Dissident relationships: Reply to Kevin MacDonald
Editor’s note: This is a reply to my article “Ideas on Maintaining Relationships with the Less Committed in a Dark Age.” My comments are in bold.
As a White, female spouse of a male TOO contributor, I read with special interest Kevin MacDonald’s recent essay on how to maintain relationships among the less-committed. His essay suits me to a T. I have long been uncomfortable with my husband’s political writings—partly because I disagree with some of them, partly because of his use of a pseudonym, and partly because of the potential consequences for both us and for society. MacDonald’s essay has the laudable goal of creating better family relations, but many of his points are condescending or miss the mark. I offer my thoughts below.
As I read his essay, the main point seems to be the difficulty of maneuvering (and maintaining) a personal relationship with someone who is not in total agreement with your own ideology, and specifically the way in which he expresses that ideology. For sake of simplicity, I will assume that the “dissident writer” is a White male, and that the “significant other” (SO) is a White female; this should cover the vast majority of the 200-some TOO contributors.
I wonder, first of all, about the motivation for such a piece. I don’t know if Prof. MacDonald has (or had) an SO, and if so, if she is one of the “less-committed.” Does he speak from direct experience? Or is he hearing things second-hand from his many correspondents? If he has no firsthand experience, he is perhaps in a poor situation to comment. And in any case, he is obviously not himself one of the beleaguered SO’s, and thus is unqualified to address things from that perspective.
KM: Yes, I have a significant other and yes, she is less committed. Like many people, she is far less interested in politics than I am.
Second, I fear that my reply may well be a futile effort because I am a woman who engages in political discussion, and women’s voices seem undervalued and underappreciated in alt-right circles. MacDonald seems to have in mind women who apparently avoid political discussion in order to dwell on family, friends, and hobbies. I never looked at it that way (nor does my husband) because we know that women (and men) can engage in activism and still have time for hobbies/interests. So, from my point of view, this article could be addressed to any couple whose viewpoints differ on political issues, especially considering our current political climate.
MacDonald raises the interesting case of Anne Morrow Lindbergh, and so I will begin with some thoughts on her situation. I will then look at the problem of relationships specifically, and then close with some critical thoughts on the whole “White interests” movement.
The Lindberghs: A Case Study
I enjoyed the reference to the Anne Morrow Lindbergh diary entries, which were all drawn from the fifth (and last) volume of diaries and letters (War Within and Without, 1939–1944). Anne, like many SOs, finds herself in a role that she did not ask for.
My similarity to Anne is the concern I experience for my husband’s reputation. I also struggle with understanding his intended end game. A bigger issue for some SOs is the realization that the dissident writer intends to instigate others to a negative (i.e., violent) outcome. The SO is often left to explain (uncomfortably) this behavior to family and friends. I do think that most women prefer personal interaction and dialogue over publications or speeches. We see it as a quicker way to resolution, or at the very least to understanding intent. I would also lean toward supporting a situation—even a White identity movement—that was intended to help humankind rather than hurt a particular group. Anne has “the greatest faith” in Charles as a person, and she understands his intent. However, some dissidents act only in their own self-interest, often emanating insecurity and a combative intent in their rhetoric. Charles Lindbergh is hardly a dissident in this regard.
As a famous and respected person, Charles had intended to simply write a speech naming the people and governments he saw as “war agitators” in an effort to inform the American public and avoid involvement in the war that was at that time contained to Europe. He was not bitter or hateful toward the agitators as a group of people, nor as individuals. He stated the truth as he saw it. Lindbergh did not intend for his speech to lead to violent retributions. It is the reaction of the public (actually the press in his case) to the dissident’s words or how they understand the intent, that leads to potentially unwarranted scrutiny. If we describe the contributors of TOO as dissidents in the sense that they are pro-White and anti-Jewish, we assume that they know that their “truth” could be detrimental to entire groups of people.
KM: Yes, but not saying anything is certainly detrimental to the traditional White majority. Some people have to speak up. There are always going to be conflicts of interest in politics. That’s what it’s all about. Anonymous seems to see things entirely from the standpoint of possible negative repercussions for the targets of dissident writers—e.g., Jews in the case of Lindbergh. But again, the big picture is that Lindbergh was trying to avoid a catastrophe in which millions would die. In such a situation, the hurt feelings of Jews who were accurately portrayed as an important force promoting the war mean nothing. Even possible violence by lone individuals or small groups motivated to action by Lindbergh’s comments (and in the absence of Lindbergh’s endorsement) would be of trivial importance compared to the war; I am aware of no record of anti-Jewish violence occurring as a result of Lindbergh’s speech, and of course TOO does not advocate violence as a solution.
Thus, the SO finds herself on the outside of this fraternity but with the opportunity to play the role of moderator. Charles’ speech included statements that Anne believed would not be welcome in her community. This played a part in her fear, although her greater fear was for her family’s ostracism. She foresaw that his intentions would be misunderstood. MacDonald quotes Anne as sensing “that this is the beginning of a fight and consequent loneliness and isolation that we have not known before.” She does not, however, let this potential outcome stop her from supporting her husband. She continues to speak to him about her feelings and beliefs, and he listens—even revising his wording to better address his audience and potentially assuage dissent. From my experience, this is the best option we have when those outside of the relationship seem short-sighted or are quick to judge, as perhaps many of our family and friends can be, and as Anne’s were. Of course, there are people we do not know who may act upon our words, and being mindful of these reactions is always prudent in public discourse and publishing. Dissident writers hold that responsibility.
As MacDonald points out, Anne states, “I cannot explain my revulsion of feeling by logic.” Correctly, she knows this is not always possible. And yet, she in fact goes on to give something of a “logical” analysis; I think she underestimates herself. It is possible to know the truth of an issue and yet still realize that that very truth may be hurtful and misunderstood by others. That is often the case in my situation. How can I question what I have not personally researched, especially if my misgivings are based on feeling and not on logic? Being aware of this natural reaction makes the experience less intimidating.
On the day of the speech, Anne writes, “I am afraid of the effect of his speech…and the effect on him and the cause. He says that the point is not what the ‘effect’ will be on him … but whether or not what he said is true and whether it will help to keep us out of war.” Charles’ point is that he tells the truth, and he is not concerned about the resulting effect on him. This is what my husband says as well. He ignores the fact that there may be an effect outside of himself. The SO has the choice to buy into the ideas written or buy into the resulting effects. She finds herself in a dilemma when she cannot reconcile the intent of the writing with what she fears of the end game. She must tackle this herself; and further on I discuss what the dissident writer may do to help her.
As stated, I believe that many SO’s find themselves highly concerned with consequences. Many dissident writers throw empathy out the window so as not to weaken their position. However, if there is concern for your SO, some acknowledgement of unintended effects would put the dissident writer in a much better position to make his case. This, in my opinion, is necessary when one is engaged in criticism or one-sided ideologies. Dissidents can act without foresight or in ignorance of the potential consequences, or they can moderate their points based on the effect on others. As Anne points out, her worst fears were confirmed when Charles was “attacked on all sides” (not physically) after his speech—by the Roosevelt “Administration, pressure groups, and Jews, as now openly a Nazi.” Anne wanted to avoid this; not strictly for fear of her situation, but to avoid a misunderstanding of the ideology behind her husband’s speech because it was not one of hate but of concern for his country.
I find it insightful that Anne asks and answers the question as to why she senses that it is wrong to name the Jews as being pro-war “even if it is done without hate, bitterness or criticism” as she does. Her answer is “because it is segregating them as a group, setting the ground for anti-Semitism.” She recognizes that naming or blaming of Jews is an agitator based on historical context. This is unsettling to her because she knows that it will instigate hatred, and for that reason should be moderated. She is not considering the truth of the statement (as Charles is). In the end, the truth is more than some influential people want to hear, and Anne’s fears are realized.
Anne understands that what may have been Charles’ intent brings about the opposite result. This is very common today and dissident writers should understand that this may be a result of their rants, speeches and articles. I do not single out the alt-right. This is true of any group that does not moderate their attacks on others. This does not mean to moderate views necessarily, but is a suggestion to moderate the mode of attacks. Anne states that “more passion is being aroused” by statements of fact that were intended not to arouse but to quell passions.
KM: Again, I worry that too much emphasis is being placed on the possible effects that dissidents’ words may have on others. Certainly, my writing has offended the ADL and many individual Jews as well as many others on the left. I do worry that someone who claims to have been influenced by my writing will go and blow up a synagogue or something. But that can’t be helped. There are always people out there who are prone to violence as a solution for everything. But that is no reason for me to stop writing. If there is no dissent, then what I regard as the forces of evil—forces that would utterly destroy the people and culture of the country I grew up in—would have no push-back at all. As it is, we are relegated to relatively tiny corners of the internet and oftentimes to conventions held in secret, whereas those who hate us are beaming their messages 24/7 into the living rooms, classrooms, and movie theaters across the entire country. Our demonstrations are greeted with violence aided and abetted by police, government, and ultimately the courts. Our meetings are held in secret, whereas our enemies can easily muster thousands in prominent public spaces without any fear of violence. And despite our relatively weak position, they are doing everything they can to completely stifle dissent, abrogate the First Amendment, de-platform and demonetize sites like TOO and Red Ice, and ultimately legislate prison terms for politically incorrect speech as has already been done in many parts of Europe at the behest of the same forces promoting censorship in the U.S.
Present-day Relationship Conflicts
MacDonald points out that a typical situation might be that of a wife/girlfriend being “terrified of it becoming known that she is associated closely with someone” who is setting themselves up for social ostracism. “Typical” makes it sound like a widespread problem. It is a bit of a mystery to me as to why he would think this is a pervasive issue. From my experience, this is an over-generalization of a woman’s reaction. As a wife of a dissident writer, and knowing SO’s in similar situations, I would not use “terrifying” in my description of the typical situation. I do, however, understand that in some situations the dissident does put his ‘innocent’, ‘less-committed’ family in potential unwanted peril. But in fact, in many cases, the SO is the only thread keeping the dissident from anarchy.
KM: It’s quite different being the SO of a well-known dissident writing under my own name as opposed to the SO of a pseudonymous dissident—the former is much more terrifying for many. I don’t understand the idea that the SO may be “the only thread keeping the dissident from anarchy.” That certainly doesn’t apply to me.
MacDonald seems to speak for women in this piece, far too often. For example, “men are far more concerned [than women] about politics and distribution of power.” I guess he would know better than I, since he is a man. It does not mean it is necessarily a good thing. He also states that “men tend to suffer more [read: die] when there is a(n)…takeover.” I don’t know about that. Once you are slaughtered, your suffering ends. Being taken as a concubine (against your will and all that comes from that) might lead me to question who actually suffers more. Let’s just say there is suffering by all during war/takeovers.
KM: My comments on men being more concerned about politics stem from evolutionary psychology. You interpret me to be concerned about mental suffering. I am concerned about evolutionary fitness: Male fitness is much more affected by the distribution of power than is female fitness. In nature, the vast majority of females mate, while males typically have to achieve a position in the dominance hierarchy to mate. (If you want to see the brutality of male competition, watch the National Geographic videos now available on the Disney streaming channel.) This has shaped the male brain—the fundamental premise of evolutionary psychology, well-supported by the research.
MacDonald mentions “that doxing would result in social opprobrium” and he assumes “that your significant other is not a social justice warrior.” He assumes that the wife/girlfriend is “intolerant of conflicting opinions” and that she may be “fueled by hatred toward people” with strong right (nationalist) views. He also states that “such people are impossible to reason with, …spew hatred… accompanied with ungrounded assertions of moral and intellectual superiority.” I am not sure where this is coming from; there is a lot of hatred spewed toward other ethnicities when reading some White identity diatribes (maybe less true of TOO articles). I think MacDonald’s assumption is a prejudiced description of an SO with liberal views. It was an inappropriate point for him to make.
KM: Believe me, I know some such people personally, and they are every bit as hateful as I describe and every bit as willing to cut off all contact with dissidents, including with close family. The point in my article was that I was not going to be talking about such people because they are hopeless. If the SO of a dissident is like that, the best advice is to leave the relationship or stop being a dissident. I am talking about people who are sympathetic but less committed—people who are attracted to the relationship but not on board with the whole package. That, incidentally, is my experience.
Absolutely correct is his assertion that there are pressures on employers to punish dissidents. Companies are all too willing to fire those who dissent. Maintaining a low profile is understandable when threatened by loss of livelihood. In my case, my husband and I have experienced the consequences of failing to conform. Capitalism does play into this issue, and dissident writers could/should spend more time questioning the issues caused by it. Capitalism allows employers to call the shots and mold its employees in their thoughts and deeds—by desire or demand. For sure, it is another possible effect that your SO must be willing to risk for the sake of supporting your ideas.
MacDonald addresses the fact that “being ostracized from polite society may not bother activists personally.” This was previously discussed as something Charles Lindbergh addressed as well. This comes from their belief that they are right-minded (even if not open-minded), and often fueled by like-minded friends (if only in cyberspace). But how could a worldview be based on cyberspace relationships when the first priority for most humans is to have real, face to face interactions? Apart from dating websites, eventually those “sympatico mates” must meet face-to-face.
KM: I agree that online relationships are ultimately unsatisfying. That’s why it’s important to have conferences, such as AmRen does. I usually go to several conferences every year (most held in secret or under police protection) and I enjoy meeting people, putting faces to names, and talking in relaxed, informal environments.
I agree regarding use of a pseudonym. MacDonald states that it is necessary and desirable for many, but that this does not completely solve the problem. Often the reason one is used is that this option “protects” the SO. That being said, it seems to me that having a pseudonym gives permission to live two separate lives. It begs the question: which one is the real you and which one includes the SO? The alternate identity gives a license to say things one would not say in public. It is just a matter of time before it no longer works. Better to be up front understanding the importance of being your genuine self and accepting the consequences. I would be surprised if the pseudonym option makes your SO ‘feel better,’ as their real issue should be with the dissident’s ideology and intent.
KM: Obviously, I don’t use a pseudonym, and I think it’s important that some of us do this. I have had pseudonymous writers on TOO who have not been doxed in over 10 years. I am sure that a government agency or a determined hacker could find out real names but it seems to me to be quite rational to continue using a false identity as along as possible in cases where there would be dire consequences, such as loss of livelihood. In my case, I had no excuse because I had tenure at my university. All they could do was unleash their hate—which they did.
White and Right
Because White identity is typically bound up with feelings of being threatened, White identity ideology is self-interested by definition. In my view, some dissident writers appear to have concern only for their own personal interests (disguised as White interests). This is not a persuasive position, assuming you are writing so that other less-informed people will join in your efforts. Even so, it is not a persuasive position if you want your SO to join in. It is always better to have her support than to have her sabotaging your efforts.
KM: I am curious what writers you think are only concerned with their personal interests. I can’t think of any. It’s all about the future of White people and the forces arrayed against us, and the great majority of us are doing it at great personal cost or potential cost, social or financial.
Accordingly, what Lindbergh does similarly (as an American who happens to be White) is to admit that his intent is for Americans to understand the upcoming danger of entering the war so that they are saved from the consequent peril. However, he is able to put himself in the shoes of the British and the Jews, recognizing and stating that they have obvious interests in the war. He shows some empathy for the position they are in. This seems very different from what SO’s are now faced with when understanding their partner. This is the dissident’s lack of ability to put themselves in anyone else’s shoes. From my experience, dissident writers seldom acknowledge that they understand why the other side acts or believes as they do; in addition to lack of recognition that if things play out as they wish, someone will reap extreme negative consequences. This is a mindset that so many SO’s cannot reckon with.
KM: A lot of my writing is directed at understanding why White people think the way they do about these issues. Much of this has appeared on TOO, and my recent book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, has an entire chapter (106 pages) on it. I think that all of us on the dissident right have been there. We were brought up in liberal-left culture, and many of us, like myself, began our political journey on the left. As outsiders and former adherents to liberal-left culture, we are in a good position to understand why they think like they do—oftentimes better, I think—than they themselves are able to.
One issue not discussed by MacDonald is the dissident writer’s intent (writing as a researcher and truth reporter vs. writing as a propagandist or political ideologue). The first thing I look for when being given the opportunity to pre-read my husband’s writings is the integrity of his research. When (if) the White interests movement grows, its members may have different ideas of the means needed to reach the end game. The common thread is that it is pro-White and anti-Jewish in nature. As an SO, I work to moderate the negative (anti) nature of the writings in favor of the positive (pro) aspects. It is a weak argument to portray yourself as the victim.
White identity politics is somewhat perplexing to me and short of being of genuine. Whites make up a small percentage of the world’s population. Why would the world respect or support an ideology when it shows a disregard for 90% of humanity? With that said, I have no disagreement with the facts of the matter, as research has proven much of it true (referring to the Jewish control and debasing of the White culture). There is a high-quality, well-documented case to be made and the TOO contributors have done a good job at this. The question remains what to do about it. And some of the alt-right views on this are too much in line with the tactics that they claim to be against. A better approach may be to use the dissenter/SO relationship as an indicator of how to approach the topic with the larger population to gain the momentum that will be needed to address such a pervasive issue. Of course, the dissedent must be open to considering opposing views.
KM: I don’t see why it should matter what other groups think of us. The point is we have interests and they are not necessarily incompatible with a reasonable interpretation of the interests of other peoples. A common idea on the dissident right is universal nationalism (e.g., Frank Salter)—the idea that different people should have their own homelands. I accept that as a reasonable solution. But what the globalist establishment wants is an end to White political, cultural, and demographic predominance in any country while not applying this ideology to countries like Korea, Japan, African societies, Israel, etc.
True free speech should be heard from whomever wants a voice. The First Amendment is (contrary to MacDonald’s opinion) valued by all sides as is the fight for justice. Although I lean toward believing that people can be reasonable when faced with dissenting views, I am in agreement about talking to your SO about the very real dangers of being a dissident of any position (not just on the right). MacDonald suggests pointing out “that many people are being attacked these days.” That point is obvious and somewhat condescending, unless your SO has been living in exile. She also knows that attacks from either side are not often justified. Using the example of Trump supporters being harassed with impunity is very hypocritical. Disruptions are planned almost every time a highly publicized event occurs. These disruptors often plan for violence. It is documented that Trump invites this behavior against those who do not agree with him (although I am not condoning it). MAGA-hat wearers are not the only people being called out publicly. Anti-Trump people get called out every day in alt-right speeches and at protests/rallies. Democratically elected lawmakers have received death threats because of their support of gun laws. Most SOs know there are real dangers and would most likely agree to punishment, when warranted, on either side.
KM: Sorry, but the First Amendment is definitely not valued on all sides. Speakers are routinely shut down, harassed, or disinvited as a result of actions by the left on college campuses; riots have occurred, as at UC-Berkeley over conservative speakers being invited. Demonstrations even by Trump supporters are attacked on the streets of cities like Portland, with little or no attempt by the government to stop them. Charlottesville was a disaster created by the police pushing the rightists into crowds of well-armed, violent leftists. The vast majority of this is left-on-right violence, not the reverse. And because I believe that Jews are very powerful in the U.S., realize that free speech is not at all a Jewish value—not only absent from traditional Jewish communities, but quite apparent in the contemporary world where Jewish organizations have uniformly supported “hate crime” legislation throughout the West. Jewish organizations, such as the ADL, and organizations with prominent Jewish funding and Jewish staff members, such as the SPLC, have taken a lead role in getting people and organizations de-platformed from social media and financial institutions. Just recently, Pres. Trump signed an executive order on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement that will be a devastating blow to criticism of Israel on college campuses and elsewhere.
And frankly I resent being called condescending for pointing out that many people are being attacked these days. In my experience, it has been effective with the less committed to point out that people like Tucker Carlson and Trump administration officials have been harassed in public. This is because they are in the mainstream enough to have TV shows or be employed in the government. Many SO’s think that dissident-right ideas are disreputable. It helps to tell them that we aren’t the only people being attacked, but that good, honest people with much milder ideas are being attacked as well.
Yes, attacks are happening against people on both sides. But it’s quite clear that the vast majority of the violence and harassment is coming from the left. Are leftists forced to hold meetings in secret or be prepared to fight if they decide to demonstrate in a city like Portland? I think not. Are leftist speakers denied platforms at universities? Rarely, and only if they are prone to doing things like criticizing transgenderism (perhaps because of its effects on women’s sports) or Israel. The left has a virtual hegemony in the culture and they want to keep it that way.
I have an issue with the statement that “your significant other may relate to the fact that the censorious left is shutting down many ideas that were entirely mainstream and respectable just a few years ago.” This is probably true. However, mainstream ideas are only mainstream for a short period of time before they become law (or no longer law), tradition, or simply out of fashion. They evolve based on cultural input. If we do not invite new ideas, which often replace the old, we risk stagnation. I think it is the censorship that we object to, and on that I agree.
KM: We on the dissident right are very involved in trying to understand why the culture has changed so much. If you want to read my opinion on what happened, I suggest reading The Culture of Critique for starters. The culture doesn’t just change by happenstance or drift. People do their best to shape culture in the direction they think will serve their interests, and in my opinion, the main shifts in the last 50 years have come about because of Jewish activism. I have done my best to rigorously support that proposition.
This may bring us close to “the wall-to-wall propaganda and ubiquitous surveillance by government” which no one wants—even the left. MacDonald tags the left with supporting big tech. Clearly, each side supports big tech (except maybe TOO contributors who are in a quandary, as without tech they would have no platform!); and it is a very big issue. It is without a doubt one of the biggest issues we continue to fight against, and it is aided by capitalists (liberals and conservatives alike). Trump pedals propaganda constantly as well as supporting government surveillance (especially of non-Whites). There is blame to share, and this issue needs to be addressed by all sides. We do indeed have to stand up to this.
KM: Big tech is far from neutral in the culture wars. Notoriously they are on the left, and they are much influenced by the ADL which has formed partnerships with Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft to combat “cyberhate,” including pressuring You Tube to remove accounts associated with the Alt Right. We don’t see them removing or shadow-banning accounts of people on the left.
Of course, Trump pedals his point of view, like all presidents have done; I am unaware of non-Whites being targeted specifically by government surveillance. If so, there would be a deluge of lawsuits by the ACLU, etc.
Finally, it’s common on the dissident right to critique capitalism—not only because of the political proclivities of big tech, but because they have colluded with the open-borders crowd to promote immigration because they get cheap labor. Virtually all the big American companies are committed to liberal/left positions on issues such as LGBTQ+, race, and immigration. They will not sponsor people like Tucker Carlson who is so hated by the left, with the result that all his sponsors are small companies looking for a niche market.
These issues may threaten all that we (collectively) value. I do not consider myself a “dyed-in-the-wool social justice warrior” by any stretch of that term. However, these issues threaten humanity, and MacDonald is suggesting that if we tap into women’s maternal instincts, they will understand. It is again condescending to generalize women as MacDonald does in this piece. The women I know are not more conservative when married and as they have gotten older. I have not lived in a shell; but have had the opportunity to know and been active in my community and my workplace with women and men of all sides of the political spectrum. From my experience, the older they get, the more enlightened they become, making them more open-minded. Using the words “buck up” is like saying ‘shut up and put up,’ and I recommend avoiding this way of getting your SO on board. It also seems to me that you claim to want to avoid making her fearful; but you want to warn her about evil in the world. If you want to reach your significant other; treat her like an equal.
KM: I am not being condescending but simply pointing to well-replicated findings. In claiming that women are more nurturant than men and that this affects their politics (resulting in the well-known gender gap on issues pulling for empathy, such as refugees, welfare programs, etc.), I am well within the research mainstream (reviewed in my recent book). And yes, marriage has a big effect. These findings of course do not necessarily apply to individual women. They are statistical patterns.
I understand the suggestion by MacDonald that the dissident writer keep their obsession with politics out of “day-to-day conversation.” That is probably what I would prefer in my situation as well. However, since how a person views the world drives all their actions, it is not possible in a real relationship. Keeping your ideology in the closet is not a recommended way to pursue a relationship or keep an existing one intact. Modern day women have been showing for decades that we want open and communicative relationships. Covertly discussing these ideas (especially when the consequences of the end game are so relevant for all of humanity) is a major mistake. Maybe that is how it has been done in the past, but aren’t we searching for better solutions?
KM: Sorry, my advice stands. Talk politics with people who are interested in politics. Why talk politics with someone who doesn’t much care? It can only lead to dissension or boredom. The key to good relationships is finding common ground—to talk about things that both people are interested in.
Closing Thoughts
I have suggested above some of the things that should not be done when trying to maintain a relationship with the less-committed SO. The two best options for your SO, if you seek to obtain a positive relationship, are for her to: 1) buy in to your ideas, or 2) buy in to the risks. There are multiple ways of approaching your SO. They include moderating your level of dissent as well as explaining your intent. Keep in mind that this may be a continual process, maintaining respect for each person’s right to have their own ideas. Tone down the condescending, demeaning, and sexist comments, because nothing will result from your ideology without the female White race on board. If you intend to go forward with oppressing our views, you will never achieve your end game.
Anne and Charles Lindbergh may have had differing opinions as to how much finger-pointing should occur when blaming others for world issues, but their honesty with each other is what kept their relationship strong. Hiding the true nature of dissent will never work in relationships. If the choice is shutting down versus keeping lines of communication open, an SO would always choose keeping lines of communication open. With any SO, it is always a bad idea to tiptoe around a topic. That is, unless you are prepared for future conflict and spending your life alone.
I would like to close by quoting Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s introduction to her final volume of her diaries. Her story was (in her words)
“an intensely personal story of two individuals: a complex man and his struggle to follow what his background, his character and integrity demanded; and a complex woman of quite a different background, who must reconcile her divided loyalties in a time of stress.”
As I am well aware, issues of divergent political values between couples is a complex and difficult problem, and requires effort and compromise on both sides. Generally speaking, the men contributing to TOO are intelligent and well-meaning. And surely their SO’s are similar. Perhaps “live and let live” is the best advice here, if a true meeting of the minds is impossible.
Hoo-boy. Where to even start with this…
It is probably a service to us that this piece was published. Since it is interpolated with the Professor’s rejoinders, it stands as a perfect example of the differing values assigned to subjects and ideas by the masculine and feminine minds.
The underlying (and overriding) concerns of the female anon are accession to some degree to majoritarian interests. This is all-too-typical of our wonderful female companions; it’s also one reason why history tends to get made by men. Conformity has its place, but in the female brain, conformity means belonging, and a sense of belonging and receiving peer approval are paramount to the happiness of women.
Women change with the prevailing winds of social consensus. In the Third Reich, women could be found ecstatically “Heil!” -ing the Fuhrer. Because that is what society encouraged. They weren’t insincere, but if reborn in our era these women would undoubtedly be wearing p-ssy hats or staging “slut walks”, or at least not objecting over-much to those who do. Women, once fearful of losing peer-support for being seen as sexually “loose”, now brag about their sexual adventures, and enthusiastically rate their various lover’s skills. The change can be attributed to the social movement from valuing chastity to valuing overt sexualization of the culture.
Men, as exemplified by Prof. MacDonald, are more aware of life as a struggle for resources, and more likely to identify threats to stability and longevity. Men will tend towards confrontation for what they believe is right; women will attempt to negotiate the terms of what is right, until they become unhinged or get in over their heads, then attacks will come, on themselves or others. When women harm or kill themselves, they are performing a protest against the society they found themselves in.
I believe women are essentially hard-wired for submission to the prevailing majority. This is one reason that in warfare like the Indian Wars here in America, the Natives would kidnap the children and women, killing any adult or near-adult males. They knew the young and the female could be molded and tamed. Indian captivity stories often find the male, after escaping, assimilating once more into White civilization; the females either would not, or re-entered with great difficulty.
The malleability and peer-group acceptance obsession women possess are actually a built-in guarantee of the continuance of the species. It’s why women were able to go in one generation from being repulsed by the idea of a black lover, to being intrigued by it. Nature would rather have a mulatto baby being born than no baby being born. Women are geared for peer-ordained conservatism, even when that very act of submissive conservatism is dressed up by society as radical Leftism. The next time you see a purple or green-haired female on social media decrying the patriarchy or Capitalism, remember: she is conforming, acting conservatively, in the face of her peer group.
So, thank you TOO for this article that illustrates some of the problems we on the Right have to face, sooner or later, about our women.
JRM, excellent comment – agree 100%. You’ve covered a lot of concerns I share regarding the wrong-headed push for “more women” among our ranks. Gatekeeping vs. the feminists is a challenge the churches failed. I don’t care to walk that path. Guys who can’t keep their love lives separate from their political activism should be cautioned to stay on the fringes of Our Thing and should be actively barred from sensitive discussions and serious activism.
Exile: Yes, JRM made some important points. For example,
“Conformity has its place, but in the female brain, conformity means belonging, and a sense of belonging and receiving peer approval are paramount to the happiness of women.”
The subject of conformity is an important one. And JRM is right, it does have its place.
“Con” meaning “With” and “Form” being what any group needs if it is to respond adequately to the problems it faces.
For this reason, it might be helpful to make a distinction between Conformity and Overconformity, which is conformity for conformity’s sake.
But, since this is something so common we’d end up just calling it Conformity anyway. So that’s what I’ll do here.
To simplify a complex matter I’d say there are three reasons why Conformity is a problem, now more than ever before.
1. Education: because Education has been replaced by Indoctrination people never learn to question their own assumptions. As Solzhenitsyn said in his Harvard Address from 1978, superficiality and impatience are the two psychic diseases of the modern age (the fact that this statement was lost to those in attendence that day explains why an A at Harvard stands for Average).
The result?
No Emotional Detachment + No Intellectual Insight = Incompetent Problem-Solvers.
And, an increase in Incompetent Problem-Solvers = A Maladaptive Species.
2. Competetion: an important subject not just for KM and TOO, but for all of us, and for a reason. Competition for, well, just about everything in life today, is intense, and it’s not going away.
3. Rapid Growth: No one born at any point in the 20th century needs a lecture on this subject. Same goes for children born in this century. Everything seems to indicate that this rapid growth will continue, making life today even more complex and unpreditable than it already is.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the area of social management.
These three factors,
Education
Intense Competition
Rapid Growth
work together to produce a sort of Ingrown Management within any particular group. It’s a natural reaction designed to protect the group and its individuals from the All Too Much.
But, the fact that it’s “natural” does not make it adaptive.
And why isn’t it adaptive?
Because any Ingrown Management is entirely preoccupied with Group problems (and their reinforcement).
So a conscious awareness of the many problems all of us face no matter what group we belong to, and a conscious preparation to respond to them adequately is inhibited.
From this perspective, viturally everything the woman said in this article was wrong.
Because she assumed she was right, because it was obvious that she not only has never learned to question her own assumptions, but shows no awareness that such a thing is valuable and important, and, speaking of awareness, because she had absolutely no self-awareness, no situational-awareness, or intellectual humility, she is her own worst enemy.
She’s ours too.
And, by “ours” I mean anyone who wants to live in reality.
@Richard B:
Thanks for an exceptionally good reply to my post above. You managed to encapsulate the profoundly different mindset of the female from the male in this paragraph:
“Because she assumed she was right, because it was obvious that she not only has never learned to question her own assumptions, but shows no awareness that such a thing is valuable and important, and, speaking of awareness, because she had absolutely no self-awareness, no situational-awareness, or intellectual humility, she is her own worst enemy.”
Brilliantly said; it bears special emphasis.
It undergirds also another distinction, of an existential nature, that I wanted to add. This female mindset is ultimately not sufficient nor well-adapted for real leadership.
We need our women, but we do not need them out front in this movement. Maybe if we become the prevailing political interest group, as the Jews and Left are today, we could then afford to have them in more vocal roles, as cheerleaders, which function they serve well for an established and dominant group.
Anon: “Perhaps “live and let live” is the best advice here, if a true meeting of the minds is impossible.”
Or, in terms of Sortocracy’s exoteric slogan: “Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.”
In the author’s words: “a White identity movement—that was intended to help humankind rather than hurt a particular group”.
This is a “big tent” white identity movement. I prefer “fair identity”. What can be more fair than to empower individuals to walk their talk? How could this “hurt a particular group”? (Well, realists know exactly how this would happen but the whole point of using the word “fair” is to evoke the spirit of fair evolution expressed in the aphorism “May the best win.” hence eugenics in which there will be winners and losers hence those who benefit and those who are “hurt”.)
Even though “fairness” as a heritable characteristic is most expressed in whites, especially descendants of WHGs (see KMac’s “Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition”) most present among NW European peoples, the “disparate impact” on “the other” is “only fair”.
Women will rightly look askance at any claim that advocates of a white ethnostate abjure the use of violence. They know that “the moral community” in which they live their lives will not permit the formation of a white ethnostate under any circumstances but war.
Applied at the mating level this needn’t mean breakup of the relationship if a negotiated compromise can be reached on the kind of community in which they want to raise their children (I’m addressing the most important of relationships for obvious reasons). To the realists among us, it is obvious that few women would object to raising their children in a white ethnostate of the sort actually envisioned by their men. Indeed, the vast majority would, truth be known, prefer to “good schools”, “low crime”, “high trust”, “good economy”, etc. In other words, they want the feast after the fall harvest without incurring the difficulties of tilling, planting, weeding and harvesting. As far as they’re concerned, eating the seed corn can avoid all that mess. But perhaps more importantly — “the moral community” in which they live their social lives (even if only the video screen) insists on the “entitlement” to eat the seed corn while condemning in the strongest possible terms the tilling, planting, weeding (especially the weeding), if not the harvesting. Taking the seed corn and planting it is theft from the moral community! Let the weeds grow so there must much greater “strength in diversity”
But all that psychopathology is a result of their existing “moral community” that is anything but “fair”.
Let’s take the moral ground that is ours by right of our heritable moral superiority as people who respect the individual’s right to join together with others in mutually consenting moral communities — and then, if the women resist that (and any use of force required to attain that benefit for the evolutionary direction of humanity) — exclude them from our community. Excluding them is not only moral, but meta-moral in treating a diversity of pure moral communities as a true “strength in diversity”.
Over all, this exchange confirms my belief and, I presume, MacDonald’s that women generally are more sensitive to the social ramifications of being perceived as politically heretical. Perhaps part of that is due to women’s being involved with more people outside the home than men? I myself, a man, find it much easier to be opinionated in my armchair than when I find myself in the company of people of mixed races, ethnicities et cetera. But I cannot listen to the main news media now without being “triggered,” as people say, by the obvious bias against white people, and against white men in particular. I cannot bear to hear “white privilege” referred to, even as I see that “Jewish privilege” is not a category that the news media will mention. I cannot accept the preposterous talk of a “war on blacks” when the crime statistics point so clearly in the opposite direction. I am not even sure I would appreciate MacDonald so much if I were surrounded by a conformist media that agreed with him. But I am not. He is absolutely right that Jewish organizations and politicians are leading the fight to anathematize those who speak up for white people. I don’t wake up every morning looking for a fight, but the big papers and TV networks keep stoking resentment against me. And it would be dishonorable to not stand up for myself and those who resemble me.
I’d like to reiterate in my own words KMD’s points. I am not enchanted with terms like “SO” or “the less committed.” These are abstract euphemistic locutions that remind me much of the official Communist I lingo I was exposed to during my youth in ex-communist YU—now listening to them over again, albeit under different signified, in the US pc jargon. Secondly, my “SO” has stuck with me through thick and thin on both sides of the Atlantic mendacity over the last 45 years. Marital bond is more than just raising kids, staying faithful and paying bills in time; it is also taking risks & sharing same political destiny. Lastly, somebody among us must stick out his neck ( and name) in our culture war. We can’t all hide behind acronyms and pseudonyms. This is the meaning of dissidence.
“Marital bond is more than just raising kids, staying faithful and paying bills in time; it is also taking risks & sharing same political destiny.”
Well, I was going to say this, but you did first, so thank you.
I like to tell my two dumb female “friends” who tell me they are not interested in politics, never read the newspaper, etc., “Suit yourself; but politics is interested in you.”
” politics is interested in you.” Superb observation . Ayn Rand said it slightly differently _ [ you can ignore politics but you cannot ignore the consequences ] . The consequences for westernworld ethnic Whites has been an ignominious captivity/enslavement .
The on-average low level of Whites/caucasians/indo-europeans/aryans ( simply ” Whites ” for brevity ) political intelligence was no match for the on-average political intelligence of the hyper-political chosenite jewmasters of the Whites . It is not primarily a White IQ issue . The preachers did not preach it , the politicians did not screech it , and the teachers did not teach it ; because all of them together knew nothing about the soft killing-off of White cultures over the past half-century especially ; where the jewmasters were [ killing Whites softly with ((( their ))) words , killing Whites softly with ((( their ))) songs ]
of the 1960s especially . Young and old White men were the primary casualties and White females the main prize ,
It is the 11th hour for Whites . The odds of White Nationalist men ( the other kinds are not even concerned about it ) being able to rally enough forces//power for getting their ” fair share ” of resources , which includes White women , before the 12th hour strikes , is not favorable .
A half-century of soft war on White cultures , especially on White men , has resulted in a White race that is perhaps the most sheepily and most faggoty group of people on this planet . The soft war is in addition to Whites killing-off other Whites , at the behest of their jewmasters , in both ww1 and ww2 .
The kind of people White Nationalists are up against is exemplified by a letter to the editor of ” The American Legion ” magazine issue of February 2020 where the veteran expresses [ outrage ] at ” what was done for Germany after the war makes my blood boil ” and he opined that ” the big mistake we made was using the second A-bomb on Nagasaki ” instead of on Berlin . This veteran lives in Massachusetts USA and seems to be totally oblivious to the controversy over the who/what/why of the start of ww2 ; and totally oblivious to the fact that the Brits started bombing German civilians before Brits were bombed in retaliation ; and totally oblivious to the horrendous slaughter of unarmed German civilian men , women and children AFTER the war was declared over . That veteran exudes nothing vitriolic hatred for Whites whom are also Germans — the only people to stand up against the jewmasters worldwide financial tyranny . If that veteran is not a religious/tribal jew then he is most likely a christian-in-name-only . You can read his brief letter in the VetVoice section of the mag under the editor title ‘ Not the End of History ‘ on page 6 , column 3 . Obviously , no amount of passive feminine charm/beguilement would cure that mentality .
A speaker’s motivations are totally irrelevant to the soundness of his argument. An argument is valid or invalid, and its premises true or false, independent of the speaker’s motivations. People commit the genetic fallacy when they confuse evidence and motivation. If an argument washed up on the beach in the form of shells, it would be the same argument, and have the same status (sound or unsound), as one offered by a human person. Motivations are relevant to testimony, but not to arguments. And even in the case of testimony, the motivations are still irrelevant to the truth of a witness’s assertions. They are relevant only to jurors having good reason to accept statements about what someone claims to have witnessed or not.
@DM: if this message is intended as a defense or justification of the anon woman’s argument, it falls short.
Her points were simple and clearly made, but the crux of the argument lies in the mood or mindset. Is the wife a happy warrior like her husband apparently is? That question’s answer lies outside logic, and goes to the heart.
Her entire motive for writing was to address an emotionally resonant issue about male/female relationships. Since when, I ask you, have arguments between females and males been waged and worked out on the pure reasoning of their position?
No, the emotions are the whole point here. There isn’t a married couple on earth who have been attracted to one another and managed a changing life in partnership together based on pure reason. It just isn’t enough. This is all about how people want to live their lives, and what they need from a partner to aim at decent levels of satisfaction and even, if it were possible, happiness.
Since you appear to be an intelligent woman I’m quite surprised that you still don’t see the full extent of the attack on our White culture more clearly. Just turn on your TV and watch some prime time shows (and their TV ads). The onslaught of portraying us Whites as clueless, bumbling folks is unending and just proves the power of the Jewish media elites and their hostile intent. If you value whatever White culture you (and your kids) grew up with you need to join the fight and not worry about hurting the feelings of these elites.
” If you value whatever White culture you (and your kids) grew up with you need to join the fight and not worry about hurting the feelings of these elites.”
I have always been intrigued by how women are so attracted and bound to horses. I think the metafore of a girl clinging and under the complete control of a powerful galloping stallion is very apt. If there is no man to act as the stallion, then their peer groups will have to serve as the stallion. In these modern times of shattered families, peer groups are formed mostly by public school and social media.
Yes, what you say about the girl and the stallion is a good parallel. However, keep in mind that that stallion is no longer wild. He has been broken, i.e., thoroughly trained to behave in a certain way. The girl riding him generally doesn’t have to fear the horse rebelling (throwing the rider off and then kicking her in the head). Maybe spoiled women don’t need a stallion, they need a barbarian.
Just by way of conversation.
This article is likely to ignite a firestorm of heated opinion. Since I don’t care to throw more accelerants on this potential gender conflagration, I will refrain from doing it, even though I would certainly like to. However, Kevin, as a well tempered, well balanced spokesman for White interests is to be commended for his rectitude and forebearance in dealing with this lady’s timorous concerns.
Reading between the lines of your second sentence I wonder whether your own SO has not placed a fire extinguisher in your [k]nightly path between bed and wc, to stub your toe on, as a reminder, after you negotiated your subsequent comment here.
Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, Charles, but I was restrained for time at that moment, not at all concerned about my S.O., or anybody else. Not to worry my friend, she doesn’t read this site anyway. I was simply trying to be diplomatic, in ‘negotiating’ my statement, I suppose, knowing the nature of the hot button issue at hand. And, damn If you didn’t call me on it! Upon reading the later comments, I do see that many others have essentially said what I likely would have subsequently said myself. Hope that true confession makes you happy.
Just out of curiosity, what’s your opinion of the article?
Au contraire. You didn’t ruffle either of my feathers. One of yours tickled my funny bone when I read your comment, which, quite automatically, conjured the scenario I described.
Your Reply indicates that we are driving in the same direction; merely in parallel lanes. It only takes a second to open a can of accelerants.
I agree with your assessment of KM’s Response; better than to feel partly responsible for an in any case detracted writer’s divorce costs. Also, at 80, having stopped putting notches in my bedpost around the 137 mark, I side with the more outspoken of the respondents here.
This most critical of topics can always use a touch of comic relief. That was my intention. I don’t care for one-upmanship. Nor do I think that you interpreted it as such.
Charles: I smiled wryly at your reference to the countability of your present complement of feathers.
I wonder how many who, along with us, are no longer describable as young ever conceived of age as being that stage in life where a great many attributes that were formerly thought of as what grammarians call mass nouns undergo transformation to the state of count nouns—indeed, all-too-easy-to-count nouns?
No need to dwell on the particulars, I think.
“From my experience, dissident writers seldom acknowledge that they understand why the other side acts or believes as they do; in addition to lack of recognition that if things play out as they wish, someone will reap extreme negative consequences.
White identity politics is somewhat perplexing to me and short of being of genuine. Whites make up a small percentage of the world’s population. Why would the world respect or support an ideology when it shows a disregard for 90% of humanity? With that said, I have no disagreement with the facts of the matter, as research has proven much of it true (referring to the Jewish control and debasing of the White culture). There is a high-quality, well-documented case to be made and the TOO contributors have done a good job at this. The question remains what to do about it. And some of the alt-right views on this are too much in line with the tactics that they claim to be against. A better approach may be to use the dissenter/SO relationship as an indicator of how to approach the topic with the larger population to gain the momentum that will be needed to address such a pervasive issue. Of course, the dissident must be open to considering opposing views.”
This is interesting; make sure not to miss it. The author is seeming to admit that she does believe that the Jews are debasing the culture. Of all of the alt-right things to buy into, I wonder why this. Why not the White Extinction hypothesis, which so many demographers and researchers (for example, Eric Kaufman, who predicts that everyone in the USA will be somewhat mixed-race in 100-150 years with the exception of people in “rural backwaters”) basically accept?
She is also correct that it would be wise for males to use the female responses to learn which arguments are best, and which solutions are most likely to be effective. We certainly can learn from those we disagree with. I do it all of the time with the few family members who will talk to me.
For example, on a recent youtube stream, a lot of commenters were trying to defend the American South. I have had enough experience, thankfully, to know that their arguments are futile and incorrect. The white race has to take an L with respect to the American South. And I have no idea what form the reparations for the American South will take.
As for the part about “someone will reap extreme negative consequences,” this also must be discussed. My answer is that the pro-white movements need to get over the whole American ethnostate, “peaceful ethnic cleansing” thing, and advocate giving this American continent to other races. That will double as reparations. We also should be open to reparations of other sorts.
To get a migrant in Europe to return home does not technically have to be extremely negative (in the same way that it is not necessarily extremely negative for a white man to move to Morocco), especially if there is great support from the Euro country sending them home. But psychologically it would be extremely negative. And the reputational damage done to any White country attempting an ethnic cleansing would be enormous. So, I don’t think that ethnic cleansing is ever an option.
Some more reasonable options would be as follows. We could have a secretive change in immigration policies in European countries and a plug on diversity-worship, to start. We could get the opposite of pluralism/diversity worship: the glorification of social unity. But our people are going to have to accept and live with these minorities, hoping that the moral pressure towards social unification drives minorities to fully assimilate.
Do I disregard 90% of humanity? What does this mean? Maybe the racist alt-right types who bash other races for supposed inferiority do, and I agree that this has to be stopped if we want to succeed. But I am afraid that this writer is so liberal that she might insist that stopping mass immigration, social integration, etc. would allow for billions of humans to continue floundering in the third world, which we must not allow to happen for moral reasons. And of course, mass immigration would help many of them achieve more comfortable lifestyles. They would also lead to extinction-through-hybridization of white people in the humanitarian countries that take them in, and create a great deal of social distrust along the way. So am I allowed to disregard some of the interests of other races for this? Or do whites have to sacrifice ourselves (yea, yea, yea, whites will hold out in in Amish country and in Ukraine, I know) to show that we care about people around the world?
In other words, is it a moral obligation to *care*? Are humans morally obligated to nurture? Is the ideal human life that of a nurturing servant? There is a hint of white supremacy in the unqualified/undefined expectation that whites give to the world. It almost assumes invincibility and bounty of the white race. But the guys in these spheres don’t feel this way at all; we just aren’t feeling as bulletproof as your typical white female.
‘So, I don’t think that ethnic cleansing is ever an option’
Except for White people, in their own communities. Right?
You want a good reputation with people who either despise you or are indifferent to your interests?? What does that say about your motives?
Your myopia discredits you before you even begin.
“Why would the world respect or support an ideology when it shows a disregard for 90% of humanity?”
Why should WE respect or support the ideology of 90% of humanity that shows disregard for US??? I don’t give a damn about all those other people. Because, over the last 50 years, THEY have proven they don’t give a damn about US!!!
I found it difficult to maintain my composure while reading the preening farrago of self-congratulation and faux introspection typed by Anon. His pose’s artificiality, complete with inexpert joins and sloppy welds at crucial spots, is so evident that characterizing him as a prevaricator, a snake in the grass, a Christophobe, and probably a coward strikes me as what ought to be done. Merely describing him and his comments as uninformed or thick hardly does the man’s practiced dishonesty justice.
Abolish female suffrage & most of society’s ills will be resolved. Once understood, you can see how ill-adapted women are to politics.
David, you might be interested in reading this article from 2009 regarding women’s original attitudes towards voting:
https://www.pewresearch.org/2009/03/18/reluctant-suffragettes-when-women-questioned-their-right-to-vote/
(Spoiler alert: women were not crashing down the doors trying to get into polling stations in 1923.)
Once understood , you can see how politicly retarded most ethnic Whites , including men , really are where voting has very little to do with substantive political discourse other than the popular fads of the moment . Political retardation is not primarily an IQ issue ; it is mostly a matter of political intelligence — not IQ .
“Why would the world respect or support an ideology when it shows a disregard for 90% of humanity?”
This is a very strong point. As much as I hate hearing criticism about the weaknesses and evils of the alt-right from the author, there is a larger philosophical point in this sentence.
The world will not care to give whites national sovereignty unless we offer the world something really nice.
Japan gives the world anime, and Korea gives KPop.
You have to give something to get something. We cannot cry to the wind and hope the world will take pity on us (the world only pities people who were genocided or enslaved or something). The world clearly does not give a rat’s ass about white cultural and racial annihilation.
Somehow, we have to make them love us. Either that, or we must make them hate the liberal world order.
As pathetic as it sounds, Sam Hyde was the only one who had any chance of influencing culture. Only through comedy can you deconstruct the sacred and derail the messaging that people are receiving that you can’t control. We’ve got a tough battle.
Your idea that “The world will not care to give whites national sovereignty unless we offer the world something really nice.” is wrong as you himself have admitted inadvertently when you said: “The world clearly does not give a rat’s ass about white cultural and racial annihilation.” and that is logically correct. Why would they care about us? I could not give a damn about the welfare of other races.
Definitely we do not have to make the world love us, something that is ludicrous and impossible, but I do agree with you in regards to make them “hate the liberal (Jewish) world order”. Asians are very conscious of their racial and national identity as this excellent article (written by a Jew) reveals. https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/257183/indonesians-hate-the-chinese-because-they-are-jewish
Therefore it is in our own interest to foster this knowledge and awareness among other people. While recognizing our race unique’s achievements and its awful present state we should not forget that other nations could become our allies if they are pointed in the right direction because all of us have the same enemy.
Thank you Anonymous for sharing your perspective and struggles as a wife to a White Nationalist (WN). As a single female, with California-PTSD, (I moved one year ago) and yearning to have a WN man by my side, I say, “Step up, and Stand By Your Man!” How could Tammy Wynette be wrong? She ain’t.
Feminism has infected every last pour of White females so we must do double duty to spit out this poisson from our psyches. “Buck-up” hardly means shut-up. Usually good White men mean what they say. It really means buck up. Why? Because we are at war! Our movement isn’t just “bound up with feelings of being threatened,” we ARE being THREATENED. Daily. If White women could wake up to their natural healthy instincts, they too would FEEL this threat and awaken an army of Athenas and passionately Stand By Their Men. What all of our White men need most now, and always, are Feminine women to give their love abundantly.
To or from California?
Thanks for sharing this. I am reminded of how very often the most intractable crime cases are solved only through betrayal of the criminal by the spouse in the wake of a falling out. Op. sec. suggests extreme caution in sharing information on thought-crime. Similar confidences could be a powerful weapon in the rough and tumble of a relationship or marriage. All’s fair in love and war.
Wise words and apt advice.
Memo to self: stay on good terms with exes and drinking buddies!
The function of a woman is either to give every sort of support to her man, or expect him to discard her. It is not within the capacity of women to develop independent theories. Her mission lies quite elsewhere, as until recently most women understood.
A woman may choose which man-made doctrine she wishes to endorse. She herself hasn’t the nous to construct theories herself, a law of nature that applies as well to mathematics, cosmology, and philosophy. Women may be superb acolytes, but lack any possibility of originality in matters of abstract reasoning, a male prerogative. .
Like Tom Sunic, I noted with distaste and no little sadness the painful artificiality of the author’s terminology, especially her tiresome initialisms. Her analysis, if such it might be termed, seemed entirely ablated from genuine quotidian concerns, from any sense that life is real, life is earnest—that life has any purpose other than psychological comfort writ as small as possible.
In the comments appended to Dr. MacDonald’s magnificent original essay—I regret to say that I saw it only today—he himself referred to a comment that didn’t get through, one rebutting the remarks of a woman called Ava. It included the following sentences: “I really take issue with the comment that ‘The feminist cause is legit.’ … Who needs a bullet to the head when you can use a slow-acting brain poison like feminism?”
The present article seems almost to have been written to draw the reader’s attention to the accuracy and wisdom of the earlier commenter’s insight into the feminist poison’s toxic consequences. That is to say, the author’s mind-set has been warped, not strictly by any demonstrated or assumed root evolutionary differences between men and women, but by a poison that was engineered for assimilation by her and her sex as surely as a famous Serpent’s temptation was developed precisely for Eve.
Pierre, thank you for your insight comparing feminism to the famous Serpent’s temptation. While I had compared feminism to brain poison in my response to Ava, you have elucidated a much deeper idea. Brilliant.
“Politics”? The discussion of the life or death of our race and who is deliberately killing our race is “politics”? NO, IT IS NOT politics. It is life. It is full racial reality of nature on this planet.
Your whole discussion in the article (as much of it as I could stand to read) is feminine.
We know that jews contrived, created, manufactured World War 2. And we know jews deliberately prolonged WW2 so that more of our Whites would be killed. And we know that jews continued mass-killing Whites after the “official” war was over.
And we know that jews are continuing the killing of us Whites (and any and all other non-jews) by both cold war and hot war methods, ongoing today.
And yet we cannot say they must be killed?
The government says who the supposed enemies of the day are, and that “we” (the USA) must kill them, and the USA (led by jews, served by dupes) goes and kills them, ongoing.
Masculine men (as opposed to the horde of mind-poisoned body-poisoned feminine men) disagree with the government on who are the enemies who must be killed, and we say so. We identify the real enemy and say the enemy must be killed.
Feminine men say they do “not advocate violence as a solution,” and they waste our race’s time in contrived feminine discussions about feelings. While the enemy is killing us, the feminine men advocate feminine discussion as a solution.
Amen!
As white woman who has been NS since I was a teenager and been part of this movement for 30+ years now, with a husband who, though not as outspoken as I am, is right next to me ideologically, and a son which we are raising to be a fine white man, I’d like to tell white women out there to harden the F up already. Your race, your future, your children’s futures depend on it.
I want to thank Professor MacDonald for sharing this interchange with the regular readers of TOO.
It confirms my own awareness of why it is that we can hit youtube or bitchute and watch very well documented and carefully researched videos that describe How Women Destroy Civilizations (that men fought, bled and died in order to create).
Not long ago, a revelation came to me that our #1 enemy has a complete understanding of this phenomena and knows that placing White women in positions of political power and dominance over any White nation – makes that nation much easier for them to subvert and destroy. And, if they are unable to find a suitable White female who they can trust to follow this agenda, they will substitute a beta male like Trudeau, or Macron, or possibly even Donald Trump – who has been frightfully impotent on the 2016 list of immigration and anti-war mongering promises he made and which got him elected.
Our Founding Fathers got it exactly right, when they restricted voting rights to property owning White men of good character and intentionally excluded women from being allowed to vote or to get involved in politics. The effect on
America since women started voting as been overwhelmingly negative and has lead to the existential crisis that
Whites are now facing in the nation of their ancestors.
Even Ann Coulter has admitted this truth.
To add to your point, why do we always see the multicult agenda pushing race mixing on white women? Because that’s who’s most likely to engage in it. Those who craft and disseminate this agenda aren’t fools. They know the chinks in the armor and they exploit them. If white women weren’t so easy to cajole into destroying themselves, there wouldn’t be a veritable industry built around doing exactly that.
Perhaps jewish males are female with male plumbing. Our enemies have low visio-spatial skills and can’t see reality clearly.
TJ, I think Otto Weininger essentially agreed with you in his book, “Sex and Character.” (English translation published in 1906.) Since it’s long out of copyright, the pdf is available for free:
https://archive.org/details/sexcharacter00wein/page/n8/mode/2up
See Chapter 13 – Judaism
Weininger was a converted Jew who had exceptional insight into the character of women. It’s been a few years since I read it, but at the time I remember thinking, “This is the best self-help book I’ve ever read.” Be forewarned that the book makes Arthur Schopenhauer’s essay, “On Women,” look pretty tame.
Jews on-average have superior verbal skills ( ie. communication skills ) to Whites ; and politics has way more to do with communications reality than physical reality .
“Jews on average have superior verbal skills.”
I have seen this written and heard it asserted for years, perhaps decades. But where’s the evidence for its truth? Skill with words—communications skill, verbal skill—is not an arcane concept requiring specialized research, like particle physics or French film. In the large catalog of measurable assets, it is about as nitty-gritty as skills get. It is properly perceived and measured in the bustle of daily life—en famille, in school, at work, at play—not in the laboratory or the statistician’s study.
Someone is said to have a skill for communication when others find him readily intelligible, even persuasive. I have lived a long time and encountered a great many intelligible, persuasive men and women. Very, very few of them have been Jews.
What Jews unquestionably do have is a stranglehold on every aspect of present-day life’s narrative: the social, the cultural, and even the metaphysical narrative (to the extent that they haven’t demythologized the last-named out of existence). Kevin MacDonald has devoted no little time and energy to chronicling the Jews’ assiduity in networking for one another’s benefit, usually at the expense of non-Jews. One critical aspect of this networking involves lying, constantly and shamelessly, about their superiority in virtually everything from thinking to fornicating.
That Jews best us in communication skills is, as I see it, yet another area where the claim to superiority is more a flimsily buttressed assertion than a demonstrable fact. Here as elsewhere, we are being backed into a corner with the snarled question “What are you going to believe—what I tell you, or your five lying senses?”
I recommend that we entertain the latter answer for a change.
Well said, Pierre.
The myths that the Jews create about themselves — being persecuted for “no good reason;” their allegedly indispensable contribution to Western culture; their intellectual and verbal brilliance; their unique ability — because they’ve been persecuted — to understand society in a way others cannot, which understanding confers upon them an exclusive license to socially engineer society in order to “heal the world” — are so pervasive that it is all too easy to fall into the trap of accepting them on their face without further investigation.
We should be exploding those myths, not perpetuating them.
But that is not easy to do, given the overwhelming control that the Jews exercise over every aspect of modern life in the West.
The very air we breathe is Jewish.
I’ve been reading Israel Shahak’s title “Jewish history Jewish religion, the weight of 3000 years”. Just today I was wondering what sort of psychological effect it must have to adhere to the types of examples of dogma and prohibitions in the legal parts of the talmud.
Shahak gives numerous examples of not only appalling attitudes toward gentiles but he shows with examples of how ‘prescriptive’ and dogmatic talmudic prohibitions are. The lists of sins that could be associated with a specific prohibition has a number of secondary lists of bans in order to ‘hedge’ the primary list to prevent sin against the prohibition. Legions of these hedges and prohibitions are by his estimation insanely absurd as they have no connection to reality in today’s world, in fact, nor even at the the time it was written, around 500 AD. Not only is it absurd but it embodies a level of deceit as the secondary hedge bans are often very tenuous or extremely cryptic with their associated primary prohibitions.
The irony is that this illustrates how primitive rather than intellectually advanced and micro-managing judaism really is over the lives of her adherents.
What long-term effect will this have on the psyche on jews. It’s a type of mental brutalisation. Surely it would produce the propensity to self-deception and deception generally. Imagine the mental and attitudinal ‘chicanery’ in dealings with their neighbors, who they consider to be other jews. I can’t see this encourage much higher civilisation. But no doubt rat cunning and an acute ability for shrewd behavior.
My SO is an intelligent, fair-minded, loving Jewish woman (I’m a Gentile male). She admits respect for my Holocaust revisionism, but never expresses agreement with it outside us (I don’t often express it face-to-face, but I do write and publish it, under a pseudonym). But she often comes to my defense because of her hatred of the accusatory, violently condemnatory tactics typically employed by advocates of the regnant Holocaust narrative. She vigorously defends freedom of expression, even if she doesn’t always exercise it herself.
So, God bless her, she often appears to be siding with me, and she’s not shy about being seen that way.
” I am a woman who engages in political discussion, and women’s voices seem undervalued and underappreciated in alt-right circles.”
When a woman speaks in this frame, I have learned, through painful experience, to stop listening.
Same old estrogenic song, the demand for my sex-group recognition and validation because, well, because if you don’t, you’re bad males. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I found very irritating the comments of this “beleaguered” woman, who portrays herself as some victim who, as she says about Anne Lindbergh “finds herself in a role that she did not ask for”. Well, unless her husband kept her in the dark about his political ideals and activism (something that I do not believe), she should have known very well what she was getting into, so spare us that sad little story.
She says that for a long time she has been “uncomfortable with my husband’s political writings; partly because I disagree with some of them, partly because of his use of a pseudonym, and partly because of the potential consequences for both us and society.” Well, fancy that! I wonder why she has not left him. Could it be that is because she owes her comfortable position to him and his work? No wonder she is so concerned about the “potential consequences” of her husband’s political activism.
I am amazed that she never considered or understood that political activism on behalf of the White race and its unique and beautiful heritage is not a 9.00 to 5.00 job or a hobby. It requires a lot of passion, moral courage and commitment. To be fair, it is not her fault; it was her husband’s duty to make her aware of that. We live under terrible stress. Every day the world punches us in the face. We live in a society that hates us, a society bent on destroying us, and we are supposed to cope with that and carry on. Most of us do that, but we pay a high price for it. A man or woman dedicated to our cause has the right to expect, if not to demand, the full support of his/her partner otherwise is much better to be on our own.
I wonder in what kind of a bubble this woman lives, according to her: “The First Amendment is (contrary to MacDonald’s opinion) valued by all sides as is the fight for justice. Although I lean toward believing that people can be reasonable when faced with dissenting views, I am in agreement about talking to your SO about the very real dangers of being a dissident of any position (not just on the right). ” Tell the white-hating fanatics from “Antifa” or “Black Lives Matter” to be reasonable! Ask the Jews to respect the First Amendment! How delusional can you be?
Prof. MacDonald has been too kind and patient with this woman, but he made his case brilliantly. To put it simply is a matter of “You are with us or against us”. No “ifs” or “buts”. Our enemies know this very well, and they live by it. So should we.
‘ “You are with us or against us”. No “ifs” or “buts”. ‘
That is the beginning of overkill . You are making war against a neutral position where the clear insinuation is translated as ‘ you are with us or we are against you ‘. It could be a legitimate challenge to those whom are deeply obligated to stay-the-course . However , it is not usually a good enlistment challenge for gaining supporters/allies of the cause .
Relationships differ perhaps most-critically in terms of constituency. That is, there is usually one’s SO, sometimes not, but there are/can be one’s parents, children, business partners, employer, customers, and on and on and on.
I’ve always borne in mind the likelihood that opponents of my Holocaust revisionism would find a way to identify and harm my children to punish me. I do not for one minute put such a tactic beyond (many of) them.
I commend your bravery and appreciate your valuable work. A truth-teller in an age of lies.
With friends like this, who needs enemies??
This exemplifies better than anything why would should never lead.
” I would also lean toward supporting a situation—even a White identity movement—that was intended to help humankind rather than hurt a particular group. ”
There is both an egregious fallacy and blindness in this statement.
This woman’s mentality boils down to ‘how do I sit on the fence’ when there are clearly two sides?
Its actually shocking to me to read, although I’m not surprised by it.
This is literally why we are IN this problem.
And then there are these timeless words!!!!
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14
Likewise the words ‘a kingdom divided against itself will never stand.’
I would think no one will ever ‘maintain relationships’ of any kind if there isn’t unity of thought and belief on a great many matters. I am surprised by the words of Anne Morrow Lindbergh actually. Don’t know what if any were their religious beliefs though with their adulteries that in itself speaks volumes really.
I agree that this is excellent material and great food for thought.
However….I guess I have to just come out and say it…..women are the weaker sex
and they want to conform and avoid trouble. Women like things to be easy and see no reason to get stirred up.
I recall the absolute disgust I felt for Anne Lindbergh the first time I read the CofC and her complaining that she couldn’t go
shopping anymore and the public ostracism was unbearable. TBH, that broke my heart. I admire Charles Lindbergh (in fact I’ve used
his name/pic on Twitter and I’ve been kicked off repeatedly)
Lindbergh was a GREAT man, a GIANT, and he did everything he could to save his country and his people. He was fully justified in his actions and I was revolted by his wife’s reaction. On some level, men and women just don’t think the same way. As others have mentioned, weak European women are sleeping with the invading muslims rather than backing up their own white men. It’s sickening.
KMAC’s replies to the “SO” were far more measured than mine would have been. Men lead revolutions while women bake muffins.
If white men don’t stand up and fight back (SOON!!!!!!!!!!!) there isn’t going to be anything left to fight for.
Fantastic comment, RobertDolan.
Excellent observation. Couldn’t agree more.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2008/05/25/charles-lindbergh-speaks-on-a-united-european-race/
Anne’s father was Dwight Morrow, who was an ambassador to Mexico (Anne met Charles Lindbergh in Mexico) and later, a partner at JP Morgan. In 1929, Dwight Morrow set up a $1 million trust for Anne. So she was probably used to shopping in some pretty nice stores! Unlike some dissident SOs, she would never suffer financially, but only potentially from loss of social approval.
“Men lead revolutions while women bake muffins.”
I guess that baking muffins is a symbol of femininity and “things women do”. So, get a load of this: an acquaintance of mine (early 40s) was deeply troubled and tried to kill himself but did not succeed. So, they stuck him in some kind of low-level psychiatric institution (a place for those who are not violent toward others). Part of the therapy was, yes, baking muffins. All these guys standing around in this commecial-type kitchen…baking muffins. Talk to a shrink then bake. Act like a lady.
He phoned me up to bitch and sneer at this form of “treatment”. He escaped from the joint and then tried once again to off himself and succeeded. I am glad he is gone from this world.
The commenting woman lost me at the outset by resorting to the argument that “KM’s probably an incel so that’s why he doesn’t like strahng wahmen.”
Anonymous (and other ladies who see the dissident right as hostile) — this is why we’re hostile.
We’re quite simply above and beyond having to status-validate our dating habits in order to criticize you or otherwise engage in our politics. You may as well be making snide cracks about our “size.” We’ve heard it all before, and we don’t care to waste time with it when manly adult subjects remain to be dealt with.
The rest of her lament is typical right-wing crypto-converso-feminism, armchair Freudian speculations and straw-manning about synthetic Alt-Right boogeymen who’ve bruised her feelings in the past.
This is the kind of feminist I increasingly see scratching at our windows, demanding to be let in.
The dearth of women in our movement is seen as a weak tooth for Them to hammer on. Guys who see dissident right activism as a social activity and dating opportunity are the ones most likely to invite them in. Some others like Greg Johnson, who I’ve argued with on the subject, seem to think we need some kind of outreach and compromise with these erstwhile entryists.
I strongly disagree that we “need” women in our movement simply because they are women. Some women are welcome because they meet the standards of thought and behavior required, but we shouldn’t lower those bars for them simply to satisfy some vague social calculus that smacks of proportionality and equalism.
If we go down this path, we’re going to end up like the cucked Christian men whose churches have been usurped by feminists. “Anonymous” is the sharp-elbowed point of the feminist entry wedge. Deny her leverage.
Women have a supporting role to play and are welcome at more normie-presenting events of a more social rather than expressly political nature. But when the guys retire to the smoking room to discuss ideas and strategy, they should be excluded but for those who’ve been vetted and found fit company. And those will never be found in any “proportional” numbers, contra wishful thinking and equalist priors.
It seems like all of us need to read or reread Saint Joan by G. B. Shaw. The 50 page introduction is equally important, if not more. (Most of it seems like it was written yesterday.) For the best transformative experience, I’d recommend reading the intro and follow up with audiobook for actual play. If you are familiar only with some cheesy interpretations of Joan of Arc phenomenon, your mind will be blown. Not to mention the usual Shavian wit and humour. It will give you and your loved ones a little bit more courage and hope.
—
On related topic, Virginia rally:
Some people commented, how out of shape (mentally and physically) most of the protestors were. True. However, so were the French in previous example! Including the KING! He wasn’t even crowned yet! We are in a terrible need of our NEW Joan. Or it could be Saint Anonymous. Who knows…
As it happens I have been writing up some notes about a strong Woman – Queen Ahhotep, mother of King Ahmose who evicted the Hyksos from Egypt (the ancestors of the Jews according to the Jewish historian Josephus).
When King Ahmose was fighting the war of liberation in the north a stela records how she gathered together and led the forces that warded off an attack from the south and Egypt was finally liberated from an alien group of people who had infiltrated and subjugated the land.
When Queen Ahhotep’s tomb was discovered in modern times they found that she had been awarded the nations highest military honours.
I am quite fascinated by this exchange. As a previous commenter noted, this woman embodies the female slave morality that is inherent to the weaker sex. She is also clearly oblivious of her internalized postmodern moral framework, undoubtedly spoonfed to her throughout many years of public education. She checks off all of the boxes, even going so far as accusing the good doctor MacDonald of sexism! I couldn’t help but laugh at this naked display of the female archetype.
Gentlemen, I am going to be blunt. If we are to survive, we must upend the postmodern philosophical framework which underpins the entire monstrous apparatus hellbent on our destruction. Ironic that so many here can cite endless statistics about minute racial differences between NW Euros and Ashkenazi Jews, but suddenly fall quiet when an emotionally incontinent woman is berating them with Frankfurt-school approved ad-hominems like “sexist!”, totally oblivious to the concrete science of human sexual dimorphism and its myriad of behavioral consequences.
Women are not, and will never be, suited for politics or rational discussion. Their neuroarchitecture precludes them from these activities. Societies which do not recognize this reality will be overrun by those which do.
You can hate our Muslim “guests”, but you must admit that they have understood female nature better than any European society in existence. Islam is indeed right about women, and we would be well served by replicating their success with similar strategies. All of the flowery chivalry in the world will not be a match for a TFR of 5. Western women do a whole lot of talking, shaming, divorcing, guilt-tripping, hysterics, whoring, and aborting, but they seem to always fall short where it counts: facilitating above replacement TFRs.
In conclusion, it is time to apply our fearlessness truth-seeking to all fields of biology, particularly the well established field of sexual dimorphism, or else we will be hen-pecked to death before we even leave the house!
When are you going to replace the washer on that leaking tap?
When I first saw Anonymous’ reply to Kevin MacDonald’s original piece, I was really excited. A post on TOO by a woman, one who might have particularly valuable insights into navigating the difficult waters of personal relationships!
Alas, as I read the article, my heart sank.
I’ve been following TOO for the last 6-7 years, and I probably read about 95% of the articles posted. The contributors are open-minded, intellectually rigorous, and above all, courageous.
Anonymous, you have levelled very fundamental criticisms at TOO contributors, but you provide no evidence for your contentions. One example: “A bigger issue for some SOs is the realization that the dissident writer intends to instigate others to a negative (i.e., violent) outcome.” I cannot recall a single instance of such incitement by TOO contributors – quite the opposite. By creating and participating in a forum for discussing ideas, they are fighting for our survival in the most peaceful and civilized manner possible.
You claim to be concerned about “humanity,” but your knowledge of the world doesn’t seem to extend beyond your own personal experience. In contrast, TOO contributors cast a far wider net in formulating their arguments, drawing on evidence and ideas that span decades, centuries, sometimes even millennia.
You accuse Kevin MacDonald of being “condescending” towards woman. This is the height of absurdity. How are men supposed to respectfully engage women as “equals” (as you put it) if the slightest criticism or observation is met with your authoritarian directive to, “Tone down the condescending, demeaning, and sexist comments…”?
You are sympathetic regarding the conflict that Anne Morrow Lindbergh describes as “divided loyalties in a time of stress.” But what about the conflict TOO contributors are experiencing in real time: doing the right thing by their immediate family members, fulfilling their role as breadwinners, and simultaneously fighting for the survival of our group? I think we can agree these activities are often at odds with each other in this struggle, and that can be an overwhelming source of stress for our men.
More than anything, Anonymous, I am saddened by your post. Building relationships requires doing the work of listening to the men we love and doing our utmost to understand them. Kevin MacDonald’s posts reflect that he has been both listening to women and trying to understand us. I can’t say you’re doing the same for men.
The terrible irony of this situation is that the white men contributing to TOO are fighting for all of us – men and women alike. Meanwhile, too many white women are too spoiled by the ease of modern life (brought to you by white men!) to appreciate it. I hope we don’t have to lose everything before we start to figure all of this out.
Anne = You response is admirable and speaks very highly of you. I wish we had more ladies like you on board. As I said in my post, what we (men and women engaged in pro-white political activism) need is fully supportive partners. We have enough in our plates to put up with a nagging partner who is afraid or “concerned about the potential consequences” of our actions. Thank you!
This piece has the flavor of “I support you, but…but…but…but…but…but…but…but…but…”
It would be quicker to say, “I don’t support you.”
It was painful to read this long piece. Not because of its content, but rather, because of its emotional flavor.
The writer places the weighty responsibility for her own indecisiveness and resulting bad feelings on her “significant other” (what an execrable term).
She wants to eat her cake and have it, too. She wants a relationship without having to support that relationship. She wants a man without having to morally support that man.
Her only proposed solution to her “dilemma” is for her man to make endless concessions to her until he is not himself — not a man — anymore.
This is an unhealthy situation for both parties. If no young children are involved, then it is time for a parting of the ways.
This woman can see some of the sense and the reasons for taking the side of her husband on the basis of his and TOO writings but can’t quite bring herself to embrace it completely.
Many of her words betray the existence of her inner angst at the prospect of having to make that decision while avoiding it. In her rationalisations she vacillates and makes several assumptions. There are several exasperating blind spots but the most delusional is failing to recognise the current situation in the west is a war not just ‘points of view’ or opinions. Though the war can’t be named, it’s no less real war.
However, it ought to be recognised that she is still in the process of becoming. It’s different for everyone. We each have our own journey, for some it’s torturous, for others it’s more direct. Eventually, all of us need to decide who and what we are to be and embrace it if we want inner conviction and inner strength.
I can’t believe that you find this woman “clearly thoughtful, intelligent, and possessed of significant emotional maturity.” She is not. She is just a whinger that had the cheek to say that she “feels uncomfortable” with her husband’s ideas. She is definitely not one of us, so why listen to her?
Your comment shows all the signs of the misplaced niceness and kindness so typical of White men that you analysed in your latest post. The last thing we need is people with stupid and meaningless concerns and complaints. I can understand that some people within our movement may have different points of view regarding racial identity, religious beliefs, activism, etc., but I find intolerable criticism based on petty personal preferences (as in her case)
If you agree with all KMD’s replies, it is evident that she has not a leg to stand on.
Am I the only one who read this woman and thought “Why did they marry in the first place? Or, Why are they still married?” Or, “I smell a divorce.”?
Let me be perfectly blunt. This woman’s response read like something from a woman totally frustrated with her inability to completely control her man.
Maybe that’s the only reason she’s still with him. Because she wants to see if she can control him. Who knows?
After I finished reading what she wrote I went from “Who knows?” to “Who cares?”
At no point while reading her did I get the impression that she loves her man.
One thing’s for sure. I walked away from this one so grateful for my experience in this regard in general, and with my wife in particular.
To the extent it’s been an issue it’s always been easily resolved. And for a reason devoid of any complexity, ie; Because we love each other.
I couldn’t imagine being with someone who wasn’t interested in what concerns me, and visa versa.
It has nothing to do with being in lock step with each other. It’s something so basic, so fundamental, and so important, that who has time for games or for unnecessary conflict?
But this woman sounds positively antagonistic and condescending. All the while, of course, lecturing the other side for being, you guessed it, “condescending.”
My own feeling on the matter is that I’ve been so fortunate with women in this regard, in terms of communication, exactly because I’m not Right or Left, never have been and never will be and that my reasons are grounded firmly in cultural history and human behavior.
It’s definitely helped make things more manageable.
Having said that, here are my responses to this woman’s writing.
“I have long been uncomfortable with my husband’s political writings” (“long been uncomfortable”, then why are you still with him?)
partly because I disagree with some of them, (some of them?)
partly because of his use of a pseudonym, (says “Anonymous”)
“and partly because of the potential consequences for both us and for society.” (you mean consequences of punishment to a power that demands blind obedience to its illegitimate authority? What’s wrong with you? Nothing about the consequences to us all being held hostage by such a power, like the loss of our basic freedoms and how that might effect the problem-solving process within each and every social-institution under their control? The very social-institutions we are a part of and depend on. Again, what’s wrong with you?).
“MacDonald’s essay has the laudable goal of creating better family relations, but many of his points are condescending…”
Says the woman who, with one exception, condescendingly refers to Kevin as “MacDonald” throughout her entire screed.
In fact, this woman reminds me of what a wise man once said to me a long time ago, “If women want to truly be free they need to learn some manners.”
“the dissident’s lack of ability to put themselves in anyone else’s shoes. From my experience, dissident writers seldom acknowledge that they understand why the other side acts or believes as they do…”
Compare this with what she said at the very beginning.
“If he has no firsthand experience, he is perhaps in a poor situation to comment. And in any case, he is obviously not himself one of the beleaguered SO’s, and thus is unqualified to address things from that perspective.”
Talk about the “lack of ability to put themselves in anyone else’s shoes.” And, while we’re at it, and again, talk about “condescending.”
Apparently, Kevin, and not just Kevin, is “unqualified” because he has “firsthand experience.”
If the only way to be “qualified” is to have “firsthand experience” then what’s the value of “empathy”?
Or, how about this one,
“It is a weak argument to portray yourself as the victim.”
Says the person who refers to herself and others like her as “beleagured.”
I could go on but I’d never finish. Because it’s like this throughout the whole thing.
Her entire response to Kevin is chock-o-block full of embarrasing and stupid contradictions ike this, spoken, moreover in the tone of voice of a shaming parent. Dunning-Kruger much?
And make no mistake about it, contradictory thinking is the norm for people who have zero self-awareness, zero intellectual humility, and absolutely no experience or training (and it takes training) in questioning their own assumptions.
Which means she just assumes she’s right.
Hope they don’t have any children. Especially boys.
Talk about “a mindset so many cannot reckon with.”
It’s impossible to have sufficient contempt for people like this woman. But I’m willing to try.
And she certainly has it coming.
Apparently, Kevin, and not just Kevin, is “unqualified” because he has “firsthand experience.”
Should be
Apparently, Kevin, and not just Kevin, is “unqualified” because he has no “firsthand experience.”
Richard = Your comment is fantastic, not only because of the points you made but because it is laced with a humorous sarcasm I wish I had. The very first thought that came to my mind was the same “Why did she marry him?” I feel sorry for the guy. Mind you, how did he not see it coming?
Leaving might not be an option. Hell hath no fury….
It is obvious this woman is not intelligent at all. And that she has not got the faintest idea about the clear and present danger for humanity, whites first. A danger coming from a clearly defineable intraspecies predator. Supported by stupid goyim all over the world.
Why am I so bluntly descibing her as not intelligent at all? Because this is her total disqualification:
“True free speech should be heard from whomever wants a voice. The First Amendment is (contrary to MacDonald’s opinion) valued by all sides as is the fight for justice.”
Ooooo man… Brainless. Blind. Ignorant…
“In nature, the vast majority of females mate, while males typically have to achieve a position in the dominance hierarchy to mate. ”
In the past millennia the arrangement was that the top males got more than their share of women and some males therefore missed out. However, sometimes lots of the males died in inter-tribal wars anyway, or in hunting (more risky lifestyles than women), so in the end the remaining males sometimes did all get a wife as there were more females to males.
Then societies made a deal – stop the fighting and one man to one woman.
A very satisfactory arrangement and ‘fair’.
Incidentally, the prior arrangement enabled some nat sele to actually take place which is rarer than we imagine in humans, as the top males would take the top females from the defeated tribes.
Eg 30 top warriors – 5 get killed – 25 remaining take 500 captured women between them – all the blond fair skin ones for example, and this introduces some significant and rapid changes to the gene pool as their children tend to survive better, having the protection of the top warriors. This would make the tribe gene pool shift a significant amount in the blond hair blue eye direction. If the tribe is small and relocates and breeds, you have a significantly shifted gene pool in one generation. Perhaps fewer inbreeding consequences back then (???) And note how the genes of the top warriors thrived. In contrast compare with WWI WWII where the best genes were wiped out. This is what happens when war gets too organised and large scale so running away is no longer an option, and the country picks its psychopaths to lead its men and they are happy to take any losses, eg Churchill. And the entire German 6th army wiped out due to no retreat allowed for the defeated. This new style of war is not ‘natural’ and is bad for the gene pool.
When the rule was one man:one woman the late teens did not have to go to bars and make cool chat and display their ‘GSOH’ and their witty jokes (neither of which filter out the qualities of a good mate but instead favour the charmers), and instead the family and local community helped find partners. So the quiet male who was no good at chatting up in a bar still ended up married by the time he was 20. Now he ends up playing computer games on his own. And the girl who had a strong wall around her to protect her from men’s advances (women are complicated!) had it breeched by the arranged-with-consent marriage. Today the wall is never breeched and such a woman ends up as a professional and single.
We are reverting to the previous arrangement – some men have as many women as they want (but just for sex, no babies), and others have zero as their charm level is too low (and women want charm, not the qualities they claim to value – reliable, kind, provider, good father – many/most women do not value these things as they believe they do and just obey their instincts to go for the man who impresses).
This is why bad discipline in mixed schools is so harmful as is the practice of schools allowing ‘relationships’ in schools. This makes the 20% of males in school have super-high self esteem and makes the lower ones feel like losers. In a disciplined school the loud and confident are closer to the others in status.
Paul Joseph Watson mentions in one of his videos about how in the dating apps lots of women whatever their own personal ‘score’ is whether high or low will still go after the small number of top males. In other words a lower 2/10 score woman does not consider a 2/10 male and instead wants a 6/10 or 10/10 male – and if she spreads her legs she can join the queue and get one, leaving the rejected lower score males unable to find partners. Some of these will be strong silent types with great genes, but no good at social media – better at designing bridges – who miss out. The system where the community helped find partners worked better.
Women are also less interested in tribe or politics as they have to transfer loyalty when married off or captured, whereas the males are always stuck in the same place ie loyalty to land and tribe. No good capturing a wife and for the rest of her life she is thinking of the glory of the other tribe.
Also, the role of being the rejecter of advances makes women naturally hostile to men – ie mean to others and then fawning over the best ones. Bad behaviour. Men do not need to be like this, and most will warm to any women who shows friendliness to them.
Kevin MacDonald mentions a lot of this in his interview with Henrick Palmgren on Red Ice Radio. Re the warrior gene types losing dominance.
repeat submission of same post in error:
“In nature, the vast majority of females mate, while males typically have to achieve a position in the dominance hierarchy to mate. ”
In the past millennia the arrangement was ….t