It is not easy. But getting all filled with animosity can really mess one up, people see that, and that’s what they are looking to see to discredit you.

        And also, everyone here needs to stop writing off women, have a rant to your mate about it, but don’t post it. For goodness sakes we need them. Our approach has not been right to we lose more than we should.

      83. Alfred says:
        @Rosie

        If we could take the way back machine to Victorian England, I suspect we could find some 4 year old chimney sweeps working to spring their father from debtor’s prison who would emphatically disagree with this assessment

        This statement cannot go unanswered. The reality is that England of that time was a very different place. Life in the countryside was vastly worse than in the cities. To get some insight, I suggest that you read Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the d’Aubervilles rather than Charles Dickens.

        In today’s 3rd world – which you seem keen that the USA should emulate – it is normal for children to bring into the family more resources then they consume. Children are looked at as an asset – not a liability. That partly explains the great divergence in birthrates.

        You want anyone other than white people to reproduce. I suspect you have no children. I have 3 European children (with two ex’s) and I hope to have more. 🙂

      84. Anonymous[603] • Disclaimer says:
        @Bernie

        Democrats literally bused paid supporters to Trump events (including homeless guys!) with the specific goal of provoking fights. This was all captured on tape, but created barely a ripple of interest in the MSM. The head of the company coordinating this activity met personally with Obama on numerous occasions at the White House.

        When the activity was revealed, there was just a bland statement about the guy resigning, so as ‘not to create a distraction’ for the Democratic campaign.

        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/

        • Agree: Bernie
      85. @Franklin Ryckaert

        The worst of it is that Ghaddafi had plans, and had started, a massive geoengineering project to irrigate the Sahara through the construction of artificial rivers, with the hope of feeding all of Africa and giving jobs in agriculture and construction to those poor Africans and Arabs swarming into Libya looking for work. Instead they were recruited into jihadi groups to topple him, he was anally raped with a knife, and the witch bitch Clinton was greatly amused. Libya was once the breadbasket of the Roman Empire and it could have become one for starving Africa. So instead of “honest trade with technical advice” Libya got bombs and Europe got the immigrant invasion and laws that get you jailed for calling it an “invasion”. Sometimes it’s hard not to hate the West or feel at least some sympathy for those who hate Europeans and Americans. So Israel benefits the most from another weakened and destroyed Arab enemy country. The Jews may be behind much of this, but then most whites are their collaborators in all this so hardly blameless.

      86. Whenever a woman, Jew, black, or whatever comes on a site like this and starts accusing people of being craven haters and wanting to abolish their rights, they make themselves so obnoxious that the regulars, who wanted no such thing in the first place but only, perhaps, to stop hearing about what haters they are and so on, end up being more hateful and wanting exactly that.

        And yet the majority of men are still indulgent: shows you who the hateful really are, needless to say.

        Their primary fallback, as we see here, is the old yarn that it’s “white men’s fault for handing their societies over to the Jew”, and of course our responsibility to rescue them from his evil clutches; more or less a medieval princess fable that absolves women of any responsibility. No need for self-reflection: just shift the blame onto white men like everyone else.

        Women like this love to hide their viciousness behind being “pro-White”, which means, to them, that you’re not allowed to criticize women as a group. Blacks, migrants, and of course Jews may be criticized as a group, but not women. See how that works?

        Yet, it’s easy to see her perspective. No one likes to be told that their group has behavioral problems, and indeed a lack of rational agency, that can’t be corrected and should rather be controlled by some superior guiding force. Only white men are supposed to suck up all the blame and control themselves, with perfect agency, for everyone else’s benefit.

        If you say that white men do not have superior agency, then women should be as competent as men at running a nation or some other complex operation, which we generally do not see. If you say that white men do have superior agency, you very nearly agree with the hordes of grasping hateful who say we have a duty to cede everything to them.

        As an afterthought, this stupid old “debate”, which is destined to unfold in exactly the same way every time eternally, is totally pointless inasmuch as no one group is responsible for the state of affairs: a thought so obvious and blasé that one is ashamed to express it.

        • Agree: eah
        • Replies: @Rosie
      87. @Rosie

        As for the lionesses, they generally attempt to defend their cubs because lions aren’t chimpanzees and a pride typically has one or two males only, so it’s group size and not status that matters. Given the high mortality rate of male lion cubs, they’re generally not successful at defense. So I guess Rosie isn’t wrong that whoever it was prefers the explanation less charitable to females.

      88. eah says:
        @Rosie

        Are you trying to gaslight me?

        I’m not sure what “gaslight” means, so I can’t say.

        If we could take the way back machine to Victorian England, I suspect we could find some 4 year old chimney sweeps working to spring their father from debtor’s prison who would emphatically disagree with this assessment.

        A dumb melodramatic example (“overly emotional”) — also, you seem to confuse physical labor, even child labor, and lack of material wealth, with ‘dystopia’ — but poverty is nothing unusual; neither is children working — in fact, it was the de facto norm for the vast majority of human existence, and still is today in many places.

        No matter where I’ve been, when I return to the US, with its degraded political culture, and see throngs of obese pigs who spend hours watching inane garbage on TV, people with shitty jobs they generally dislike, and all/every manner of gross social dysfunction, I guarantee you the US seems far more ‘dystopic’ — not to mention dysgenic — than the place I just left, regardless of the disparity in material wealth.

        You know, your post with the picture of the girls with the “refugees welcome” sign is entirely self-refuting. Here you claim that women are easily manipulated by pictures, precisely as you fall for ridiculous Jewish propaganda about White women because pretty, blond girls.

        WTF?

        Three girls in a picture do not represent White women, as any teen with a passing familiarity with the notion of representative sampling could tell you. … Attacking women is not going to get you out of this situation.

        Yeah but: other women can vote too — and stating facts about female voting patterns is not the same as “attacking” women; I’m not “attacking” them, anyway — but I guess you have to use loaded/pejorative words like that to reinforce your self-assigned victimhood.

        But if we manage to prevent America from becoming ‘majority minority’, and it is proposed that in order to keep it that way we have to repeal the 19th Amendment, I’m keeping my mouth shut.

        • Replies: @qca
        , @Rosie
      89. @Franklin Ryckaert

        The so-called “refugee crisis” is artificially created to manipulate us emotionally to accept our own demographic dispossession.

        That is why it is so important to attack the corporate propaganda apparatus and the Internet corporations that are pushing the civilizationally-destructive mass legal immigration and nation-wrecking mass illegal immigration.

        In a mass democracy, the control of the mass media is the key. All new political parties must attack the corporate mass media and the Internet corporations and considerations of getting so-called “free media” must not interfere with bashing the Hell out of the ruling class propaganda outlets. God bless Pat Buchanan for using “free media” so well in his campaigns by foraging off the free media propaganda land, but bashing the corporate propaganda outlets must now be the main goal.

        Trump is a three dollar whore for Jew billionaires such as Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer and Bernie Marcus and Trump is doing the bidding of the Republican Party Cheap Labor Faction. The Jew billionaires want to continue to use mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons to attack and destroy the European Christian ancestral core of the USA. The Republican Party Cheap Labor Faction wants to continue to use mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons to undermine and undercut and attack American workers.

        The nation-wrecking Jew billionaires are evil and immoral and so are the rancid scum in the Republican Party Cheap Labor Faction.

        This needs to be hammered continuously and broadcast widely but the corporate mass media and the Internet corporations are pushing mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration too.

        REPETITION is the building block of good propaganda, and if I had control of the mass media the deportation barges would be being loaded up and sent on their way in a most expeditious manner.

        The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is heading for the boneyard of ruling classes and the only thing keeping them in power is the mass corporate media and the Internet corporations and the electronic currency and monetary extremism of the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank.

        The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire uses the rancid and evil Republican Party as a demographic vote sink to keep the European Christian ancestral core of the USA pacified and under the illusion that they have a choice in the two-party tyranny.

        Destroying the Republican Party must be the goal of all decent and honorable American patriots.

      90. qca says:
        @eah

        I dont want to join Rosies side, but the map you posted is inaccurate. If only white women would have voted, Trump would have won.

        That being said the important white female demographic prefered Hillary over Trump by a large margin. Covincing 60 something childless women to join our cause wont do much. It’s the 20 something fertile women, the 30-40 something mothers that we need to win for our cause.

        • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
        , @eah
      91. Rosie says:
        @Owen C.

        Rosie is a crypto-feminist troll.

        Lol. There is absolutely nothing “crypto” about me, except insofar as I’m not allowed to publicly acknowledge that I’m pro-White.

        If you want to call me a “feminist,” go ahead. It’s just a word. I have been very clear and consistent about my point of view, and I don’t apologize for it.

        • Troll: Owen C.
        • Replies: @jsigur
      92. Rosie says:
        @Alfred

        They will attempt to kill any cubs that are roughly nine months old or younger, though as in other species, the female will attempt to defend her cubs viciously.

        In other words, WRS (what Roaie said).

        • Replies: @Alfred
      93. @qca

        Forget it dude. That ship sailed three decades ago. White American females are practically another species now.

      94. eah says:
        @qca

        … but the map you posted is inaccurate.

        No it’s not — it says “if just women voted”, meaning all women — as I said, all women can vote (duh), so how all women vote is important — if you can figure out a way to arrange it so only white women can vote (preferably only those who are married/have kids, or do not have a college education), let me know (even then I’m not sure if I would completely trust them).

        I know white women favored Trump (albeit less so than white men).

        That being said the important white female demographic prefered Hillary over Trump by a large margin.

        ?

        The 2nd graphic below (the +/- is from HRC’s point of view) was from a poll a couple of months before the election — I do not know what exit polls showed re college-educated white women (probably blue) vs non (” red), or married (” red) vs non-married (” blue) — I assume it turned out roughly as depicted.

      95. Rosie says:
        @Marshall Lentini

        Their primary fallback, as we see here, is the old yarn that it’s “white men’s fault for handing their societies over to the Jew”,

        As per usual, TUR misogynists don’t like the bitter taste of their own medicine.

        Women like this love to hide their viciousness behind being “pro-White”, which means, to them, that you’re not allowed to criticize women as a group.

        If you want to insult women, go ahead. You belong in the manosphere, not White nationalism.

        Yet, it’s easy to see her perspective. No one likes to be told that their group has behavioral problems, and indeed a lack of rational agency, that can’t be corrected and should rather be controlled by some superior guiding force.

        Especially when it’s nothing but a totally unsubstantiated pack of lies.

        (Wait, didn’t you just tell me that noone is trying to take women’s rights away? Are you going to somehow “control” us without taking our rights away?)

        If you say that white men do not have superior agency, then women should be as competent as men at running a nation or some other complex operation,

        Organizational skills and agency are two completely different things, assuming you are correct that men have superior organizational skills.

        As an afterthought, this stupid old “debate”, which is destined to unfold in exactly the same way every time eternally, is totally pointless inasmuch as no one group is responsible for the state of affairs: a thought so obvious and blasé that one is ashamed to express it.

        The money quote!

        TUR misogynists: It’s all women’s fault.

        Rosie: No, it isn’t, because men are guilty of X, Y, and Z.

        TUR misogynists: Like we’ve been saying, everyone must take a share of the blame. Why is this hysterical woman saying it’s all men’s fault?

        Look, women didn’t start this gender war in the dissident right. If you’ll agree that there’s plenty of blame to go around, we can leave it at that. Otherwise, expect us to defend ourselves, with counterattacks as necessary and appropriate.

        • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
        , @FvS
      96. jsigur says:

        the fact is White identity is just one aspect of how Jews rule over all of us in our society and most others. Note, I said all of us (most others). When the Jew tells blacks to hate whitey, he is misdirecting the listener to fight a scapegoat. Much of white identity serves the Jew by doing likewise in reverse

        I have stated over and over, whites are being attacked now because they are being rejected as Jewish mercenaries in previous eras such as colonialism. What we have here is literally “reverse colonialism” – same instigators, different protagonist.

        Whites have been tricked into taking pride in the Jewish project of world exploitation and the first way to undo that is to point out who was behind the Protestant Reformation, the colonization of the world and revolutions for supposed human rights

        This violence attitude I see today was being groomed by Jewish intellectuals who when presented with a quote unquote Nazi, they say “Don’t talk to a NAZI just kill them”.

        OF course, how do you know what these “evil” ppl believe without a dialogue but demonization is invoked to assure no dialogue occurs.

        This is why we point that out.

        Hitler states in Mein Kampf how disenchanted normal Germans were with Hitler’s blunt approach but in the end they all came over except the exploiters who then spent ten years demonizing him till we had WW II.

        It’s significant that JFK had a positive view of Hitler but this topic can only be alluded to if you accept some sort of fallacy in the logic of his thinking

        Sadly, it is easier to do nothing but it will lead to a heel holding down your skull forever (1984) and that’s why we speak truth to power. WE are unapproved resistance. Fake resistance is secretly approved in private before parading in public.

        It puts us in a unique position, speaking real truth to power but the alternative is that boot just over the horizon

      97. jsigur says:
        @Rosie

        The obvious fact is non Jewish women are all potential allies and fighting back and forth over Jewish symptoms of feminism against each other is making those that do “Useful idiots” (since it distracts from first cause of the subversion)

        What is clear today is the female liberation obsession has gone insane and I believe intentionally so (by the planners)

        I believe the writer would prefer to accept the downfall of goyim culture and the subsequent rise of Jewish society because it allows her to live her life as she has gotten used to it. This is why seeing the subversion for what it is and where it is taking us is essential and why ppl have to find a way to spread this message.

        Make no mistake, we are all living under Jewish mind control but they want it even more so, essentially full ownership of everything, us asking them permission for all our endeavors

      98. jsigur says:
        @Rosie

        Whites that work essentially for a corporation must hide their identity, another reason why Jews have us in a “catch -22” There is no convenient way to get this thing going as the article writer would prefer

      99. @Rosie

        The time is long past when I allowed myself to get sucked into the psychodrama of those seeing One Horrible Thing everywhere, be it “racism”, “misogyny”, Jews, or whatever. And, knowing that “white nationalism” was dead in the water from the start, it’d be a waste of time debating anything about that. However –

        TUR misogynists: It’s all women’s fault.

        Obviously I didn’t say this. Exaggerating the other side’s position is not an argument. You have, however, taken the bait by exemplifying exactly what I was pointing out. My advice: give up trying to convince people who don’t like you that you’re more in the right for not liking them, or find a more likable personality with which to try.

        The “gender war” – formerly battle of the sexes, right? – precedes white nationalism by about two billion years.

        • Replies: @Belchazar
        , @Rosie
      100. FvS says:
        @Rosie

        The current state of white women stems directly from the weakness of white men.

      101. Belchazar says:
        @Marshall Lentini

        You are correct that the psycho drama is not a good thing to be sucked into, one needs to emotionally remain outside of it. I think woman are more aware of its potential for unhealthy effects on the personality. One can disagree / hate someone’s action whilst trying to be soft hearted to that person overall – that is the goal on “loving thy neighbour”.

        But yet one is required to make a judgement about the facts that point to a struggle in place and its effects are very real, It is not just imagined. It is just to level some resistance to that.

        So everyone needs to stop taking extreme positions, losing oneself to anger and long diatribes on the one hand versus denying the truth completely and pretending to be too saintly to deal with reality on the other.

        Isn’t it the New World Order that teaches us all that the victim (supposed or not) is always right? Well then all people are allowed to state how they feel about this and take action according to wisdom.

        The best thing to say to a white nationalist who is angry is “yes it is true, they are doing this, you are correct, but remember you are not permitted to hate them, Christian religion does not allow it, take action sure, speak up sure, but stay above the waterline. Be someone who the Jews themselves might occasionally want to speak with because you are gracious to all people.”

        Remember that for all of us, God is waiting at the end of our lives to square everything, so these perpetrators harm themselves more than they harm us ultimately and need to be pitied.

      102. @KenH

        The problem with the Alt right White advocates is that they over-logic the subject without presenting a Well thought out Strategic plan to fight the Anti-white Movement.

        For over 20 years, and mostly since 9/11, I’ve been reading and learning about Anti-war, Middle East & world foreign policies, White demographic decline, political systems around the world, 20th century political and war history, the Fiat money system, how the Federal Reserve came about, World Banking system, Cartels, Money laundering, and more. The stuff I’ve learned, I never learned in school or college.

        I’m grateful to all the hard working Arm-chair warriors who have taken the time to write enormous volumes of articles and books. And they mostly provided this for free; out of loyalty, concern, justice, and bravery.

        But, the problem is, nothing has changed. In fact it gets worse. When someone does “activate” it usually ends up where some coward Shoots up a Synagogue (some of the people shot in that one, were in 80s and 90s!! That is the work of a coward), or they get a protest going in Charlottesville, for example, and then start the chants about Jews.

        NONE of that helps white people. It makes it worse for us because they’re ultimately aiding those who will use this stuff for stricter laws, etc.

        Someone was complaining about the ACLU as a Jewish organization that no longer works for free speech, etc for all. They have become hardened towards the Right. Then, why not get your own ACLU like organization going? That is just an example.

        When the “right” does organize, they ignorantly walk thru the streets chanting up slogans that DO sound racist.

        There are many other things mass protests by whites could achieve: like protesting the high Suicide rate of white males. Just start with something like that. Take it to D.C. and have enough people to make it significant. Something like that will most likely instigate a Response from the Anti-white movement people (like adl, etc), which will have subtle (if not overt) racist undertones. At that point it gives the protesters EVEN MORE purpose in their protest: to fight Anti-white racist.

        The beauty of the Covington School Boy incident in D.C. is that they didn’t HAVE TO fight back with the same kind of creepy insults that were directed at them. They stood their ground and began School chants and cheers to drown out the racists.

        Those boys did more for our people than any “white advocate” in the last couple years. They didn’t do Anti-black or anti-Jew chants but stood by and turned the race baiting into their win. Of course, the media tried to portray it as something else, but the truth came out.

        • Agree: anarchyst
      103. Alfred says:
        @Rosie

        They will attempt to kill any cubs that are roughly nine months old or younger, though as in other species, the female will attempt to defend her cubs viciously.

        In other words, WRS (what Rosie said).

        I never said that lions don’t kill the cubs of other lions. Otherwise, why would I have put that piece from Jewpedia?

        There are at least 2 interpretations of what the lionesses did.

        1- The lionesses were protecting their cubs.
        2- The lionesses did not think this new pathetic male specimen was a suitable fuck.

        The article makes it clear that the cubs would be killed at a later date so the females getting on heat has no connection to losing their cubs. It is triggered by a new sexy male.

        You seem to believe number 1.

        I believe number 2 is a more likely explanation. The fact that these wildlife experts were so ecstatic shows that it is a rare event. I think that if a suitable male had shown up, the lionesses would have come into heat and the lion would have been busy doing his thing.

        Consider Alfred’s comments above. He suggests that women don’t love our children, and would be fine with them being destroyed so that we can mate with a fitter male. This is quite literally insane.

        I made it quite clear all along that we must not compare humans to felines. That was what the Mikey Mouse video was all about. Frankly, you are reverting to female emotionalism to bolster your argument. The “kids in cages” argument that attracts feeble minded people.

        I am beginning to agree with someone who earlier said that you should not be allowed to vote. 🙂

        So how many kids have you got my dear lady? None? I am hardly surprised. That ensures that your way of thinking will go the way of the dodo

        • Replies: @Rosie
      104. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:

        There is almost no good that can come from antagonizing women. I stand with all of the women in the comment section.

        Black women are hardcore racialists. Jewish women are too. This is possible.

        Men in our spaces HAVE to get women on our side, for survival. We need to reproduce, and you ain’t gonna do it without getting some women who think like us. Trust me. Do you really want to be an incel?

        It’s time to put the woman-hate on hold, permanently. If you are too stupid to see the overwhelming strategic need for this, you are beyond help and need to get into a psych ward.

        On another note, the accusations against women are half-baked anyways. There are sex differences, but it is not always so clear what motivates women to behave so differently than men. So don’t rush to conclusions. Keep the ideas about female psychology in the compartment of your mind that is dedicated to “ideas that you consider but don’t yet fully believe.” That is what any good scientist would do.

        • Thanks: Rosie
      105. @Just passing through

        Portraying yourself as the victim only works when you are in the minority,

        We don’t know that because it hasn’t really been tried.

        I don’t think it’s necessary to identify victimizers eithers. The anti-white status quo is structural. It arose in response to fascism and later solidified in response to anti-racist needling by communism. It is now hegemonic, domestically and globally.

        The anti-white status quo has its enforcers, and many of the more enthusiastic ones are Jews – who loom large in the minds of neo-nazis – but this is a distinctly secondary effect.

        The denial of racial differences is a central pillar of the anti-white status quo, so telling the the truth about racial differences is merely a defensive strategy aimed at absolving whites of responsibility and guilt for racial disparities. Asserting racial superiority is entirely unnecessary and self-defeating.

      106. Kim says:
        @Richard B

        Great comment. Thankyou for taking the trouble to lightly fisk this self-comforting babble, knowing that you could spend a week fisking and still not get the job done.

        • Replies: @Richard B
      107. SOL says:
        @Anon

        “Men in our spaces HAVE to get women on our side, for survival. We need to reproduce, and you ain’t gonna do it without getting some women who think like us. Trust me. Do you really want to be an incel?”

        Men can get women to follow them through leadership and assertiveness in the relationship, not be engaging them in dialectic in some combox, which should be a male space if we take this sort of intellectual discussion seriously.

        “On another note, the accusations against women are half-baked anyways. There are sex differences, but it is not always so clear what motivates women to behave so differently than men. So don’t rush to conclusions. Keep the ideas about female psychology in the compartment of your mind that is dedicated to “ideas that you consider but don’t yet fully believe.” That is what any good scientist would do.”

        If you are a man maybe it’s not clear to you. To those who have experience, they may actually understand women better.

        • Replies: @Anon
      108. Kim says:
        @Just passing through

        Portraying yourself as the victim only works when you are in the minority,

        Not true on the face of it. A handful of united bullies can easily oppress a great mass of divided people. It is one of the great lessons of history.

      109. Rosie says:
        @Marshall Lentini

        Obviously I didn’t say this. Exaggerating the other side’s position is not an argument.

        Noone ever comes right out and says these things. What they do is find a way to blame women for every single that ails us, along with recommendations for a crackdown come the Revolution.

        When misogynists bray for a backlash against women, they are, at the very least, implying that women bear most if not all the blame. It won’t do to pretend otherwise.

      110. SOL says:

        And for the benefit of everyone else, as I’m not going to bother engaging as a matter of principle:

        The question is whether the possession of “agency” or the ability to choose (attaining the age of reason, i.e. coming into the use of reason for decision-making) is enough to give someone responsibility or to expect accountability. Humans may have the power of reason, but not all of them have the necessary state of character in which reason governs the emotions. Female psychology is such that they are led primarily by emotion, with reason determining the means to the ends perceived through emotion — it is reason at the service of emotion, not reason governing emotion. And of course, there are men who are like that too, but the men who rule don’t give those men responsibility in ruling — they are to obey those who rule or be excluded from the community. Most women rely upon men for emotional stability and mens’ reason, which is the foundation of that stability, to direct them. Left to their own and with no tutelage or governance by their fathers, women will do what they feel is right, and their emotions can be corrupted by other desires.

        • LOL: Rosie
      111. Rosie says:
        @Alfred

        I believe number 2 is a more likely explanation. The fact that these wildlife experts were so ecstatic shows that it is a rare event.

        Lionesses defending their cubs is not a rare event. What is rare is being there to see it and catching it on camera.

        The article makes it clear that the cubs would be killed at a later date so the females getting on heat has no connection to losing their cubs. It is triggered by a new sexy male.

        Imma go ahead and guess that you don’t have any kids. Otherwise, you would probably know that lactation suppresses ovulation, and cessation of lactation (as when, for example, your young are killed) induces ovulation.

        Human females are very well-fed, so many will begin ovulating again even when they are still nursing, but the effect remains, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with “sexy males.”

        https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/breastfeeding

        So how many kids have you got my dear lady?

        I have six White children. Why do you think I’m so concerned about the prospects of a movement that clearly despises me?

        My homeschooled sons respect and love me dearly. Since all boys have moms, and most of those boys love their moms, I would say it’s your cockamamie b.s. that has very limited prospects. The only question is whether White nationalism will go down with it.

      112. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
        @SOL

        Men can get women to follow them through leadership and assertiveness

        Really? What are you going to do, rape them?

        Normal women do not tolerate racist men. Period. They hardly tolerate conservative men, if you get lucky to find a diamond in the rough. This is a really ridiculously tough battle, unless you are willing to force your way with a woman.

        I don’t know how old you are, but I am a millennial, and there just aren’t girls out there for racially-identified white males who hate the diverse, pluralistic, cultureless society we live in. It is not something where you can just “lead” them, as if they are without feelings and agency. They have zero tolerance for this.

        • Troll: SOL
        • Replies: @SOL
        , @Achilles Wannabe
      113. SOL says:
        @Anon

        Funny that when I talk about leadership and assertiveness, you think “rape.”

        You’ve got issues.

        • Thanks: Alfred
        • Replies: @Anon
      114. @Anon

        Men in our spaces HAVE to get women on our side, for survival. We need to reproduce, and you ain’t gonna do it without getting some women who think like us. Trust me. Do you really want to be an incel?

        You’re exactly the kind of chump they love, too.

        If I could beam my thoughts into the minds of all disaffected white western men, I would say just one thing: Come to Russia if you want a wife.

        Western women are for the most part a lost cause. Not all bad, but definitely not wife material. And they created inceldom, you know.

        • Agree: Alfred
        • Replies: @Adûnâi
      115. Tucker says:
        @Liza

        I’m in the Boomer generation, and based on my own experiences with blue pilled Boomers, I would have to agree with Lana Lokteff. Boomers are the absolute worst generation of spineless, apathetic, materialistic, self-centered, narcissistic, racially disloyal, worthless wastes of White skin that this nation has ever produced.

        If I had a dollar for every time I have gotten into an argument with one of these White Boomer idiots as to whether it might be a good idea for White Americans to be concerned about the preservation of their race and concerned about what kind of future their White children and grandchildren will face as a hated and despised minority. I would be a very rich and wealthy man.

        Even a lowly amoeba possesses a healthy instinct for it’s own survival. The same cannot be said for these blue pilled Boomer losers.

        • Replies: @Commentator Mike
      116. Alfred says:
        @Anon

        It’s time to put the woman-hate on hold, permanently. If you are too stupid to see the overwhelming strategic need for this, you are beyond help and need to get into a psych ward

        You make the assumption that the only women available are the middle-aged childless American freaks who claim to represent all women worldwide. My dear sir the world is full of lovely young beautiful smart girls who are not American or who are not infected with this malicious virus.

        I am currently in east Europe. The place is full of lovely intelligent white ladies who seem keen to partner with a man almost old enough to be their grandfather. 🙂

        Just take off your blindfold and go out there into the real world. Away from the drivel and nonsense of your PC bubble.

        If the Rosies of your world are determined to live a lonely and childless existence, that is their choice. But there is no reason for you to be limited by her ideology.

      117. @Tucker

        Tucker,

        Sure the boomers as a generation are at fault for passing on this vile system to the young but then the younger generations are no better and are doing little to change it. I get the impression that most of those on UR and similar sites are in fact retirees, divorcees, fathers and grandfathers. Many of the authors and commenters on sites like these seem to be boomers. So you must be meeting the wrong ones IRL. My impression IRL is the opposite: that it is the younger generations that are brainwashed and parrot the system propaganda more so than the old.

      118. Sam J. says:
        @G. Poulin

        “…women are different from men…”

        Agreed. It’s genetic. In the past millions of years often when one group of Men attacked another the Women and children were carried off but the Men were almost always killed. Their incentive is not the same.

        • Replies: @Rosie
      119. Rosie says:
        @eah

        Yeah but: other women can vote too — and stating facts about female voting patterns is not the same as “attacking” women; I’m not “attacking” them, anyway — but I guess you have to use loaded/pejorative words like that to reinforce your self-assigned victimhood.

        But if we manage to prevent America from becoming ‘majority minority’, and it is proposed that in order to keep it that way we have to repeal the 19th Amendment, I’m keeping my mouth shut.

        Harmless, innocent eah’s not “attacking” women. Perish the thought! He’s just saying it might be a good idea to disenfranchise us. Tiresome semantics, as usual.

        The misogynist cries out as he strikes you.

        Query: If repealing the 19th Amendment is ever on the table, why would separation from non-whites not also be on the table?

      120. Rosie says:
        @Sam J.

        Their incentive is not the same.

        BannedHipster, this is what I mean about the pervasive dehumanization of women in these parts.

        This comment denies that women are moral agents that are capable of bonding with others and horror at the prospect of their destruction. Not only are we not human, we’re not even proper mammals. We’re just self-interested organisms, like reptiles, nothing more.

        I wonder if Ghengis Kahn really said this:

        What is best in life…To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!

        If so, one of the most sadistic thugs in all of human history had a higher opinion of women than your average dissident White man.

        • Replies: @I Have Scinde
        , @Meimou
      121. Rosie says:
        @Alfred

        If the Rosies of your world are determined to live a lonely and childless existence, that is their choice. But there is no reason for you to be limited by her ideology.

        You’re right, Alfred. I have no skin in the game. I just come here for the witty repartee.

        Alfred bowls us over with his prodigious male capacity for logical reasoning:

        Any woman who cares about women’s wellbeing must be childless.
        Rosie cares about women’s wellbeing.

        Therefore, Rosie is childless.

        Formally valid, but …garbage in, garbage out. The first premise is not only false, but patently absurd. After all, half of our children are girls.

      122. Liza says:

        @Tucker

        I’m in the Boomer generation, and based on my own experiences with blue pilled Boomers, I would have to agree with Lana Lokteff. Boomers are the absolute worst generation of spineless, apathetic, materialistic, self-centered, narcissistic, racially disloyal, worthless wastes of White skin that this nation has ever produced.

        That so many boomers have these qualities is irrelevant. You obviously see yourself as outside that useless bunch. I also don’t consider myself as having those traits.

        It is unfortunate that you can’t see all this boomber-bashing is a strategy encouraged by our enemies to divide white people.

        • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
        , @Rosie
      123. @Liza

        I was born in 1974 but the sad thing about was seeing old hippies my parents age collecting cans or working menial jobs because they were scarred by too many acid trips in the sixties and seventies.

        The icons of the sixties-Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, Jane and Peter Fonda, Charles Manson-were all in their thirties and actually belonged to the Silent Generation. Timothy Leary was older than them, even.

        It was the poor young kid who was 20 years old in 1970 who tuned it, turned on and dropped out who ended up the homeless 40 year old hippie in the tie dye collecting cans around campus suffering acid flashbacks. He’d been a promising college kid once and on campus he got into drugs, dropped out, never dropped back in.

        It was the young girl of 18 in 1969 who bought into “Free Love” and had kids a love-in who suffered. It wasn’t Jane Fonda. She was 30 years old in 1967 and understood birth control. She could fly to the million dollar abortion clinic in Paris.

        One day Abbie Hoffman and Jane Fonda became Yuppies. They came from backgrounds with money and made money from the Revolution of the sixties.

        But working middle class whites really suffered. Their only protection from the ravages of poverty had been traditional morals. If Jane Fonda got knocked up at a love in, no problems. An abortion in Europe. When Suzy the foreman’s daughter got knocked up in 1970, her kid was born into poverty.

        I’m only 46 but I’ve seen one drug after another ravage blue-collar whites. First it was crack cocaine. Then meth came along in the nineties. Now it is heroin.

        • Replies: @Rosie
      124. Rosie says:
        @Liza

        It is unfortunate that you can’t see all this boomber-bashing is a strategy encouraged by our enemies to divide white people.

        After you’ve run off:

        The boomers (with all the money and power)
        The women (with half the votes and all the wombs)
        The homosexuals (with big brains and freedom for activism)
        The fat people (globalization’s despondent losers)

        How many White people actually make the cut? Like 1 in 5? Or even less?

      125. Adûnâi says:
        @Marshall Lentini

        “If I could beam my thoughts into the minds of all disaffected white western men, I would say just one thing: Come to Russia if you want a wife.

        1. Russian legislation is the same as in America. The same divorce-rapes, the same property rights.

        2. Russian women all go to the university.

        3. Russian society is as focused on whoring and cock-carousel-hopping.

        4. Considering American women a lost cause is defeatist. When the USD crashes and law breaks down, they can be captured and turned good.

        • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
      126. Rosie says:
        @Jeff Stryker

        I was born in 1974 but the sad thing about was seeing old hippies my parents age collecting cans or working menial jobs because they were scarred by too many acid trips in the sixties and seventies.

        Indeed. and what is especially sad about it is that some of these youth were arguably prescient in their discontent with bourgeois society at the time. There was a hollowness to it that they saw, but didn’t know how to resist in a constructive way.

      127. Adûnâi says:
        @Alfred

        “I am currently in east Europe. The place is full of lovely intelligent white ladies who seem keen to partner with a man almost old enough to be their grandfather.”

        I don’t understand why the existence of expensive whores makes you optimistic. And I don’t get what in the feminist legislation of every Slavic country gives you hope. Russian women are every bit as slutty – they attain education, they work, they own property – and they divorce en masse.

        • Agree: Liza
        • Replies: @Rosie
        , @Marshall Lentini
      128. @Rosie

        My parents were bourgeois and I’m grateful. I grew up with a few kids whose parents were burnouts and they were pretty ragged. Having a name like Moon Beam in 1985 in the fifth grade and having a pot smoking hippie mother was hard on a kid.

      129. Rosie says:
        @Adûnâi

        And I don’t get what in the feminist legislation of every Slavic country gives you hope. Russian women are every bit as slutty – they attain education, they work, they own property – and they divorce en masse.

        I guess this deranged lunatic must be another one of those Unz misogynists totally not threatening to take women’s rights away.

        That said, such women are indeed expensive whores, but to be fair, when you have a bad economy and no welfare state, that sort of thing is to be expected.

        • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
      130. @Rosie

        You’re right. I spoke to a Belarusian engineer in Dubai who solicited me for sex. Mid-thirties, spoke English flawlessly, not the coarse type of woman you associate with prostitution in America like some overweight black woman downtown high on crack.

        The Belarussian engineer was honest. I asked what she did as she spoke English well and was in her thirties and Dubai has no junkies and she told me she was a engineer.

        I asked why she was selling her body in Dubai and she explained that engineers made little money in Belarus and she was a woman with a not insubstantial sex drive anyhow.

        Not that I was her customer. But I was so shocked I asked why she was doing what she was doing.

        She told me she lied to her coworkers about a job in Dubai.

        • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
        , @Rosie
      131. @Jeff Stryker

        Stop being a twat. Typically the sluttiest Russian girls go to the Gulf States. Everyone here knows this.

      132. @Adûnâi

        They divorce en masse because Russian men are usually horrible husbands.

      133. Rosie says:
        @Jeff Stryker

        I asked why she was selling her body in Dubai and she explained that engineers made little money in Belarus and she was a woman with a not insubstantial sex drive anyhow.

        Not that I was her customer. But I was so shocked I asked why she was doing what she was doing.

        Yep. Most women have a strong internal aversion to prostitution. More money is left on the table by women choosing not to cash in on this valuable asset than just about any other transactional activity so far as I can tell. We associate it with the most abject despair, as in drug addiction or starvation.

        But when you have a breakdown in religion, and a thoroughgoing atheism, like you have in post-communist Eastern Europe, all sense of sanctity is lost, even about one’s own body and soul.

        If I’m not mistaken, the single most secular country in Europe is Czechia.

        https://www.radio.cz/en/section/ice_special/slovakias-post-communist-porn-industry

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-czech-republic-gay-porn-pays-the-bills/

        From the same source: Czechs are at the bottom, along with Estonia, for daily prayer at 9%. They’re also at the bottom for belief in any holy book as the Word of God at 21%.

        The thing about communism is that it is it’s own kind of religion, complete with a fall into corruption and the promise of paradise at the end of history. Now that it’s failed, and God is still dead, there’s just nothing.

        • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
      134. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
        @SOL

        I do not think “rape” just because of the words “leadership and assertiveness.” Come on, read my comment.

        I am explaining the particular situation that white-positive men find ourselves in, which is one where women are horribly against us, for moral reasons. There is no possibility to lead someone who hates and disrespects you. All leaders need legitimacy, and being hated and distrusted de-legitimizes you. Being “assertive” to such a person who hates and opposes you can only be interpreted as aggression.

        If I was anti-white and pro-diversity, a woman would accept my attempts to assert myself in the world and in a relationship. She would support me if I wanted to take leadership, and be the next Justin Trudeau. Women love white male leaders who are like Bernie, Macron, Trudeau, Corbyn, etc. But I cannot do that, as I am.

        You guys really need a reality check. You need to understand that women are not automatons, just waiting to be dominated by a man, any man, no matter how bad, just because they have a psychological need to be dominated. This is a ridiculous myth.

        • Replies: @Rosie
        , @SOL
      135. @Alfred

        I am currently in east Europe. The place is full of lovely intelligent white ladies who seem keen to partner with a man almost old enough to be their grandfather.

        They’re just better looking, slimmer and shapelier, and have better personalities. But most, and certainly the best, prefer guys of their own generation and culture and from their own social circles. You can find hookers and gold-diggers everywhere, especially now with internet dating, so no need to travel that far as it seems that’s what you’re looking for at your age. Any self-respecting girl anywhere, east or west, rich or poor, will feel ashamed to be going out or partnering up with a man who could be her grandfather, unless some Muslim girls who have no choice and are sold (for a big dowry) in arranged marriages, and anyway those won’t be seen behind their veils and burqas to be exposed to the scrutiny of their peers in public. I suppose there could be some kinky young girls who have a genuine fetish for very old men but I doubt they’re any more widespread in Eastern Europe than anywhere else. Good on you if you’ve truly come across such. But if you’re spending or paying for your women, I wouldn’t trust what they tell you, even that they may be that most unlikely type.

        • Agree: Rosie
      136. @Anon

        That is a very rational attitude Anon. You will not be welcome in the boys’ club of the dissident right

      137. @Anon

        I am a boomer, I know there are age related social differences among women but there really aren’t any significant qualitatively different generational attitudes toward patriarchy between the female generations. Some boomer and Gen x women may be a little more tolerant or maybe just bemused by reactionary guys but nobody is going back to embracing male dominance no matter how old or young the women are. The guys you are arguing with are promoting a dead end reactionary form of white identity. If the white identity movement is to preserve itself, it needs both women like Rosie and men like us.
        And I will add that The Tribe LOVES that so so many white dissident males cannot see this

      138. @Rosie

        Very well said. The media later represented the 60’s as just sex, drugs and rock and roll because these thing were convenient for capitalism to sell but there was more going on.

      139. Rosie says:
        @Anon

        I am explaining the particular situation that white-positive men find ourselves in, which is one where women are horribly against us, for moral reasons.

        Curiously, I probably would have been one of those women in my early 20s.

        It wasn’t that I was an unthinking drone, either. By that point in my life, I had given a great deal of thought to all sorts of things: the existence of God, free will, the nature of a just society, how we know things, and on and on.

        But I had never really thought much about race one way or the other. I just had this vague idea that “racists” were paranoid, aggressive people out to harm minorities for no particular reason.

        It’s difficult to imagine now, but I think even Jared Taylor has said that he really didn’t start thinking much outside the box about race until he was in his thirties, or was it even later?

      140. @Adûnâi

        Considering American women a lost cause is defeatist. When the USD crashes and law breaks down, they can be captured and turned good.

        Yea good luck with that. No one ever came to grief white knighting for American women!

      141. @Rosie

        But when you have a breakdown in religion, and a thoroughgoing atheism, like you have in post-communist Eastern Europe, all sense of sanctity is lost, even about one’s own body and soul.

        Said the sententious old harridan who’s never been over here. A mere graph suffices as proof in this woman’s mind. Russians are more atheistic — therefore the women are whores.

        And she’s the feminist railing at us about being fair to women! Priceless.

        • Replies: @Rosie
      142. Richard B says:
        @Kim

        Great comment.

        Thanks.

      143. Rosie says:
        @Marshall Lentini

        A mere graph suffices as proof in this woman’s mind. Russians are more atheistic — therefore the women are whores

        I don’t use gross generalizations like that.

        The vast majority of Czech women aren’t whores, I’m sure, but that’s not the question. The question is why degeneracy is so rife there. Here are the facts:

        In this context, the Czech territory holds the lion’s share. Despite possessing slightly over 10.5 million inhabitants (about 0.14% of the world population), the Czech Republic is the third nation in the world in the number of porn stars behind only the United States and Russia. In fact, 12.88% of the world total of adult film stars comes from Bohemia and Moravia. According to one estimate, there are 70.7 porn actors and actresses for every million inhabitants.

        http://www.progetto.cz/xxx-praga-benvenuti-nella-capitale-del-porno/?lang=en

        In other words, the only countries that exceed Czechia in number of porn stars are many times their size in population.

        I thought men were all about putting the facts before their feelings?

      144. You’re doing two things here.

        1- Deflecting: I’ve only referred to Russian women. Czechs are actually very different both culturally and genetically, not that you’d care to look into it. Suffice it to say that while it’s not terribly difficult to get laid in Russia, it’s much easier to get a wife; while Czechia is a player’s paradise.

        2- Conflation: You’re assuming total identity across Eastern Europe, which is so stupid and uninformed I’m ashamed to have to refute it. Czechs are well-known for infidelity and a more bohemian attitude toward sex; Bohemia being in Czechia, of course.

        As for porn, I’ll just remind you that it’s an Anglo invention, the bulk comes out of America, and I’m pretty sure America invented piss porn.

        In any case, I’ve got my own affairs to attend to, and you’re all a waste of time with your pettycarping, obfuscation, and aimless slavophobia, or whatever should call it. Cheers.

        • Replies: @Rosie
        , @Jeff Stryker
      145. Rosie says:
        @Marshall Lentini

        Deflecting: I’ve only referred to Russian women.

        And I said nothing about Russian women, so what are we arguing about?

        Conflation: You’re assuming total identity across Eastern Europe

        No, I’m not. I singled Czechia out in particular as being thoroughly godless, though I suspect the rest of us are but a generation behind.

        aimless slavophobia

        I don’t know what to say about this. I assure you I’m not slavophobic. Like most Americans, I am of mixed European ancestry, including slavic. I’m simply pointing out that secularism doesn’t seem to have been particularly good for them.

        • Replies: @Rosie
      146. @Marshall Lentini

        As a Brit who lives in Eastern Europe, you obviously moved there for the same reason Americans like myself move to Southeast Asia. You were tired of your country’s problems and culture.

        I can relate to you. I don’t get as hot under the collar about the sex industry, however. And if you want to be specific, extreme forms of pornography emerged from Denmark in the late sixties.

        As an expat Brit, you’re clearly married to an Eastern European woman and you’re defenses are rising. I can relate to that too.

        For my money, the worst sexual degradation in the world occurs in US and UK drug zones-especially among women who are using crack cocaine and heroin. Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia simply don’t have the drug problem to create hordes of female addicts willing to do anything for their next fix which in turn is why UK and US have so many serial killers like Steve Wright or Gary Ridgeway who victimize drug-ravaged hookers.

        We can go on and on here about how it is terrible that somewhere in Czech behind closed door Rocco the Destroyer is making his dirty movies, but this is nothing compared to the horror of aggressive black 300 pound crack whores on US streets.

      147. Rosie says:
        @Rosie

        After I posted this, it occurred to me that you may think I look down on Slavic women because of my comment above to the effect that certain Eastern European women are “expensive whores.”

        To clarify, I didn’t mean they’re all whores. I just meant that Russian women who sell themselves off to rich old foreigners three times their age are whores.

        I mean, I know it’s harsh, but that’s the way I see it. Let’s be honest, they’re not getting swept off their feet by these old coots. If they’re not marrying f0r romance, they’re gold-digging, prostitution by another name.

        Moreover, as I said, I understand that some of these countries are struggling, and there are extenuating circumstances. I suspect many of these girls are just doing what they feel they have to do. Aging parents or younger siblings who may have medical problems may need their support, and they’re providing as best as they can.

        But these extenuating circumstances do not change the nature of the act. It is still prostitution all the same. One of the reasons that women support the welfare state is, I think, because we have a fear of being reduced to prostitution. And it’s true that prostitution, especially child sex trafficking, is especially rampant where there is no welfare state.

      148. SOL says:
        @Anon

        “You guys really need a reality check. You need to understand that women are not automatons, just waiting to be dominated by a man, any man, no matter how bad, just because they have a psychological need to be dominated. This is a ridiculous myth.”

        Maybe you need a reality check about your SMV, instead of assuming that based assertive white males who are sexually attractive to woman cannot lead them accordingly. Improve your SMV instead of spending your time online contradicting others. For that matter, use your time to improve yourself as a man in general, and maybe you will find that you don’t have enough male friends who are high quality men.

      149. Anon[894] • Disclaimer says:

        Charles Lindbergh saw World War II through the lens of someone who saw what World War I had done to Europe. His warnings and caution were sensible. He happened to be wrong, but there were a heck of a lot of people who experienced World War I and who agreed with him for the same reasons. This is why his reputation didn’t suffer much from his public stance over the next few decades. It has only been recently that a certain lobby, which possesses an historical hindsight that was not granted to Lindbergh, has tried to take him down.

      150. @Rosie

        Epstein was able to buy young women both in US and Eastern Europe so it’s not very different. And few are that desperate that they really need some rich old fart to support their family as used to be the case in Southeast Asia, but that sort of thing is on the decline even there. It’s just pure greed, materialism, and easy money to blow on whatever, such as expensive consumer goods, drugs, entertainment.

        I agree with much of what you write on this thread: women should have equal legal rights with men, they shouldn’t be discriminated against in most jobs that they are physically capable of doing, both men and women are to blame for the situation between the sexes, etc. But I also sympathise with some of these feminist-haters, MGTOW types. I can remember when a long time ago feminists marched under slogans such as “reclaim the streets”, “castrate all men”, etc. in their campaign against sexual harassment, but now that muslim rape gangs are in charge of those streets and grooming underage girls, they’re marching under slogans to welcome even more of such muslims into their countries. It does make one think about how these feminists cleared white men off the streets so muslim gangs can now take over and behave far worse, and present a far greater threat to women’s safety and security, than white men ever did. But OK, I guess there’s a lot of men too along with them helping this immigrant invasion.

        • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
        , @Rosie
      151. @Rosie

        In countries with no welfare state prostitution is a veritable institution. Visit the Philippines.

        • Agree: Rosie
      152. @Commentator Mike

        For a poor Filipino woman who is attractive, prostitution is a logical choice. The other logical choice is to marry a foreigner. Many do both and many men marry girls they meet in bars.

        In the case of Muslims in England, from my point of view this is a result of the decline of the British working class. Most of the girls are from poor or single parent households. Dad is long gone and Mum is a boozy woman with an active social life.

        Also, the ugly class system raises its head in England. Muslims are grooming upper middle class girls in nice neighborhoods. They are preying on the poorer Brits who did not sell their house in time and are stuck in a bad neighborhood. The upper class in UK simply sneers at the stupidity of the lower class (Old tradition). Didn’t sell their property in time and found themselves in a declining neighborhood. Single parent household. Girls who are tramps by the age of 12.

      153. Rosie says:
        @Commentator Mike

        It’s just pure greed, materialism, and easy money to blow on whatever, such as expensive consumer goods, drugs, entertainment.

        I’ll withhold judgement on that, simply because I don’t have enough knowledge to say one way or the other, and without knowing these women’s circumstances, I’m not going to judge them.

        I will say this, though. There is probably at least some of that going on, because a certain percentage of women are psychopaths. The percentage is lower than among men, but psychopathic women do exist, and they seem to lack feelings of shame or remorse about uncommitted sex. “Perhaps psychopathic women view sex as a tool for manipulating others and achieving what they want, …” Psychopathic prostitutes are liable to see themselves as exploiter rather than exploited in commercial sex transactions.

        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/201508/why-male-and-female-psychopaths-get-more-sex

        I can remember when a long time ago feminists marched under slogans such as “reclaim the streets”, “castrate all men”, etc. in their campaign against sexual harassment, but now that muslim rape gangs are in charge of those streets and grooming underage girls, they’re marching under slogans to welcome even more of such muslims into their countries.

        IMO, the women’s movement has been Gelbaumed, and no longer represents women, just as the Democrats and labor parties abroad no longer represent the working classes, and the Republicans don’t represent the White men who vote for them. The donor class rules.

        https://cis.org/Sussis/Brief-Chronology-Sierra-Clubs-Retreat-ImmigrationPopulation-Connection-Updated

        Of course, venting spleens at women about all this isn’t going to help matters. Division within the White population is just the cherry on top for our enemies.

        women should have equal legal rights with men, they shouldn’t be discriminated against in most jobs that they are physically capable of doing,

        And FWIW, I really do believe that most women will choose to stay home with their kids if their husbands earn enough money, but the plutocrats won’t have it.

        The truth of the matter is that married life is hard. When there are small children in the home, it’s a constant battle against chaos. People get very tired and cranky. Tempers flare. Spouses have got to be able to set their egos aside, let bygones be bygones, and focus on the task at hand: providing a proper home and upbringing for the children.

        Is this something that people can do when they have no spiritual life? No sense of a higher purpose or meaning in life? I don’t know.

      154. @anon

        Not one to be in complete agreement with Mr. Heartiste, as from my limited reading of him, he seems to me to be an internally conflicted individual. But I will allow that his extensive interpersonal relationships have created a useful (if not precisely correct) intuitive worldview. I think this letter would best be considered under, to modify his terms, “un-gamed wife, unhappy life.” As for the so-called “shit test,” it may be construed from the writing that the author is demanding to be told “shut up and put up” by the “SO.”

        In the absolutely most charitable sense, I believe the author would be comparable to Thomas More’s wife in “A Man For All Seasons.” But I believe this to be too chritable. Note the author’s claims to the effect of being the only thing keeping the “SO” from going off the deep end, as if the author is the last bastion between “SO” and insanity. This betrays a desire to undermine “SO” rather than apprehension about supporting or simply living with consequences of the actions of “SO.”

        • Replies: @Rosie
      155. anarchyst says:
        @Anon

        Actually Lindbergh was right. He KNEW who the power brokers were and attempted to expose them.

      156. @Rosie

        Just some thoughts from ancient history, to no particular point or side in an argument:

        [MORE]

        Herodotus:
        “…those of them who set forth to their settlements from the City Hall of Athens and who esteem themselves the most noble by descent of the Ionians, these, I say, brought no women with them to their settlement, but took Carian women, whose parents they slew: and on account of this slaughter these women laid down for themselves a rule, imposing oaths on one another, and handed it on to their daughters, that they should never eat with their husbands, nor should a wife call her own husband by name, for this reason, because the Ionians had slain their fathers and husbands and children and then having done this had them to wife. This happened at Miletos.”

        Plutarch:
        “When the treaty of peace was arranged between the Romans and the Sabines, a special provision was made about the women, that they were to do no work for the men except wool-spinning. And thus the custom remained for the friends of those who were married afterwards to call upon Talasius in jest, meaning to testify that the bride was to do no other work than spinning. To the present day the custom remains in force that the bride must not step over the threshold into her house, but be lifted over it and carried in, because the Sabine maidens were carried in forcibly, and did not walk in….
        While they were preparing to fight as though the battle was only now just begun, they were restrained by a strange spectacle, beyond the power of words to express. The daughters of the Sabines who had been carried off were seen rushing from all quarters, with loud shrieks and wailings, through the ranks and among the dead bodies, as though possessed by some god. Some of them carried infant children in their arms, and others wore their hair loose and dishevelled. All of them kept addressing the Romans and the Sabines alternately by the most endearing names. The hearts of both armies were melted, and they fell back so as to leave a space for the women between them. A murmur of sorrow ran through all the ranks, and a strong feeling of pity was excited by the sight of the women, and by their words, which began with arguments and upbraidings, but ended in entreaties and tears. ‘What wrong have we done to you,’ said they, ‘that we should have suffered and should even now suffer such cruel treatment at your hands? We were violently and wrongfully torn away from our friends, and after we had been carried off we were neglected by our brothers, fathers, and relatives for so long a time, that now, bound by the closest of ties to our enemies, we tremble for our ravishers and wrongers when they fight, and weep when they fall. Ye would not come and tear us from our ravishers while we were yet maidens, but now ye would separate wives from their husbands, and mothers from their children, a worse piece of service to us than your former neglect. Even if it was not about us that you began to fight, you ought to cease now that you have become fathers-in-law, and grandfathers, and relatives one of another. But if the war is about us, then carry us off with your sons-in-law and our children, and give us our fathers and relatives, but do not take our husbands and children from us. We beseech you not to allow us to be carried off captive a second time.’”

        As for the quote, I believe that was the modified version from “Conan the Barbarian.”

        • Replies: @Rosie
      157. Rosie says:
        @I Have Scinde

        As for the quote, I believe that was the modified version from “Conan the Barbarian.”

        It was the other way around.

        We were violently and wrongfully torn away from our friends, and after we had been carried off we were neglected by our brothers, fathers, and relatives for so long a time, that now, bound by the closest of ties to our enemies, we tremble for our ravishers and wrongers when they fight, and weep when they fall.

        It was water under the bridge by that point.

        This is common in human trafficking even today. If you can poach a girl and get her pregnant ASAP, she won’t go anywhere even if someone comes to rescue her, because now she has a child, and what’s done can’t be undone.

        If I’m not mistaken, the Sabine women made it a point to reassure the men that they were well-treated by the Romans.

      158. Rosie says:
        @I Have Scinde

        “un-gamed wife, unhappy life.”

        I hadn’t heard that, but I’m not surprised.

        The idea behind almost all manosphere belly-aching is that the man is entitled to always and everywhere have the upper hand (power of the least interest) in the relationship, and can’t and won’t be happy with any sort of mutually respectful, sincere relationship based on trust and openness. It’s despicable, really.

      159. @Anon

        Cleverly put but false. The certain lobby that supposedly “possesses historical hindsight” is the latest version of the same lobby that helped to engineer the unnecessary American entry into WW2 It possesses Jewish Ideology, not historical hindsight. Now this lobby is going to be empathetic vs Lindbergh because he didn’t possess historical hindsight? What kind of tactic is this ? Talmudic?

      160. @KenH

        And the “end game” is to wake enough white people up so that they will hopefully start acting in their own self interests and forestall mass murder and genocide that is being planned for the white people of the West.

        The genocide is not being planned. It is in progress.

      161. @Just passing through

        Portraying yourself as the victim only works when you are in the minority, this is why White South Africans can get media coverage on Tucker Carlson.

        It worked just fine for the South African black majority.

      162. @Just passing through

        Is it possible that many Whites are on the same ideological boat as Jews? And that the likes of Kevin MacDonald are not advocating for White Nationalism, but rather ‘Low to middle IQ White nationalism for low to middle IQ White people who are being screwed over by Jews and high IQ White people’

        No, those things are not possible.

      163. Alden says:
        @Achilles Wannabe

        White men White Nationalists are useless. They completely ignore the affirmative action discrimination that is destroying White men.

        They are anti abortion even though it is the only thing that keeps the population of orcs and Hispanics down. It’s not pro White to advocate for more enemies entitled to affirmative action jobs and licensed by the elite to rob and murder us.

        All they care about is criticizing vulgar popular culture fat women with tattoos and their sexual problems.

        Despite claiming to be White Nationalists they worship black athletes.

        And they hate all White women, far more than they hate black criminals or black activists against Whites. They have 0/2 children but constantly urge White women to have 5 or 6 children.

        With all the men’s energy focused on denouncing tattoos fat dyed hair feminazid. and calling White women mud sharks and whores , no wonder the White race is well in its way to extermination in this country.

        Yes, women are different from men. So what. How does it help the most discriminated against demographic in the country to endless discuss how much they hate their own White women?

        Much of the White women hatred expressed on UNZ is not political at all. It’s just group therapy for men with sexual emotional and mental health problems.

        And once more I will tell you ignoramuses what White men did to the White race in America

        1 1953 All White male Supreme Court integrates the public schools.

        2. 1955 to 2000 White male judges order school busing.

        3 1955 to 1960 White male President Eisenhower sends armed troops and tanks to force White children to go to public schools with orcs who bully beat abuse and rob them.

        4 Spring 1961 White male President Kennedy orders all federal agencies to take action to recruit and hire blacks even if their qualifications are below par. Massive recruitment of blacks for federal jobs begins. His White male brother, Robert Kennedy begins harassing private sector labor unions to train and license blacks even if they can’t read or measure.

        5 1964 Civil rights for all but Whites act lobbied for passed and signed by White male president Vice President senate and congress.

        6.1965 unlimited immigration for affirmative action entitled non Whites lobbied for passed and signed by White male president Vice President senators and congress men.

        7 1967 Philadelphia Plan White males President Johnson and VP Hubert Humphrey order labor unions to train and license blacks no matter how unqualified and unable to learn to read. White male US Senator Robert Kennedy heavily involved,

        8 1968, the culmination of all this anti White activity the affirmative action discrimination against Whites act was lobbied for passed and signed by White male president Vice President senators and congress men

        9 1970 White male President Richard Nixon creates the affirmative action entitled Hispanic race by executive order.

        10 1970s White male judges continue to bus criminal orcs to schools to abuse bully beat and rob White children,

        11. 1973 Griggs Vs Duke Power all White male Supreme Court creates a new affirmative action policy. The most unqualified black SHALL be hired instead of a highly qualified White.

        12 1979 All White male Supreme Supreme Court re affirms Griggs findings and orders, totally unqualified blacks SHALL be hired instead of the most qualified Whites.

        During all this there were only about 5-10 congress women at any time. 2 were black. The rest were White I don’t know how the White ones voted.

        So that’s it just 20 years, from Brown to Griggs White men filed the lawsuits, ruled on the law suits made the executive orders and passed and enforced the laws intended to eradicate Whites

        White men, not White women did this. And you men of UNZ are so totally ignorant of 20th century American history you blame White women. Many of you were teens and young adults when it all happened. Yet in your misogynist unreasonable hatred you blame White women.

        Kevin MacDonald what’s wrong with you? Instead of exposing the Jewish war against the goyim you’re running a therapy group for men with sexual, emotional and mental problems.

        5 1965 Unlimited non White entitled to affirmative action preferences lobbied for, passed and signed by White male president

        • Replies: @anarchyst
      164. anarchyst says:
        @Alden

        Yes,

        I agree with you that it was white males who perpetrated and enforced the so-called “civil-rights (for some)” and “uncontrolled non-white immigration” fiascos on us.

        However, I must take exception to blaming more recent generations for these destructive decisions.

        For one, us boomers were too young to be able to effect the political process of the day…

        It was those of “the greatest generation” who were (and still are) responsible for our present situation.

        Those of us white “boomers” who were forced to live under these edicts suffered more than most. From being forced to accept integration at gunpoint, losing the right of “freedom of association”, to being denied rightful employment due to “affirmative action” policies, and the present-day government and media policy of whites being blamed for all of the world’s ills, us white “boomers” have done enough.

        To paraphrase Billy Joel: “We didn’t start the fire”…

        • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
      165. @anarchyst

        We boomers didn’t start the fire but we didn’t do much to try to put it out. After all, a great many of us took action against the Vietnam war but none did anything about reverse discrimination. Looking back now I want to say “Why didn’t we get organized as white guys against affirmative action on the grounds that it violated our civil rights? Why didn’t we take it to the streets and raise hell? Why didn’t we rub the Left’s nose in its outrageously unprincipled behavior?” I remember criticising affirmative action when it started and a few guys would mutter agreement but nobody really did anything including me. Everyone just quietly went along and maybe eventually voted for Reagan who promised to do something but like a good Cuk didn’t. So why didn’t we do something by ourselves for ourselves and for white male posterity? I think we punked out to the emerging multicultural, racist, genderist left that didn’t give a dam about civil rights.

        • Replies: @anarchyst
      166. anarchyst says:
        @Achilles Wannabe

        Good points!

        The conservative “right” has always had a problem “getting dirty in the trenches” and that is their downfall. DemocRATS have no problem “fighting dirty” and pushing for their causes. Republicans are too “milquetoast” and follow “rules of engagement” to their detriment.

        I have been saying this for decades.

        Republican office holders do not have the “courage of their convictions” rather preferring to “go along to get along”…

        THAT is their major weakness. You see, the “perks of political office” are the same, whether one holds the deciding “reins of power” or one is in the minority.

        Those of us who DID protest against the so-called “civil-rights (for some)” laws were in a small minority because even the Republican party feared being called “racist” and worse. I, for one have ALWAYS spoken out against these perversions of justice and civil society, being called “racist” (I don’t care) and worse.

        Regards,

        • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
      167. @anarchyst

        Good for you. Actually I suspect one reason why so many males went quietly along where I was – the University – was that affirmative action worked for young women and critics of it were less likely to get laid. Such is the stuff of which history is made

      168. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:

        I wonder if white women’s lack of concern about the cultural status quo is due to the fact that they are still the most sexually attractive to men of all races (even though often times men of other races will stay away from white women by choice). Almost all of the top 100 female pornstars are white, I think it is over 90%.

        White females might just be generally be riding high on their own high status, like white gentiles in Latin American countries. Perhaps also they are less angsty than white males because they do not worry about being outcompeted on the so-called “sexual marketplace,” as do white males, who are completely outclassed in the social sphere by black males (which probably has to do with white guilt, as it feels terrible to assert yourself as a white male in any interaction with a black person, I remember reading once that whites are scared to express disagreement with black people).

        • Replies: @Rosie
      169. Rosie says:
        @Anon

        I wonder if white women’s lack of concern about the cultural status quo is due to the fact that they are still the most sexually attractive to men of all races (even though often times men of other races will stay away from white women by choice). Almost all of the top 100 female pornstars are white, I think it is over 90%.

        What makes you think we’re not concerned?

        https://qz.com/1155156/alabama-senate-race-result-and-poll-majority-of-white-women-backed-defeated-republican-candidate-roy-moore/

      170. Meimou says:
        @Rosie

        BannedHipster, this is what I mean about the pervasive dehumanization of women in these parts.

        You are to dam sensitive. Pointing out differences between men and women is not dehumanization.

        You are a feminist posing as a WI.

        • Replies: @Rosie
      171. Rosie says:
        @Meimou

        Pointing out differences between men and women is not dehumanization.

        OK. How about this?

        Men shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they think with the little head between their legs rather than the large one that sits atop their shoulders.

        Dehumanization?

        Why, I’m just pointing out a difference between men and women! Don’t be so “dam sensitive”!

        You are a feminist posing as a WI.

        It’s like this. I refuse to hate myself for being White and take POC abuse. I also refuse to hate myself for being a woman and take abuse from men.

      172. Anonymous[567] • Disclaimer says:
        @anon

        What about the aggressively White Nationalist woman who regularly posts here that all you men hate and detest?

        • Replies: @James Forrestal
      173. @Anonymous

        1. Rule 30

        2. Your pathetic inability to address the substance of MacDonald’s arguments in duly noted — sad!

      Current Commenter
      says:

      Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


       Remember My InformationWhy?
       Email Replies to my Comment
      Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
      Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin MacDonald Comments via RSS