Dota #fundie archive.today

Stacey Eden is a young Australian woman from Sydney who recently defended a Muslim couple that were verbally accosted by a middle aged woman on a train. The woman accused Muslims in general for the atrocities of ISIS and directed her ire at the hapless couple. Stacey Eden sat there for around 10 minutes listening to the conversation before intervening on the couple’s behalf; but not before hitting the record button that captured her heroic intervention. According to the BBC: “Stacey Eden’s Facebook page got an enormous surge of interest after she posted a video of herself defending a Muslim couple“

This brings us to the obvious conclusion that Stacey Eden is an attention whore. Had she merely intervened on the couple’s behalf without submitting a recording of her “heroism” she would perhaps qualify as a decent person. This was obviously not the case as validation was her underlying motive. The online social media community burst into applause and the leftist media hoisted her on their shoulders for the world to admire. What more could a mediocre unaccomplished young woman want? The Facebook community has lavished her with accolades such as “decent” and “brave”.

Let’s be honest – Stacey is not brave. She picked the most politically correct course of action which is endorsed by Western elites and the mainstream media. Had she tried defending Christians in Pakistan she would have eaten more lead than Salman Taseer. Ironically, it is the middle aged woman that is the brave one in this incident. I am not defending her gross lapse in etiquette but she chose to risk social ostracism in order to speak her mind. I do not think that accosting random people in public spaces is civilized behavior but Eden is no saint either; she seeks to profit by putting her piety on display. Social justice warriors are modern day pharisees and Cultural Marxism is their Mishnah.

The intrepid social justice warrior herself.
Why do Anglosphere women so wholeheartedly embrace cultural marxism (beyond opportunism)? Let us examine the matter further.
The inverted conservatism of Western Women.

Those that possess even a basic grasp of history know that women have been conservative throughout history to the point of defending the excesses of their menfolk. As I’ve stated on numerous occasions, Indian women frequently participate in honour killings. Gujarati Hindu women have also, as noted by Aakar Patel, defended the atrocities committed against Gujarati muslims during the 2002 riots. Japanese women also possess a strong nationalist streak which sometimes translates into xenophobic anti-Korean sentiments. These are some extreme examples but women in non western countries do not easily turn their backs on their cultures and traditions. Anglo women are also conservative in their own right – they conserve liberalism.

Liberal thought has entrenched itself so deeply into modern Western culture that it is this liberal culture that Anglo-sphere women are conserving. If traditional conservatives were to somehow wrest control away from our current traitorous elites, women would go back to defending “racism” and “homophobia” within a generation. Matt Forney is essentially correct when he argues that female participation in socio/cultural movements and revolutions is largely irrelevant as women tend to sleep with whoever is in power. However, what Forney does not note is that women are still the keepers of culture and civilization. Men may invent a cuisine but it is housewives that preserve that cuisine over generations. Women’s herd mentality and innate desire for social acceptance are suited perfectly to this task.

Anonymous #fundie archive.today

[Note: This article has since been removed by the Independent, but has been archived]

University is supposed to be amazing, a transformative experience which is informed by student unions across the country. Yet people don’t give a toss about their student unions, no one cares about the NUS, and activism is dying at all but a few hardcore universities. This generation of students has been pissed on by the government and fees, and privatisation, and all anyone seems to want to do is roll over and let it happen.

Do you know why this is? It’s because our universities and student unions are too similar to our government; they are too stunted by white men. White men might want to appropriate injustice as theirs, desperate for something to struggle against, but it’s a hobby they’ll pick up and drop as soon as the first comfortable finance job beckons them over.

We need to ban white men and their activism dilettantism from student unions. We need powerful women and minority ethnic people to bring their passion back to the heart of student politics. Being a student union president should no longer be a place for privileged whiteboys to swing their dicks around before graduating into a world that is in no way affected by what they claim to fight for.

More importantly, we obviously live in a world that looks favourably on white men. In order to bring about change in our racist and sexist society, it must start in our universities. If women and minority ethnic people were in positions of leadership across all universities in the country, we would have a diverse graduating class of future leaders in every industry.

“Oh but, it’s racist to ban someone on the basis of their skin colour, and sexist to ban them on their gender,” cry the assembly chorus of confused souls trying to turn the language of progress into a weapon to further entrench the establishment. It’s not. You’re at university, go and ask a humanities professor. Learn something.

White men have had the last several millennia in charge, and it’s been a s***show from start to finish. A new generation of powerful women and minority ethnic people is ready to lead and change. It is time for you to bow down.
* The author is a British journalist

Question Diversity #fundie archive.today

DE=Dark Enlightenment

--And apparently whites who care about the future of their race are likely to be losers: “I strongly suspect that active participation in white nationalist circles is a cover for feelings of personal inferiority.”--

That's the same kind of complaint that feminists level against the manosphere, that it's merely the province of loser men who can't get a woman.

I think the manosphere has some redeeming qualities, but this is what I fear about it, its propensity to want to go all rainbow and multiracial. I also don't understand this great desire to include the manosphere as an important component of the DE. Sure, some manosphere concerns are some quality DE side issues, but the manosphere should not be a core focus of the DE.

Anon #fundie archive.today

"Why was this idiot aiming for the most beautiful buxom blonde women? He could've settled for an Asian girl."


Elliot Rodgers is the story of the equality of love(and what happens when one is denied equal access to top pooter).

Equality used to mean equal access to basic necessities.

Now, 'equality' has gone from basic to haute.
If homos gotta have 'gay marriage'(or 'marriage equality') and if trannies gotta have the 'right' to use girls' washroom(and have the right to beat up girls in and out of the ring), then every boy deserves a night out with catherine deneauve.

Damn bimbo bitches were 'racist' in denying him their affection.

Crazy world we live in.

Dota #fundie archive.today

A recent incident marks an interesting twist in the God awful culture war that plagues the Anglosphere. A former member of Planet Fitness had her membership cancelled for protesting the presence of a transvestite in the women’s locker room. Planet Fitness pursued the safest (politically correct) route by getting rid of the complaining woman instead of ejecting the transvestite. Social Justice Warriors (Cultural Marxism’s shock troops) promptly and predictably rushed to the gym’s defense for defending transgender rights.

Social Justice Warriors may claim this incident as a victory for their demented cause, however, a large number of women and feminists are quite wary of transvestites invading their spaces.

SJWs risk alienating the left’s most pampered pet class by dismissing their concerns as illiberal. Can feminists keep transvestites from invading female spaces?

Feminists are ill-equipped to fight this battle
I personally do not believe that transvestites should be allowed access to women’s washrooms as it is a genuine safety issue. Having said this, I can’t resist the instinct to bathe in a surging tide of schadenfreude whenever women whine about the invasion of their space. The irony is especially delicious considering that transvestites have begun invading female space using exactly the same language of “Equality” and anti-foundationalist logic that feminists have historically used to invade male spaces. It is utterly amusing to listen to women pine for a safe space that allows them to be women. No such courtesy is extended to men who must endure female incursions into their spaces (whether Golf courses or online game servers) that often result in the feminization of those spaces. Female solipsism is often amusing to observe from a distance.
These developments are ultimately the dead end of feminist ideology. Traditionalists have long held that gender and sex are irrevocably linked, yet feminists in their infinite wisdom have decreed otherwise; thereby sacrificing empiricism and science on the alter of ideology. The Inner Party would be pleased, 2 + 2 = 5. Feminists have long argued that Gender (and not genetics/sex) is instrumental in defining an individual’s personality and being. Gender, according to these ‘intellectuals’, is socially constructed and thus inherently flexible. Biological differences between the sexes (with the possible exception of strength) are dismissed (such as IQ) as Patriarchal controls aimed at suppressing the interests of women. If this ideology, grounded neither in reason nor science, is taken to its logical conclusion it must follow that transvestites are just as female as biologically born females. They are simply exercising their autonomy in choosing to identify as females and thus have every right to access female only spaces.
Feminists that oppose the transvestite incursion (not all of them do) are incapable of ideologically repelling this invasion because their adversaries have effectively used their own ideology against them. Planet Fitness acted well within the bounds of feminist ideology and SJWs acknowledged it with their support. When little 6 year old Suzy gasps at the sight of another woman’s penis in the restroom her mother can knowingly tell her that this is the price they must pay for equality.

Blogger Dalrock said it best: “Feminists get sick on their own dog food.

Bon appétit, feminists.”

Bay Area Guy #racist archive.today

Our liberal leaning mainstream media never hesitates to inform us that whites are slowly but surely becoming minorities within Western countries. Most of the time such trends are reported in a mildly enthusiastic manner, with naysayers depicted as paranoid and alarmist racists. I guess according to leftist logic, objecting to your group’s eventual extinction
renders you a horrible extremist.

However, another refrain that I’ve heard from many online leftists on blogs and elsewhere is that whites are already a global minority. Therefore, recent demographic changes are only natural. When reading through Studs Terkel’s book Race, one black woman that he interviewed emphatically rejected the term “minority” in favor of “people of color,” arguing that non-whites like her are the global majority.

Putting aside the foolish notion of a united “people of color” coalition and the fact that all groups are global minorities (as once pointed out by Jared Taylor), I’ll accept the argument that whites are a global minority at face value. After all, one cannot technically dispute such a claim. However, in the spirit of my post on the left and collective responsibility, I’m going to play the fun game of taking leftist logic and applying it to other groups. In this case, the intended target of my game are leftists themselves.
So how does this play out? While leftists love to gloat about how whites are either the true global minority or increasingly losing numbers in Western nations, the truth of the matter is that it is SJWs and cultural leftists who are the true global minority. In order to substantiate my claim, I’m going to analyze the attitudes and behaviors of the non-white global majority, with much emphasis on the heavily populated Asian nations that comprise much of this colored alliance.

I’ll begin with China, which has over one billion non-white people and is poised to challenge Western power in the years to come. Having taking courses on China during college, I learned that nationalism and intense patriotism are very much mainstream in China, and that regular Chinese have no patience for the agitation of minority groups such as Uighurs and Tibetans. Sure, minority groups receive certain benefits such as being able to have more children and a few affirmative action programs, but there’s no support for the kind of multiculturalism or radical leftism that bashes the Han majority or celebrates the impending demise of ethnic Chinese dominance. If one were to attack and demonize the Han Chinese in the same manner that SJW’s attack whites, he had better brace himself for a fight. China would also run afoul of leftist gender sensibilities, as their very own state feminist agency denounces unmarried “leftover women.” While women in China are able to acquire good careers and rise, they are also held to moral standards and society expects them to conform to some manner of traditional behavior. China, by and large, is very much a conservative society.

China’s fellow Asian giant and brown neighbor India exhibits similar tendencies. India’s Hindu majority certainly would not engage in the kind of self-flagellation endemic to white liberals, nor would they tolerate having their culture pathologized or deconstructed in SJW fashion. Their election of far-right nationalist Narendra Modi, who presided over a brutal pogrom against Muslims in 2002, indicates that they would do more than just employ the “tone argument” against those with the audacity to admonish them to “check their privilege.”

It also goes without saying that feminism of the Western variety doesn’t fly in India. India, like China, remains a conservative society with an unapologetic majority and a strong sense of tradition.

Lest one think that such chauvinism is merely confined to poor and dysfunctional third world countries, Japan likewise makes no effort to win any multicultural or feminist awards. Makoto Sakurai, the leader of an anti-foreigner hate group who wrote a blatantly racist anti-Korean book, was rewarded by having his book become a number one bestseller on Japan’s Amazon. While he may be extreme, the Japanese as a whole reject mass immigration and multiculturalism. Most Japanese likewise do not look kindly on liberals who bring up negative episodes of Japan’s history. With the blessing of Shinzo Abe’s popular government, the Japanese right is currently putting the squeeze on liberal media outlets. The Japanese are also not renowned for their embrace of feminism, outrage over certain sexist antics notwithstanding. Despite boasting one of the world’s most advanced economies, Japan nonetheless subscribes to fundamentally conservative values.
The aforementioned nations are just the tip of the iceberg. To be clear, this isn’t to say that these countries are cauldrons of hatred where minorities are pelted with rocks every time they leave the house. However, they are nonetheless unapologetically proud nationalist nations that defend their ethnic and religious majorities. Dota once told me that throughout the world, there are very few liberals. Rather, there are nationalists and moderates, with moderates upholding fundamental nationalist values (with the crude bigotry removed). Some might point to the popularity of socialists in Latin America, but even there socialist movements often take place within the context of racial nationalism, as demonstrated by Evo Morales and indigenous revivalism in Bolivia.

Indeed, it is only in the Anglosphere and Western European nations where suicidal liberalism and radical leftism flourish. The real reason why SJWs relentlessly demonize and attack white people is because they can. They know that they live in societies where their subversive views are not only tolerated, but encouraged. They know that white people as a whole won’t fight back. In fact, if they’re successful self-promoters like Tim Wise, they can even manage to enjoy lucrative speaking gigs at prominent universities and media outlets.

This knowledge ought to provide a measure of confidence to those of us in the alternative right. Far from being fringe extremists, we are the true global majority. In fact, we would be considered open-minded moderates by global standards, as most of the non-white planet regards our views as sensible and pragmatic. Subversive leftist deconstructionists are the real global minorities, and we should strive to remind everyone that our enemies represent true deviancy.

Dota #fundie archive.today

Throughout my years in elementary school I felt that certain teachers harboured unwarranted prejudice against me. I’d complain to my parents and my Dad’s response was fairly consistent: “What have you been up to?” My Mother’s response was somewhat more sympathetic:”Why don’t they like you? You’re so likable!” Both of their responses subtly implied that the way people treat you is a function of your own behaviour toward them. I have mentioned numerous times on this website that the West needs to embrace the virtue of reciprocity. The virtue of tolerance that was championed by the old left of John Stuart Mill has been degraded by the modern left. In his essay “On Liberty” Mill championed a diversity of opinions (NOT a diversity of races) while placing one sole limit on free speech: using it to incite a mob.

Today’s Left tolerates just about anything from female impropriety to the deviant (and often harmful) sexual practices of homosexuals. The old left never argued for an indefinite suspension of standards. Rather, they regarded freedom of speech as a prerequisite for a society driven by reason. It is difficult to tolerate the behavior of some blacks because their behaviour isn’t tolerable to begin with. Running around town punching random people in the face is not tolerable behavior. Disrupting people’s brunches and making a nuisance of oneself is not tolerable behaviour either. Storming an office and cold-heartedly gunning down office staff because they supposedly insulted Islam is NOT tolerable behaviour.

Cultural Marxism, immigration, feminism, and modern Liberalism are the numerous heads of the same hydra; in opposing one, you inevitably oppose them all. The enemy is the encroaching police state. Feminists and low quality immigrants like Mexicans and North Africans have one thing in common: They both depend on a large welfare nanny state. The Feminist position on surveillance is also telling. Feminists are loathe to admit it, but they are either comfortable with, or indifferent to surveillance.

As the physically weaker sex, women are naturally willing to forgo freedom for security. This might explain the avalanche of rape hysteria that has gripped the U.S. Feminists talk a good game about freedom of speech while initiating witch hunts that force people who do not conform to their views to resign from their jobs. Feminists, social justice dingbats, and their corporate sponsors are also trying very hard to end online anonymity.

Violent and psychopathic immigrants play their own role alongside feminists in helping to usher in the police state. With every terrorist act, each surpassing the other in barbarism, the case for surveillance grows. It is not an oversight by Western elites that they allow in immigrants and refugees from countries that are currently being bombed by Western armies. These deranged refugees and immigrants are the perfect ingredients for a recipe of social and political chaos, which will then be remedied by a nanny state with an intrusive surveillance apparatus. Our elites will naturally be unaffected by these changes, so they’ll continue waging wars for profit in lands near and far.

It is imperative that freedom loving men take a decisive stand on issues pertaining to immigration with the utmost sense of urgency. A feminized nanny state with every citizen suckling at its breast may appeal to a woman’s definition of freedom, but would be hell for men of character and spine. It is vital for Western men to recognize that the left isn’t here to set us free, but to enslave us.

Bay Area Guy #racist archive.today

Taiwan and other Asian nations are much more homogenous than most Western countries. Such relative homogeneity is precisely why much of Asia appears so tolerant. It’s easy to be tolerant when there aren’t large numbers of visible minorities that you’re being told to make room for and accommodate. It’s also easier to practice tolerance when your group isn’t being consistently demonized while minorities are frequently exempted from having to be respectful towards the majority. Likewise, it’s not exceedingly difficult to remain tolerant when members of minority groups aren’t running large sex grooming operations that involve the rape and sexual enslavement of native girls, with the authorities covering it up for fear or appearing “racist.” Ad Nauseum.

Even though this blog espouses Western values, I second Dota’s assertion that the West must import certain Asian values in order to preserve its civilization. Since we all know that Asian peoples such as the Taiwanese wouldn’t remain tolerant if they were demographically eclipsed and culturally usurped, then it is hypocritical to demand higher tolerance from whites. Unless, of course, leftists hold white people to higher moral standards than non-whites, which makes their screeds against white supremacy rather hollow.

Sunshine Thiry #fundie archive.today

(Well, you identify as a Christian. Does that mean you endorse the Westboro Baptist Church and the many paedophile priests in the Catholic Church? Whose actions are far, far worse than a couple of internet feminists pulling faces.)

The difference is that most Christians speak out against the lunatic fringe like Westboro Baptist but feminists don’t seem to do this. I can only conclude it is because the lunatic fringe of feminism is considered acceptable to most feminists.

(The manosphere, on the other hand, is specifically an internet phenomenon that functions largely like a cult group (e.g. pseudoscientific thinking). Its members are wackos pretty much by definition.)

It didn’t use to be so much like that. I’m not quite sure what happened there, but it used to be a place you could have a really interesting conversation. Of course, there are still a handful of manosphere bloggers whose sites I read (Dalrock, Vox Day). That doesn’t mean I agree with them on everything – I very much don’t agree with them on a few issues, the morality of “game” being one of them – but I think they have interesting and worthwhile things to say. But I don’t read the comment threads anymore. Still, I wouldn’t call Dalrock or Vox “wackos”.

(Also, maybe it’s because I’m a hardened feminazi, but what you’re calling threats of violence and hysteria – training cats to attack, or standing on one’s head and kicking – I read as attempts at humour. Do you REALLY believe these ‘threats’ are equivalent to threats of rape and punching?)

The reason I don’t believe their threats are equal is because women run their mouths endlessly but do very little, whereas a threat from a man often is more serious because he’s less like to spout threats he doesn’t intend to back up. Regarding “ass-kicking”, women talk big but do little, and that’s no credit to them. Better they should hold their peace or speak more seriously.

A fool’s lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating. – Proverbs 18:6

Sunshine Thiry #fundie archive.today

Do I believe hypergamy is a real thing? Sure I do. And within reasonable limits (i.e. within the limits of traditional biblical sexual morality), it is even a good thing. It mostly just means a woman wants to marry the very best man she possibly can, preferably a man whom she can really look up to because she sees him as even better than herself. There really is nothing wrong with that. The problem comes in when this natural desire in women gets short-circuited by the casual sex hookup culture.
The carousel? I guess I’d need to know exactly what it is you are asking me here. Are you asking me if I believe casual sex is detrimental to women, damaging them physically, spiritually, and emotionally? The answer to that is a resounding yes. There’s a fair amount of research on this topic now to back that up, including the increased risk of divorce a woman has as her partner count increases.

Do I believe women who’ve had many partners are unredeemable? No, of course not. But a wise man is careful as he picks the future mother of his children, given how traumatic divorce is for children, and this is something he must take into account.

Now, having said all that, do I agree that the manosphere is cult-like? Well, I think the cultishness comes mostly from one blogger. That particular blogger tolerates no dissent from his particular agenda and uses very cultish tactics to make sure discussions he doesn’t like are shut down. That so many manospherians seem to both idolize and fear him is rather strange. But take someone like Donal Graeme or Deep Strength- I don’t find such men cultish, do you? I may not always agree with them, but I think they are seeking wisdom and understanding and there is no harm in that.

Jeanette V #sexist archive.today

My husband is a retired master mechanic in the Air Force. He told me that the dirty little secret was that woman pilots were four times more likely to crash then men. Now this was 20 years ago. I see no reason why this might be different. He claims no one really knew what the reason was. He also said woman make very good co-pilots, better than men, because of their high tolerance for tedium and the ability to multitask. The problem with women as pilots is when something goes wrong women tend to think and men react. He said the worse crash he witnessed was when a woman flight instructor was teaching a woman pilot to land when something went wrong during landing. She hesitated then gave the wrong commands. Everyone died in that crash.He is strongly against woman fighter pilots, the planes aren’t designed for women. There is no way around the “indoor” plumbing. Not to mention she simply is not physically strong enough to withstand the G forces. She will pass out before a man.

Of course there is also the problem of intuitive fighting; women don’t seem to have it.

Laura Wood #fundie archive.today

Career commercial pilots are screened for recklessness and immaturity. Not just anyone becomes a pilot. Nevertheless, qualities involved in risk-taking are needed in an emergency: fearlessness and an ability to act quickly. That risk-taking tendency is an advantage for men. Diligence and conscientiousness don’t matter much in emergencies.
Also, women do not outscore men on the sort of mechanical diligence involved in the operation of machinery. If so, then women would be better car mechanics and engineers. The truth is, men are more highly motivated than women to work with machinery. After all, airplanes were conceived, developed and built by men. Are you telling me women are better equipped to fly machines they never could have built? I’ve never met a single little girl who was fascinated with planes as machines. I have met quite a few little boys who were. Which brings us to yet another reason why women shouldn’t be pilots. Men are avid about flying. And the field is infused with a masculine esprit de corps. If that is destroyed, it should be of necessity, not simply for the gratification of a few.

Dota #racist archive.today

Nevertheless the idea of the moral elite is a deeply ingrained WASP value. Henry Ford Sr paid his employees an astonishingly high wage of $5 per day (well above industry standards at the time) and expressed the dignity and joy inherent in good honest work. He even blew the whistle on Jewish tribalism and dual loyalties (The international Jew). Ford, a great Capitalist and a great American, expressed the highest values of the Anglo-Saxon/Protestant tradition (though he was technically Irish). Even today, we expect our industrialists to be philanthropists and while we take these values for granted, they are not common to non white cultures. Mukesh Ambani’s obscenely opulent palatial residence, built amidst the squalor and filth of Mumbai, is estimated to be worth $2 billion dollars. A great Capitalist and a great Indian, Ambani expresses the highest values of South Asia’s Hinduized civilization.

But what does all of this have to do with minority interests in North America?

I believe that there is a smouldering resentment buried within whites who are frustrated at being unable to take pride in their White/European heritage. Liberals and Jewry are content so long as Anglo, French and German cultures are treated “like the cultures found in museums or on a bookcase.” But as soon as these ethnic nationalisms are linked to Canada and America’s national heritages, the liberal PC hammer descends with a vengeance. However it is my view that the stifling effect of MC inflames white xenophobia as whites no doubt associate minorities with the suppression of their ethnic pride. Furthermore, how can whites not be resentful when the third world steadily pours into their backyard and demands special treatment and protection? Reducing immigration and scrapping away MC/PC programs would have numerous benefits for whites and especially non whites. Lets examine some of these benefits:

Less pressure on jobs: Whites might not realize this, but one immigrant’s greatest foe is another immigrant competing for the same job. I speak from personal experience as I have lost employment opportunities to other immigrants.

Availability of additional funds: Shutting down MC programs might free up funds available for other projects and priorities that would benefit all Canadians.

An overall decrease in xenophobia: This outcome might seem puzzling to some but as white ethnic pride goes up, xenophobia decreases as whites no longer feel threatened by expressing ethnic pride. There might be an initial spike of xenophobia which would eventually subside.

Immigrants, particularly South/East Asians and Arabs, tend to subscribe to some pretty conservative values that are right in line with Paleoconservatism. The Muslims in my circle (in Saskatoon) are adamant about enrolling their children in Islamic and Catholic schools to avoid “pro gay” propaganda. The only reason immigrants vote liberal is due to their mistaken belief that immigration is in their best interests. There is also this false notion floating around that only liberals can protect immigrants from the racist monsters lurking beneath their beds. If immigrant minorities can be persuaded to abandon these false beliefs it might culminate in a massive setback for the liberal agenda.

All things considered, it isn’t baffling or illogical for an immigrant Indian Muslim like myself to subscribe to Paleoconservatism. My interests are aligned to the interests of the white majority and subverting Western society will not bode well for anybody, whites and non whites alike.

woh kavi #fundie archive.today

Male fantasies allow us to escape into worlds that lie far away but remain curiously familiar. While Mordor and a galaxy far far away might superficially contrast with the world we live in, they still function on a set of rules and paradigms that are accessible to us in the real world. Whether it’s the expansionist nature of Mordor or the corrupt politics that would be the downfall of the Galactic Republic, these fantastical worlds are governed by the same general principles that govern our world. Similarly, one could immediately relate to the ethical dilemmas encountered by Captain Picard and his crew aboard the Enterprise, such as the question of when to break the Prime Directive.

The female fantasy is exactly the other way around. While the settings of these fantasies may seem familiar to us, these worlds are based on a set of rules that are illogical and improbable. What are the odds of anybody’s biography resembling Fifty Shades of Grey? Yet because the setting resembles the real world, the female mind has difficulty separating reality from fantasy.

This might possibly explain how women live through contradictions without reconciling them; because they are simply not aware of them. This possibly explains how women can live of a man’s charity (alimony, child support) while still declaring themselves “strong and independent.” This explains how women can have consensual sex and yet genuinely convince themselves that they were raped. This explains how women can think that single mothers are the greatest thing since sliced bread despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Women do not do these things out of malice, but rather, they are simply too self-absorbed to know any better.

Female solipsism prevents the fairer sex from adequately grasping the principles of justice and fairness. Some readers will be quick to point out a list of highly successful female rulers throughout history such as Queens Victoria, Elizabeth, Noor Jahan, and Laxmibai (a symbol of Indian resistance against the British). But it is worthwhile to point out that these women functioned within the bounds of patriarchal societies and did not attempt to overthrow the prevailing order. Queen Laxmibai resisted British imperialism in India and was slain on the battlefield. She didn’t fight against the “oppression of women,” but rather against the oppression of her kingdom and all subjects therein. This is why she is rightly revered as a true patriot all over India to this day. We know that feminists do not make good patriots.

Many readers would also bandy about the argument that “Men start all the wars!” This argument is bogus and invalid because it assumes that men are a class in the Marxist sense of the word. It assumes that everyone born with a Y chromosome, regardless of culture, race, and religion, belongs to this homogenous internationalist class. When viewed from this demented perspective, the largely peaceful men of Malaysia assume moral responsibility for the barbarism of warlike cultures like the Afghans and Aztecs.

Leftist nonsense generally aims to undermine race, family, religion, and nation; the pillars of an individual’s identity. Upon their ruin the liberal will assign individuals with a new Marxist class identity that comes with it’s own handy-dandy two-dimensional historical narrative which is anything but historical.

It’s been stated before that the true test of a group’s integrity is measured by how liberal-minded they are when they are the majority. As our corrupt elites continue to empower their pet classes (women, gays, immigrants), I wonder if said groups will display the same degree of tolerance towards the western men that sacrificed their self-interests on a matter of principle.

Dota #fundie archive.today

I also tried searching the phrase “Jewish supremacy” and ended up with reports attacking individuals like David Duke, individuals who exposed Jewish supremacist ideas. That’s Jewish logic for you: that the Jew can tarnish reputations by labeling people racist whereas anyone who accuses the morally upright Jew of racism is also racist. What was that line about Jews supporting diversity and ‘tolerance’ in North America while defending Jewish fascism in Israel?

The anti bullying campaign lifted off in Canada amidst a great deal of media fervor and fanfare. I believe the impetus for this movement were the suicides of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd. In traditional WASP culture (ie American/Canadian culture) kids were taught to stand up to their bullies but today kids are taught to lean on authority to solve their problems. The issue however goes deeper than this.

The State has spoken and insists that it will undemocratically imposes the views of 1% on the other 99%. Make no mistake, the real bullies here are elite puppets like Laurel Broten.

Anti-bullying has now been extended to monitor online bullying as well. The “Stop hating online” campaign basically conditions young people to practice self censorship. The official rationale is that intimate photos must not be distributed with the intent of tormenting people. While such a motive is laudable I still fail to see why the state must become involved in what is essentially a dispute between private individuals.

In a somewhat related incident, a private conversation on Facebook stirred up a hornets nest at the University of Ottawa. Anne-Marie Roy (President of the student federation) became the subject of a sexually course conversation between 5 friends on Facebook. A screen shot of the conversation was anonymously emailed to her and she went public with it decrying “rape culture” (whatever that means). This feminist fruitcake has obviously never visited Pakistan or Afghanistan. Four of the five threatened her with legal action but later withdrew their threats. The usual assortment of idiots (feminists, liberals, manginas) applauded her “bravery” for speaking out against “rape culture”; as if speaking out on a topic that is widely covered by the mainstream media requires courage. Idiots like Roy remind me of people like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller who “bravely” bash Islam knowing full well that it is actually fashionable to do so. Granted that some Muslims deserve to be bashed (Pakistanis/Afghans/ Khaliji Arabs) and should be taken to task for collectively stupid behaviour, but I digress. Roy has single-handedly destroyed the reputation of five men that had a private conversation which did her no harm. The conversation contained no threats made against her and was purely private. Yet despite these facts Roy has herself genuinely convinced that SHE is the victim, thereby demonstrating her inability to tell right from wrong. In our culture of excessive victim coddling it would appear that intent is indeed in the eye of the beholder. According to lunatic liberals, American and Canadian universities are saturated with ”rape culture”, women like Roy are victims, and society oppresses and bullies gays. War is peace and freedom is slavery.

Bay Area Guy #fundie archive.today

Just like many Jewish activists, the Arabs in charge of Al Jazeera only embrace left-wing thought when it serves their own interests, and primarily deploy progressivism as an ideological tool against the white West. While they embrace editorials from a variety of leftists that offer strong critiques of white Western culture, they exempt their own society and culture from such scathing criticism. Such hypocrisy from Arab Muslim nationalists, moderate or otherwise, is not the sole domain of Al Jazeera. In his excellent book From Plato to Nato, David Gress perfectly describes the duplicity of Islamic revivalists and reformists, which is essentially similar to Al Jazeera‘s,

As I pointed out in my last post, I sincerely believe that it is only whites who are foolish enough to embrace leftist beliefs. The Arabs of Qatar, like virtually all non-Western peoples, embrace nationalism and some measure of chauvinism. They would never embrace progressivism if it meant compromising the various comforts and advantages they enjoy within Qatar. Therefore, don’t expect any editorials denouncing “Gulf Arab privilege” to appear in Al Jazeera anytime soon.

Given the platform enjoyed by Al Jazeera and the millions of people that their writing and broadcasts reach, I deem it necessary to expose their hypocrisy and warn my fellow white people not to be fooled by their progressive posturing. The time has at last come to deconstruct these professional deconstructors.

Anarcho Papist #fundie archive.today

I suppose I should have figured this out earlier, but it seems that feminism is a dysgenic social movement. Why? The mechanism is very simple. From the perspective that women need to “rise up” and “take their place in the world” by taking on what was previously a traditionally male career path, it only makes sense that such a social expectation would be disproportionately placed on women of higher intelligence since, after all, they are “better able to compete.” And perhaps they do, for a time. Those who are able should pursue higher levels of education and career advancement; “to whom much is given, much shall be expected.” It is only a small disappointment for a dumb blonde to settle down in her 20’s and be dedicated to a family, but it is a great disappoint for an intelligent woman to forego her place in the workplace.

But the result of this is that more intelligent women are less likely to pass on their genetic material. As such, it is the less intelligent women who breed, which is a dysgenic effect.

Does it not seem weird that we are effectively saying to our best and brightest women that their most enlightened lifestyle is materialistic nihilism? Get a job, make a bunch of money, be independent. Don’t have children. Die alone without any genetic legacy. Women are to discern their calling to the Spinsterhood. If such a calling is unable to be undertaken, they may receive a dispensation from the sugar daddy government to have children paid for by taxpayers and divorced fathers.

Can we call it that? This generation of feminist spinsters, which by the nature of its prohibition of sexual reproduction, is memetically suicidal. Feminism guarantees its own extinction, because those most likely to live their life according to its precepts also have the most potential to forward it, but these precepts specifically prohibit partaking in the grand tradition of having a family and raising children. They opt out of societal continuity, and so choose their own ruin.

The Spinsterhood: 40+ year old women without children. This population has a higher-than-average intelligence, which means that the following generations are essentially quarantined from both their superior genetic stock, a great tragedy, and their inferior ideological disposition, a great mercy. Women are incapable of ruling the world because as soon as they have some power they immediately use it to secure their own immediate material desires, rather than laying down foundations for the future.
Not having children is selfish and stupid. It is a privilege to have children, a privilege much more available to women than to men. Under a feminist social environment, intelligence in women is an evolutionarily maladaptive trait. That’s strange. Intelligence, maladaptive? Were a eugenics program otherwise touted specifically in order to reduce the intelligence of successive generations, you would be led to think some great evil or psychological disability is afoot.

I imagine it is more difficult to raise the intelligence of a population through successive generations than to lower it. How many generations would it take to cover the ground lost by feminism in a single Spinster generation?

Yet another reason to favor patriarchy: so that successive generations of society may be more intelligent than their forebears. Indeed, within a patriarchal society, the intelligence of a lady actually becomes an attractive quality, since a better intelligence will help her to manage the affairs of the household better. This is certainly at a contrast with female intelligence in a feminist society, where it is a repellent quality, as it is so highly correlated with very un-attractive lifestyles, behaviors, and attitudes.

Ilana Mercer #fundie archive.today

But where have women been since 1950? Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world`s population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences. In literature, women have claimed only 8 percent. No woman has won a Nobel in economics.

During that period Jews, who comprise less than 0.5 percent the world`s population, have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.

One possible explanation for this discrepancy: the alleged greater variability in men`s intelligence. The “Bell Curve“ of their IQ distribution seems to be less bunched around the median IQ than that of women. They are, consequently, more likely to enjoy very high but suffer very low IQs.

The subjects in which so few women have demonstrated excellence require particularly high IQs. And women, so the theory goes, simply have fewer high IQs.

However, Professor Richard Lynn, co-author of IQ And The Wealth Of Nations, argues that men enjoy an advantage in average IQ—their median may be as much as five points above that of women. This means that there are even more high IQ men than women. At an IQ of 145 there are about ten men to one woman.

The other popular but less credible explanation involves the equal-but-different approach to aptitude. Men are better at math, spatial and mechanical reasoning; women at verbal skills. Women`s mathematical reasoning might not be as good as men`s on average but women, according to this theory, make up for it with superior verbal fluency and artistic flair.

Lynn, working from his developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence, demonstrates that while men do enjoy the aforementioned advantage, adults are, on average, equal in verbal ability, with one minor exception: women are better at spelling and foreign languages.
Women`s relatively scant accomplishments in the second half of the 20th century as quantified objectively by Murray certainly puts meat on the bones of Lynn`s findings.

Since 1950, women have won only five Nobels in literature. And some of those are questionable. How can one put Toni Morrison into the literary company of Patrick White, Albert Camus, and Isaac Bashevis Singer?
In past years, the literature prize went to authors of the caliber of J. M. Coetzee, Günter Grass, and V.S. Naipaul.

But last year, Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek was awarded the literature prize.

I`m not suggesting the grumpy Jelinek is a fraud like Guatemalan leftist and Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu. Some of Jelinek`s dusty works, translated crudely into English, showcase some skill (if one can stomach the contrived subject matter). However, unlike her male predecessors, she is better known for politically correct posturing than for penning memorable works of literature.

Questions also surround this year`s choice for the most prestigious prize in medicine. I personally doubt whether Linda B. Buck`s olfactory discoveries warranted a Nobel (shared with Richard Axel). For example, this year`s Nobel winners in Chemistry—two Israelis and one American—appear to dwarf the Buck and Axel smell sensation.
Was the committee compelled perhaps to showcase at least one female scientist?

To overcome the shortage of women in male-dominated professions, some institutions are stacking the deck.

Statistician La Griffe du Lion has documented the campaign to make entry into engineering schools easier for women. To overcome the advantage that men have on the crucial mathematical reasoning sections of the admission tests, educational administrators are devising subtle ways to lower standards.

On a lighter note, look at the zany world of reality television—as presented in this scene from the first season of The Apprentice.
The task confronting the two competing teams was to refurbish and rent out two apartments. The team leaders—Katrina Campins and Troy McClain—were vying for the best apartment. Campins, tart and schoolmarm rolled into one, is a real estate “expert,” but is unsure which apartment is the better bet.

Although it is unclear to what avail, Campins decided that she and her rival would write down and then exchange their respective choices. Troy McClain, who had been watching her closely as she brainstormed (or infarcted) for the camera, smiled amiably and complied. When Campins opened McClain`s note, she went berserk. He had effortlessly outsmarted her: “I want what you want,” McClain had written.

Then and there he figured out how to claim the prized pick by picking the professional`s brain.

Of course, The Apprentice candidates constitute a restricted sample, chosen for a combination of looks and status.

Despite this, the disparities in character and cerebral agility between the men and the women could not be more glaring. An obviously déclassé act, the women would have been utterly risible if they were not so revolting.
I sincerely hope The Apprentice is not an accurate reflection of the crème de la crème of up-and-coming distaff America.

As a measure of woman, the Nobel Prize is depressing enough.

James Galb #racist archive.today

Steve Sailer has in interesting comment on a question I’ve thought about from time to time, why multicultural societies are less creative. Basically, he says that necessity is the mother of invention: if there had been a lot of black musicians in early-60s Liverpool, the Beatles wouldn’t have had to come up with their own rock ‘n roll. If you can go out and get multiethnic cuisine, you don’t bother developing your own cooking.

Here are some other reasons that have occurred to me:

High-level creativity needs a coherent setting and tradition to give it materials and possibilities. That’s why there is no Shakespeare of pidgin. As Sailer points out, ethnic cuisines developed in monocultural settings.
In multicultural society the only principles of order are arm’s length contract and top-down management. There’s not enough of a network of ties and common understandings for anything else to work. Neither allows for much creativity, because they’re too simple and single-minded.

Then there’s the obvious point, that if you have a multicultural society that has to pretend to be free, equal and democratic you have to control thought and expression in boring ways to keep the whole house of cards from collapsing. “Celebrating diversity” means refusal to deal with any important issue in an interesting way, because you might end up saying that something is better than something else.

Don’t evolutionary biologists talk about the importance of isolated niche situations for speciation? Whatever its status in biology, the reasoning suggests that cosmopolitan societies would be uncreative.

Robert Lindsay #fundie archive.today

I write about this a lot. Women and men inhabit different universes and the reason for that is biological.

Of course I supported women’s liberation as a child of the 60’s. But it opened a Pandora’s Box and most feminists now are just lunatics. It’s not a sane movement if it ever was.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Jewish women are way smarter than Asian chicks but Jewesses were raised under feminism and I understand that they are typical Western hellions.

Before women were like animals in the zoo. Sure, you can make modern zoos as humane as possible, but the animals are still in the zoo. They are not free. Prison is comforting, but at the end of the day, you are in jail and you are not a free man or animal. It wasn’t right to lock women or Blacks or gays in zoos or metaphorical prisons as we did.

Women, gays and Blacks were at best anthropological curiosities. You know, maybe it is fun to feed them and watch them in their cages, but you don’t exactly what them roaming free and really we straight White males are humans and those others are just zoo animals, so they are inferior.

The Liberation Movements of the 1960’s opened up the zoos in which we kept half the population, the queers, the Blacks and the rest. But now really we have the equivalent of lions and tigers running loose in our streets and you can’t call anyone to come capture these dangerous animals because it’s against PC.

Women nowadays are unleashed. They are untamed and feral. Feral women is not a pretty picture. It’s great for some guys and it’s crap for most. They revert to Cavewomen and practice hypergamy and other natural things that civilization was set up to keep in check in order to create a livable society. Women’s Liberation has led to Roissy, PUA’s, the Men’s Movement, Game Theory, the rise of the Republican Party and lots of other strange things. Women hate most of these things, but the truth is that they are children that women birthed.