Post: #226

Definitely a thot. Didn’t realise she had a set of tits like that though

Post: #227

The dressing up/cosplay is no big reveal, there's been pics out there of Lauren dressed up as Samus Aran out there for a while now.

Post: #228

smokin.

Post: #229

I don't know why anyone would be surprised about Lauren being an ex-cosplay, attention-whoring thot: she casually and openly talked about getting blackout drunk and collapsing on the street as a teen in a video about female responsibility, and the dangers of such behaviour .

You know how a lot of hardcore sluts suddenly find Jesus when they hit 30? I think given the increasingly secular state of the West, a lot of them are figuring out they need to cast a wider net, and 'finding' nationalism towards the end of the carousel years. And clearly, it works.

Personally, I don't have anything against Lauren; she's at least endured some personal risk for her (post-college) attention supply, and her work probably does a lot more good than harm... but it is funny to see all these thirsty dudes dazzled by hearing recycled talking points coming from a slim, pale blonde girl. Somehow the baritone vocal fry and other red flags are brushed aside and they build her up as their perfect, chaste, aryan princess.

I look immensely forward to the fireworks when Lauren gives birth to Atlanta Man's bastard child and shatters this image.

EDIT: judging by the photos on the last page, you might be getting kaotic's leftovers AM

Post: #230

So are you saying that modern women are having their Come To Richard Spencer Moment?

Post: #231

^^^If you cum in a woman's mouth she does not get pregnant. I cum in women's mouths (and occasionally their anus.).

Post: #232

(12-03-2017 06:03 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  ^^^If you cum in a woman's mouth she does not get pregnant. I cum in women's mouths (and occasionally their anus.).

You are Alt-vagina.

Aloha!

Post: #233

(12-03-2017 05:54 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  So are you saying that modern women are having their Come To Richard Spencer Moment?

Only the ones who've been seriously burned by black guys in the past in addition to being too stupid to do the cost/benefit analysis of openly supporting fashy LARPers.

I think in most cases, these gals can sense that the market for feminist/lefty activism is already saturated, and having your prime pick of prius drivers and vegan cyclists who you could probably overpower isn't that much of a bonus. Right wing activism of the sort that's edgy enough to arouse left-wing ire, but the majority of the population nominally agrees with is the kind of sweet spot that delivers the most benefits to an intelligent young girl:

Unlimited attention,

The opportunity to be a martyr when the inevitable swamp-beasts show up to events you attend to scream at you or throw bottles of their own excrement at you (this might not seem like a selling point...);

An army of white-knights (who are notably more capable of defending you than the soyboy counterparts); and,

Access to higher quality men.

Given the potential lifelong negative consequences though... weighing up the pros and cons of going into dissident right-wing activism/journalism vs. pursuing being a professional camwhore must have been the thot equivalent of tensor calculus.

Post: #234

(12-03-2017 11:29 AM)AManLikePutin Wrote:  

Dat body language. Damn.

She's leaning into and grabbing him from an uncomfortable position while he tries to shove her away.

No wonder she turned psycho stalker when she got dumped.

Post: #235

Holy shit, the wormhole on "a purposeful wife" is ugly.

https://altrightalready.wordpress.com/20...ssistance/

https://altrightalready.wordpress.com/20...-her-blog/

Post: #236

(12-03-2017 06:19 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:29 AM)AManLikePutin Wrote:  

He looks like a male version of Bruno Mars.

Post: #237

I read both of the links provided by DJ_Matt, as well as the tweets against Tara McCarthy by Roosh, and I don't get it.

I would get it if McCarthy/Ayla were both "Coke" and Roosh were "Pepsi", because then two entities competing with each other for the same market would be...well...competing with each other for the same market.

But McCarthy/Ayla and Roosh are competing for utterly opposite markets, with McCarthy/Ayla competing for "females, aged 13 through 30“ and Roosh competing for " males, ages 13 through 50".

So what's the point, Roosh?

Hypothetical good answers:

(1) I've secretly been married for three years, and my wife is better spoken, more pure, and more knowledgeable than all of these thots, combined. She's launching her own anti-globalist podcasts in about a month, and I'm laying waste to her competition.

(2) While everyone would think that my words and exploits make it impossible for me to teach "females, aged 13 through 30" about sex and life, my market research suggests that I'm much more appealing to this market than those thots, so what I'm doing is really competing for the same market.

Other than that, I can't think of any.

You could go with "I'm exposing the dark underbelly of these thots!", but (1) I don't think you are, and (2) If you don't have a replacement for Ayla/McCarthy, then you're leaving their target markets to be schooled by feminists and the MSM, which is a loss for us and them.

-----

As far as the links provided by DJ_Matt, (1) they're from behaviors conducted nine years ago, and (2) the author of both blog posts doesn't have a formal biography. Clicking on his "author link" provides nothing about his age, birthplace, race, or whatever. He's just an anonymous person claiming to be Alt-right.

Trustworthy? How would I know?

Oh, and his first argument is that Ayla is "despicable" for having once been on foodstamps, only to criticize "those who receive foodstamps". Except she didn't criticize "those who receive foodstamps" - (an example of which would be, "If you're on foodstamps, you're a low-IQ monkey!") - she criticized the foodstamps program as being inefficient and contributing to obesity.

That argument is stupid. So it makes me not trust him.

-----

My point, for those who may get lost in the details, is that Roosh's message targets Young MEN, while McCarthy's/Ayla's message targets young WOMEN. So I don't get the point of targeting them.

You can target feminists all you want, because they target men and they are our enemies. But Ayla/McCarthy aren't our enemies.

Post: #238

As this board has matured so will the tastes of the alt-right. If in ten years we're not reduced to eating stray dogs in the ruins of our once great civilisation then alt-right celebrities will be broaching the topics of marriage and childbirth with increasing frequency.

Currently, though, it's pretty much like Forney describes. High-school drama bullshit.

There may be nothing more powerful than an idea who's time has come, but it still has to bake for a generation or so. What remains to be seen is whether our nations have that much juice left in the tank.

Post: #239

These trad thots are only good for watching with the sound on mute.

Post: #240

Yeah I think the entire concept of politically active and vocal women is utterly incompatible with any real commitment to the principles of the alt-right. This is for two sorts of reasons. First, the normalization of women's participation in the political sphere is a thoroughly modern and recent phenomenon, born from the Progressive social lunacy that is, in all of its beliefs and practices, so fundamentally in tension with the beliefs of the alt-right. A quick and easy way to test whether something is inimical to alt-right beliefs: is it a social phenomenon born within the last century, unprecedented and unthinkable before the 20th century? Then it's no damn good. We can't play by the rules the liberal mainstream tries so desperately to force on the population as natural and intuitive.

Second: I would be shocked if there are many modern, Western women who can accept the policies an earnest member of The Movement must endorse. Example? The entire notion of mass democracy is an affront to everything we stand for, and perhaps nowhere is that notion of universal suffrage more potently represented than in the 19th Amendment - yet can one imagine the reaction any woman would have if a man were to suggest its repeal? We forget that it was not so long ago that many felt women (and everyone else) were better served by solely their husband's vote - this position has become unspeakable now, but that obviously doesn't mean its indefensible. Please don't take me for a hardcore Christian Dominionist or some sort of crazy patriarchy-misogynist whatever - I don't really think anyone benefits from their right to vote, and if there should be voting rights, they should be highly restricted (solely for tax-paying heads of household, perhaps) and sparsely used. The disastrous, soul-hollowing exaltation and atomization of the individual modernity has thrust upon us demands vigorous resistance - and what could be more violently individualizing than the division of the members of a single household into discrete political entities! But could one even begin to imagine a #millenial woman (and of course, most men would recoil from such a position as well) supporting this stance - indeed, to these new "female alt-right" (sic) figures, with their assiduously cultivated brand, social media image, and sense of personal autonomy and distinction, nothing could be more odious.

Post: #241

(12-03-2017 11:12 PM)Maistre Wrote:  Yeah I think the entire concept of politically active and vocal women is utterly incompatible with any real commitment to the principles of the alt-right. This is for two sorts of reasons. First, the normalization of women's participation in the political sphere is a thoroughly modern and recent phenomenon, born from the Progressive social lunacy that is, in all of its beliefs and practices, so fundamentally in tension with the beliefs of the alt-right. A quick and easy way to test whether something is inimical to alt-right beliefs: is it a social phenomenon born within the last century, unprecedented and unthinkable before the 20th century? Then it's no damn good. We can't play by the rules the liberal mainstream tries so desperately to force on the population as natural and intuitive.

Second: I would be shocked if there are many modern, Western women who can accept the policies an earnest member of The Movement must endorse. Example? The entire notion of mass democracy is an affront to everything we stand for, and perhaps nowhere is that notion of universal suffrage more potently represented than in the 19th Amendment - yet can one imagine the reaction any woman would have if a man were to suggest its repeal? We forget that it was not so long ago that many felt women (and everyone else) were better served by solely their husband's vote - this position has become unspeakable now, but that obviously doesn't mean its indefensible. Please don't take me for a hardcore Christian Dominionist or some sort of crazy patriarchy-misogynist whatever - I don't really think anyone benefits from their right to vote, and if there should be voting rights, they should be highly restricted (solely for tax-paying heads of household, perhaps) and sparsely used. The disastrous, soul-hollowing exaltation and atomization of the individual modernity has thrust upon us demands vigorous resistance - and what could be more violently individualizing than the division of the members of a single household into discrete political entities! But could one even begin to imagine a #millenial woman (and of course, most men would recoil from such a position as well) supporting this stance - indeed, to these new "female alt-right" (sic) figures, with their assiduously cultivated brand, social media image, and sense of personal autonomy and distinction, nothing could be more odious.

Fantastic post.

Ultimately we needn't worry about alt-right chicks. Time is against them. They will grow older and uglier; without children everyone will see through them as hypocrites or at best as Ann Coulter's who have astute observations but with no practical advice on how to live.

Interestingly though, Ann Coulter is against, or at least highly skeptical of, woman's suffrage. That is a big way in how she stays relevant.

Time is our friend. As long as we stay to what is true, God will do 99% of the dirty work for us. The falsehoods of the world are always washed away by his immovable will.

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Just help people wake up to the evils around them, both by argument and example. The example part is extremely important; all of us must be shining role models of what truth and beauty look like if we want to save as many as possible.

Post: #242

(12-03-2017 11:12 PM)Maistre Wrote:  Yeah I think the entire concept of politically active and vocal women is utterly incompatible with any real commitment to the principles of the alt-right. This is for two sorts of reasons. First, the normalization of women's participation in the political sphere is a thoroughly modern and recent phenomenon, born from the Progressive social lunacy that is, in all of its beliefs and practices, so fundamentally in tension with the beliefs of the alt-right. A quick and easy way to test whether something is inimical to alt-right beliefs: is it a social phenomenon born within the last century, unprecedented and unthinkable before the 20th century? Then it's no damn good. We can't play by the rules the liberal mainstream tries so desperately to force on the population as natural and intuitive.

Second: I would be shocked if there are many modern, Western women who can accept the policies an earnest member of The Movement must endorse. Example? The entire notion of mass democracy is an affront to everything we stand for, and perhaps nowhere is that notion of universal suffrage more potently represented than in the 19th Amendment - yet can one imagine the reaction any woman would have if a man were to suggest its repeal? We forget that it was not so long ago that many felt women (and everyone else) were better served by solely their husband's vote - this position has become unspeakable now, but that obviously doesn't mean its indefensible. Please don't take me for a hardcore Christian Dominionist or some sort of crazy patriarchy-misogynist whatever - I don't really think anyone benefits from their right to vote, and if there should be voting rights, they should be highly restricted (solely for tax-paying heads of household, perhaps) and sparsely used. The disastrous, soul-hollowing exaltation and atomization of the individual modernity has thrust upon us demands vigorous resistance - and what could be more violently individualizing than the division of the members of a single household into discrete political entities! But could one even begin to imagine a #millenial woman (and of course, most men would recoil from such a position as well) supporting this stance - indeed, to these new "female alt-right" (sic) figures, with their assiduously cultivated brand, social media image, and sense of personal autonomy and distinction, nothing could be more odious.

In principle I agree that there is a fundamental disagreement between women taking an active role in politics and the way this inherently is at odds with the reality that political power should be vested in those who work & sacrifice for it. Since women by and large are the recipients of the protection of men, the labor of men, and the resources of men, letting women vote is as ludicrous as letting children vote on whether their family will pay for upkeep of the house, or on candy & toys.

Getting women to acknowledge and respect that civilization is built by men, largely for the benefit of women, is an impossibly difficult sell in the current climate of equalism propaganda. Leftists are intent on recruiting felons, mentally-retarded, invalids, and every other category imaginable as their voting bloc. To begin dismantling the ridiculous notion that everyone, no matter how dependent they are, or ill-informed they are, deserves the right to vote, you cannot simply go from the equalist lie of Universal Suffrage to restricting the vote to property owning men.

Women have immense power for attracting attention, even if they aren't perfect. The destruction of the globalist-progressive-homosexual narrative is in play, and the more people that can have their eyes opened to the complete dishonesty of equalism the better. Once that door opens, people will be more receptive to the idea that perhaps letting your nation be governed by the most selfish and least-invested members is dangerous and destructive. Tightening down on citizenship, requiring voter ID, barring non-taxpayers, are all measures that have traction today. At some point I think it would be possible to restrict voting rights to women to those who have a child, similarly to how men are required to join the selective service. From there, simplifying it to one vote per family is sensible and feasible.

Post: #243

(12-04-2017 12:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Fantastic post.

Ultimately we needn't worry about alt-right chicks. Time is against them. They will grow older and uglier; without children everyone will see through them as hypocrites or at best as Ann Coulter's who have astute observations but with no practical advice on how to live.

Interestingly though, Ann Coulter is against, or at least highly skeptical of, woman's suffrage. That is a big way in how she stays relevant.

Time is our friend. As long as we stay to what is true, God will do 99% of the dirty work for us. The falsehoods of the world are always washed away by his immovable will.

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Just help people wake up to the evils around them, both by argument and example. The example part is extremely important; all of us must be shining role models of what truth and beauty look like if we want to save as many as possible.

Thank you for your kind words about my content. Some thoughts on your reply:

Yeah, I wouldn't say I'm particularly "worried" about alt-right chicks or whatever, just frustrated that anyone is dumb enough not to immediately see through what is going on. I don't mean to say women don't have interesting or important things to say, or that they aren't capable of political engagement - but I do mean to say that a young, single, internet-fixated, highly self-involved, etc woman claiming to be some sort of alt-right voice is so prima face ridiculous I can't believe anyone takes them seriously. And hey, what do you know, there seems to be a certain commonality between various female figures on the new right. Who would've guessed???

W/r/t Anne Coulter, my feelings are conflicted. I've always kind've felt like she just made a career out of saying outrageous things with a straight face, and there wasn't really any more substance to here. I don't know, I guess she gets points for going so far outside the Overton Window.

And of course God's plan for the world will eventually and inevitably be made manifest. Yet He works on a timespan inconceivable to men, and via mechanisms incomprehensible. In His infinite wisdom he permitted North Africa, Asia, and much of Europe to fall to the blasphemous and barbaric arms of the Saracen - in which, 1,400 years on, they still reside. God will triumph, but that is to me little succor, as perhaps my entire lifetime will come and go without a true reversal.

On that Genesis passage and gender relations: to add a little nuance, we ought consider that Christ seemed to think women had value besides childbearing, and deserved to make their own choices. I think some of the voices around this part of the internet tend to get wildly and self-defeatingly extreme on the whole gender dynamics issue. For example, I remember an old Forney article decrying female education, a position which I find incomprehensible. Do you not want the mother of your children to be well-read and educated in her speech? The same goes for mate selection - if you think women shouldn't have some choice and freedom in their marriage, I don't really know what to say. Avoid the extremes - the establishment's burning desire, rabid and indefensible, to shoehorn as many women into the workforce and higher education as it can is so so so clearly and profoundly wrong, but I think that completely shutting out any and all women from the workplace and the ivory tower (I would be just as bad as the worst reality-denying liberals if I didn't confess that I've had multiple brilliant female professors - though a far smaller proportion of women are constitutionally suited for academia than men are, I don't think it's right to downright block the entry of those suited for the profession based on their gender) is perhaps just as misguided.

Similarly, the whole idea of "romantic love," dreams of "meeting the one," and the modern conception of marriage as a completely free, individual, and reversible decision is, as we all know, the social equivalent of thalidomide in the water supply, but that doesn't mean we should take all agency from women in the mating process - far more reasonable would be to reintroduce the communal and religious aspects to the institution that long made it so powerful, while retaining (a obviously circumscribed) an element of free choice for young men and women.

Fundamentally to me, it's an issue of radicalization, and perhaps the alt-right's biggest goal is to show people how completely fucking nuts social behavior has gotten over the past ~75 years. Sexual culture in 2017 is so toxic it's eating us alive, and modern sexuality's complete break with human culture and custom is obviously the main reason why.

I fear that I lack your optimism. Serious change is underfoot in America, and it's been a damn fine 18 months for the alt-right, but I'm not sure we can, at least in our lifetimes, undo the cultural damage that's been done. You can't close pandora's box, can you?

Quote:In principle I agree that there is a fundamental disagreement between women taking an active role in politics and the way this inherently is at odds with the reality that political power should be vested in those who work & sacrifice for it. Since women by and large are the recipients of the protection of men, the labor of men, and the resources of men, letting women vote is as ludicrous as letting children vote on whether their family will pay for upkeep of the house, or on candy & toys.

Getting women to acknowledge and respect that civilization is built by men, largely for the benefit of women, is an impossibly difficult sell in the current climate of equalism propaganda. Leftists are intent on recruiting felons, mentally-retarded, invalids, and every other category imaginable as their voting bloc. To begin dismantling the ridiculous notion that everyone, no matter how dependent they are, or ill-informed they are, deserves the right to vote, you cannot simply go from the equalist lie of Universal Suffrage to restricting the vote to property owning men.

Women have immense power for attracting attention, even if they aren't perfect. The destruction of the globalist-progressive-homosexual narrative is in play, and the more people that can have their eyes opened to the complete dishonesty of equalism the better. Once that door opens, people will be more receptive to the idea that perhaps letting your nation be governed by the most selfish and least-invested members is dangerous and destructive. Tightening down on citizenship, requiring voter ID, barring non-taxpayers, are all measures that have traction today. At some point I think it would be possible to restrict voting rights to women to those who have a child, similarly to how men are required to join the selective service. From there, simplifying it to one vote per family is sensible and feasible.

Mmmmm to be honest not entirely sure about all this. I don't really buy this whole "men inherently superior gender, suffer and make sacrifices while wicked women lounge and benefit" narrative - god knows women suffer for men, and I'm sure we can all think of innumerable pains our mothers endured for us. Instead, I would just say men and women are inherently and profoundly different in their natures and dispositions, and thus (obviously...) different roles, rights, and responsibilities are, in general, proper for each. The assumption of and competition for political power is (largely - let us not forget joan of arc or wu zetian) a masculine endeavour, and I think both genders know it deep down. The removal of political power from a man humiliates and degrades him, just as, in truth, the forcing of political participation on women humiliate and degrade them.

You're right w/r/t liberals' desire to expand the voting base as big as possible, but let's take it a step further - since its apogee in 1776, the power and position of the freeholding middle class, composed of free and self-sufficient men in a community of equal citizens has been steadily degraded and worn down by, perhaps more than anything else, the attentions of the West's elite leadership, which would much prefer a vast subordinate shuffling mass than a genuine rival to its power such as virtuous and autonomous middle class. I quote from Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "In the administration of justice, the judgments of the emperor were characterised by attention, discernment, and impartiality; and whenever he deviated from the strict line of equity, it was generally in favour of the poor and oppressed; not so much indeed from any sense of humanity, as from the natural propensity of a despot, to humble the pride of greatness, and to sink all his subjects. to the same common level of absolute dependence."

The introduction of women into the workforce and the destruction of the family both serve this purpose, by destroying the economic and social power of the independent men of middling stature who might constitute an honest threat to the tyranny and oppression of the <.01% who control the capital and the culture.

Post: #244

(12-04-2017 01:12 AM)demolition Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:12 PM)Maistre Wrote:  Yeah I think the entire concept of politically active and vocal women is utterly incompatible with any real commitment to the principles of the alt-right. This is for two sorts of reasons. First, the normalization of women's participation in the political sphere is a thoroughly modern and recent phenomenon, born from the Progressive social lunacy that is, in all of its beliefs and practices, so fundamentally in tension with the beliefs of the alt-right. A quick and easy way to test whether something is inimical to alt-right beliefs: is it a social phenomenon born within the last century, unprecedented and unthinkable before the 20th century? Then it's no damn good. We can't play by the rules the liberal mainstream tries so desperately to force on the population as natural and intuitive.

Second: I would be shocked if there are many modern, Western women who can accept the policies an earnest member of The Movement must endorse. Example? The entire notion of mass democracy is an affront to everything we stand for, and perhaps nowhere is that notion of universal suffrage more potently represented than in the 19th Amendment - yet can one imagine the reaction any woman would have if a man were to suggest its repeal? We forget that it was not so long ago that many felt women (and everyone else) were better served by solely their husband's vote - this position has become unspeakable now, but that obviously doesn't mean its indefensible. Please don't take me for a hardcore Christian Dominionist or some sort of crazy patriarchy-misogynist whatever - I don't really think anyone benefits from their right to vote, and if there should be voting rights, they should be highly restricted (solely for tax-paying heads of household, perhaps) and sparsely used. The disastrous, soul-hollowing exaltation and atomization of the individual modernity has thrust upon us demands vigorous resistance - and what could be more violently individualizing than the division of the members of a single household into discrete political entities! But could one even begin to imagine a #millenial woman (and of course, most men would recoil from such a position as well) supporting this stance - indeed, to these new "female alt-right" (sic) figures, with their assiduously cultivated brand, social media image, and sense of personal autonomy and distinction, nothing could be more odious.

In principle I agree that there is a fundamental disagreement between women taking an active role in politics and the way this inherently is at odds with the reality that political power should be vested in those who work & sacrifice for it. Since women by and large are the recipients of the protection of men, the labor of men, and the resources of men, letting women vote is as ludicrous as letting children vote on whether their family will pay for upkeep of the house, or on candy & toys.

Getting women to acknowledge and respect that civilization is built by men, largely for the benefit of women, is an impossibly difficult sell in the current climate of equalism propaganda. Leftists are intent on recruiting felons, mentally-retarded, invalids, and every other category imaginable as their voting bloc. To begin dismantling the ridiculous notion that everyone, no matter how dependent they are, or ill-informed they are, deserves the right to vote, you cannot simply go from the equalist lie of Universal Suffrage to restricting the vote to property owning men.

Women have immense power for attracting attention, even if they aren't perfect. The destruction of the globalist-progressive-homosexual narrative is in play, and the more people that can have their eyes opened to the complete dishonesty of equalism the better. Once that door opens, people will be more receptive to the idea that perhaps letting your nation be governed by the most selfish and least-invested members is dangerous and destructive. Tightening down on citizenship, requiring voter ID, barring non-taxpayers, are all measures that have traction today. At some point I think it would be possible to restrict voting rights to women to those who have a child, similarly to how men are required to join the selective service. From there, simplifying it to one vote per family is sensible and feasible.

Since male leadership is essential to setting things right, these naturally subversive thots must follow our lead. Even if they won some victories, our side would end up ideologically castrated. If a man is engaged in fighting on our side, it's great for a woman to support him in that, but not to steal the show.

Genesis 2:18 "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."
Women were made to help us, not to give grown men political guidance.

Post: #245

(12-03-2017 11:12 PM)Maistre Wrote:  ''Please don't take me for a hardcore Christian Dominionist or some sort of crazy patriarchy-misogynist whatever -''

When a position even a sound and true one becomes marginalized and therefore fringe. And given the much greater number of crazies that are attracted to fringe moments its bound to result in such instances as you would describe in this statement.

Its unsurprising and doesn't diminish the truth of the statement or position.

Post: #246

(12-04-2017 12:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:12 PM)Maistre Wrote:  Yeah I think the entire concept of politically active and vocal women is utterly incompatible with any real commitment to the principles of the alt-right. This is for two sorts of reasons. First, the normalization of women's participation in the political sphere is a thoroughly modern and recent phenomenon, born from the Progressive social lunacy that is, in all of its beliefs and practices, so fundamentally in tension with the beliefs of the alt-right. A quick and easy way to test whether something is inimical to alt-right beliefs: is it a social phenomenon born within the last century, unprecedented and unthinkable before the 20th century? Then it's no damn good. We can't play by the rules the liberal mainstream tries so desperately to force on the population as natural and intuitive.

Second: I would be shocked if there are many modern, Western women who can accept the policies an earnest member of The Movement must endorse. Example? The entire notion of mass democracy is an affront to everything we stand for, and perhaps nowhere is that notion of universal suffrage more potently represented than in the 19th Amendment - yet can one imagine the reaction any woman would have if a man were to suggest its repeal? We forget that it was not so long ago that many felt women (and everyone else) were better served by solely their husband's vote - this position has become unspeakable now, but that obviously doesn't mean its indefensible. Please don't take me for a hardcore Christian Dominionist or some sort of crazy patriarchy-misogynist whatever - I don't really think anyone benefits from their right to vote, and if there should be voting rights, they should be highly restricted (solely for tax-paying heads of household, perhaps) and sparsely used. The disastrous, soul-hollowing exaltation and atomization of the individual modernity has thrust upon us demands vigorous resistance - and what could be more violently individualizing than the division of the members of a single household into discrete political entities! But could one even begin to imagine a #millenial woman (and of course, most men would recoil from such a position as well) supporting this stance - indeed, to these new "female alt-right" (sic) figures, with their assiduously cultivated brand, social media image, and sense of personal autonomy and distinction, nothing could be more odious.

Fantastic post.

Ultimately we needn't worry about alt-right chicks. Time is against them. They will grow older and uglier; without children everyone will see through them as hypocrites or at best as Ann Coulter's who have astute observations but with no practical advice on how to live.

Interestingly though, Ann Coulter is against, or at least highly skeptical of, woman's suffrage. That is a big way in how she stays relevant.

Time is our friend. As long as we stay to what is true, God will do 99% of the dirty work for us. The falsehoods of the world are always washed away by his immovable will.

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Just help people wake up to the evils around them, both by argument and example. The example part is extremely important; all of us must be shining role models of what truth and beauty look like if we want to save as many as possible.

It is reassuring that given the infinite potential timelines which can end in various forms of dystopias that he is in control.

Post: #247

(12-04-2017 12:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Ann Coulter

Without Ann Coulter, it's fairly safe to assume we would not have president Trump. Adios America was a big motivation by all acconuts.

Truth be told, Ann Coulter is more savage than 99% of right wing pundits. I've seen this in other female right wing personalites in Europe such as Marion LePen. The rare women who have equal logic ability to emotional ability is absolutely lethal in public discourse. They get away with saying things that would end careers otherwise.

Post: #248

(12-04-2017 01:12 AM)demolition Wrote:  [quote='Maistre' pid='1693701' dateline='1512360733']
At some point I think it would be possible to restrict voting rights to women to those who have a child, similarly to how men are required to join the selective service.

Within wedlock to be specific. We don't want women who whelp bastards to vote in any case.

Post: #249

(12-04-2017 01:32 AM)Maistre Wrote:  And of course God's plan for the world will eventually and inevitably be made manifest. Yet He works on a timespan inconceivable to men, and via mechanisms incomprehensible. In His infinite wisdom he permitted North Africa, Asia, and much of Europe to fall to the blasphemous and barbaric arms of the Saracen - in which, 1,400 years on, they still reside. God will triumph, but that is to me little succor, as perhaps my entire lifetime will come and go without a true reversal.

This is indeed the downside. Just never become too attached to any one piece of land. God's spirit resides with people, not things, and we must always be on the lookout for where our Neighbors are.

Quote:On that Genesis passage and gender relations: to add a little nuance, we ought consider that Christ seemed to think women had value besides childbearing, and deserved to make their own choices. I think some of the voices around this part of the internet tend to get wildly and self-defeatingly extreme on the whole gender dynamics issue. For example, I remember an old Forney article decrying female education, a position which I find incomprehensible. Do you not want the mother of your children to be well-read and educated in her speech? The same goes for mate selection - if you think women shouldn't have some choice and freedom in their marriage, I don't really know what to say. Avoid the extremes - the establishment's burning desire, rabid and indefensible, to shoehorn as many women into the workforce and higher education as it can is so so so clearly and profoundly wrong, but I think that completely shutting out any and all women from the workplace and the ivory tower (I would be just as bad as the worst reality-denying liberals if I didn't confess that I've had multiple brilliant female professors - though a far smaller proportion of women are constitutionally suited for academia than men are, I don't think it's right to downright block the entry of those suited for the profession based on their gender) is perhaps just as misguided.

It's not that women have no value outside of childbearing, it's that childbearing is their primary value. As such if this fundamental responsibility is ignored then God's wrath will be provoked upon them. It's the same exact situation with regards to men and work. Men must work, even if they have value outside of working. If they do not, society falls apart.

Female education is indeed a cruel joke if it comes at the expense of men.

Quote:Similarly, the whole idea of "romantic love," dreams of "meeting the one," and the modern conception of marriage as a completely free, individual, and reversible decision is, as we all know, the social equivalent of thalidomide in the water supply, but that doesn't mean we should take all agency from women in the mating process - far more reasonable would be to reintroduce the communal and religious aspects to the institution that long made it so powerful, while retaining (a obviously circumscribed) an element of free choice for young men and women.

Fundamentally to me, it's an issue of radicalization, and perhaps the alt-right's biggest goal is to show people how completely fucking nuts social behavior has gotten over the past ~75 years. Sexual culture in 2017 is so toxic it's eating us alive, and modern sexuality's complete break with human culture and custom is obviously the main reason why.

I think 99% of the men here agree with you on this. None of us here want Islam, none of us want to raise daughters just to be slaves. But sensible guidelines for their behavior is obviously lacking in today's world, which allow for girls to destroy themselves.

Quote:I fear that I lack your optimism. Serious change is underfoot in America, and it's been a damn fine 18 months for the alt-right, but I'm not sure we can, at least in our lifetimes, undo the cultural damage that's been done. You can't close pandora's box, can you?

You sound like a younger version of me; I used to be also very pessimistic until Trump happened and shattered my limiting beliefs on what is possible.

Never say never my friend. Things not possible with men are possible with God.

Quote:

Quote:In principle I agree that there is a fundamental disagreement between women taking an active role in politics and the way this inherently is at odds with the reality that political power should be vested in those who work & sacrifice for it. Since women by and large are the recipients of the protection of men, the labor of men, and the resources of men, letting women vote is as ludicrous as letting children vote on whether their family will pay for upkeep of the house, or on candy & toys.

Getting women to acknowledge and respect that civilization is built by men, largely for the benefit of women, is an impossibly difficult sell in the current climate of equalism propaganda. Leftists are intent on recruiting felons, mentally-retarded, invalids, and every other category imaginable as their voting bloc. To begin dismantling the ridiculous notion that everyone, no matter how dependent they are, or ill-informed they are, deserves the right to vote, you cannot simply go from the equalist lie of Universal Suffrage to restricting the vote to property owning men.

Women have immense power for attracting attention, even if they aren't perfect. The destruction of the globalist-progressive-homosexual narrative is in play, and the more people that can have their eyes opened to the complete dishonesty of equalism the better. Once that door opens, people will be more receptive to the idea that perhaps letting your nation be governed by the most selfish and least-invested members is dangerous and destructive. Tightening down on citizenship, requiring voter ID, barring non-taxpayers, are all measures that have traction today. At some point I think it would be possible to restrict voting rights to women to those who have a child, similarly to how men are required to join the selective service. From there, simplifying it to one vote per family is sensible and feasible.

Mmmmm to be honest not entirely sure about all this. I don't really buy this whole "men inherently superior gender, suffer and make sacrifices while wicked women lounge and benefit" narrative - god knows women suffer for men, and I'm sure we can all think of innumerable pains our mothers endured for us. Instead, I would just say men and women are inherently and profoundly different in their natures and dispositions, and thus (obviously...) different roles, rights, and responsibilities are, in general, proper for each. The assumption of and competition for political power is (largely - let us not forget joan of arc or wu zetian) a masculine endeavour, and I think both genders know it deep down. The removal of political power from a man humiliates and degrades him, just as, in truth, the forcing of political participation on women humiliate and degrade them.

I don't think he said men are superior to women in all respects (for example, men lack the womb) but that men definitely are superior in most respects. I view men and women as complementary opposites; where the woman is weak the man is strong, and vice versa.

But no matter how we look at it, placing women in the political realm is absurd.

Quote:You're right w/r/t liberals' desire to expand the voting base as big as possible, but let's take it a step further - since its apogee in 1776, the power and position of the freeholding middle class, composed of free and self-sufficient men in a community of equal citizens has been steadily degraded and worn down by, perhaps more than anything else, the attentions of the West's elite leadership, which would much prefer a vast subordinate shuffling mass than a genuine rival to its power such as virtuous and autonomous middle class. I quote from Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "In the administration of justice, the judgments of the emperor were characterised by attention, discernment, and impartiality; and whenever he deviated from the strict line of equity, it was generally in favour of the poor and oppressed; not so much indeed from any sense of humanity, as from the natural propensity of a despot, to humble the pride of greatness, and to sink all his subjects. to the same common level of absolute dependence."

The introduction of women into the workforce and the destruction of the family both serve this purpose, by destroying the economic and social power of the independent men of middling stature who might constitute an honest threat to the tyranny and oppression of the <.01% who control the capital and the culture.

Doubtless this is the case.

Post: #250

SHOTS FIRED!





Something else I found funny, if you search "tradthot" on youtube, one of the videos that come up is from that Lauren Rose chick, a new thot.