The Nature of Women and the ‘Woke’ Problem

Anyone who is perceptive of current social and political trends in America knows that women — especially White liberal women — play an inordinate role. They are almost always at the forefront of any protest lecturing others about ‘systemic racism,’ ‘white privilege,’ ‘toxic masculinity,’ and the need for ‘equity’ in every sphere of life.

These same women are given every conceivable platform to spew their revolutionary rhetoric. They demand to be heard, and they haven’t the slightest hesitancy to confront and shout down their opponents. The prevailing attitude among them best fits the popular quote attributed to the late Harvard professor, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, who wrote in 1976 that “well-behaved women seldom make history.” This was apparently taken out of its context and given the new meaning that if women are to make an impact on society for good, they must rebel against the norm and be disruptive. The notion of a woman who is gracious and well-mannered as she protests is anathema to the thinking of most contemporary liberal female activists.

All of this, of course, is not a recent phenomenon. It has its roots in the women’s suffrage movement beginning in the nineteenth century and increasing in influence ever since. The most notable modern feminists were Jews such as Betty Friedan, Naomi Klein, Gloria Steinem, and the late Supreme Court judge, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, can be named among them. In fairness, there are plenty of gentile women who have also played a significant role in feminist history. Yet it would be hard to deny that Jewish feminists have played a more influential and disproportionate one. I suspect this is due in large part to Jews controlling news corporations, print media, Hollywood, and much of academia.

Feminist women have always created scenes for their cause. They have always engaged in public antics. They have always been vocal and confrontational. What we are witnessing today, then, is not necessarily new, but it is different in its degree and scope.

The contemporary feminist woman of today is not just passionate about what she believes, she is uber-passionate about it. She’s not just a believer, she’s a fanatic. She’s not just on a mission, she sees herself as a revolutionary bent on transforming the world. She cannot be reasoned with. She’s not just ready to argue, but ready also to brawl. She doesn’t just lecture, she screams her message  at others. She demands that you listen to her, and if you don’t, she’ll force you to listen. She invades public spaces demanding to be heard.

The modern ‘woke’ feminist is consumed with her own self-righteousness. She is obsessed with virtue signaling before others. She hasn’t the faintest doubt about the rightness of her cause. And anyone who opposes her or even tries to temper her opinions is no different than the most deplorable humans we could imagine. Restraint and moderation aren’t permitted among today’s feminists. Like the most rabid religious fundamentalist, there is no reasoning with them. It is an all or nothing proposition.

The new and hard-core feminists of today are not limited to a few cranks who are childless and have never been married. A good many of these women, instead, are married and have children. They are part of mainstream society. Other than the ‘pussy hats’ they might wear to some rallies, they wouldn’t necessarily stand out all that much from ‘normie’ women.

Nevertheless, leftist women have a number of differences, as revealed by a recent U.K. survey.

  • The most popular LGBT identity is bisexual, which is significantly more common among women than men.
  • When we look at homosexual behavior, we find that it has grown much less rapidly than LGBT identification. Men and women under 30 who reported a sexual partner in the last five years dropped from around 96% exclusively heterosexual in the 1990s to 92% exclusively heterosexual in 2021. Whereas in 2008 attitudes and behavior were similar, by 2021 LGBT identification was running at twice the rate of LGBT sexual behavior.
  • The author provides a high-point estimate of an 11-point increase in LGBT identity between 2008 and 2021 among Americans under 30. Of that, around 4 points can be explained by an increase in same-sex behavior. The majority of the increase in LGBT identity can be traced to how those who only engage in heterosexual behavior describe themselves.
  • Very liberal ideology is associated with identifying as LGBT among those with heterosexual behavior, especially women. It seems that an underlying psychological disposition is inclining people with heterosexual behavior to identify both as LGBT and very liberal. The most liberal respondents have moved from 10-15% non-heterosexual identification in 2016 to 33% in 2021. Other ideological groups are more stable.
  • Very liberal ideology and LGBT identification are associated with anxiety and depression in young people. Very liberal young Americans are twice as likely as others to experience these problems. 27% of young Americans with anxiety or depression were LGBT in 2021. This relationship appears to have strengthened since 2010.
  • Among young people, mental health problems, liberal ideology, and LGBT identity are strongly correlated. Using factor analysis in two different studies shows that assuming one common variable between all three traits explains 40-50% of the variation.
  • Because the rise in LGBT identity is so heavily concentrated on the political left, its influence on the balance of power between the two parties is likely to be limited.
  • College students majoring in the social sciences and humanities are about 10 points more LGBT than those in STEM. Meanwhile, 52% of students taking highly political majors such as race or gender studies identify as LGBT, compared to 25% among students overall.
  • Various data sources indicate that gender nonconformity – trans and non-binary identity – reached its peak in the last few years and has started to decline.
  • Overall, the data suggest that while there has been an increase in same-sex behavior in recent years, sociopolitical factors likely explain most of the rise in LGBT identity.

Yet this is where the potential of their destructive message and influence could be greater than feminists of previous generations. They may not necessarily look like the traditional feminist with their short, cropped hair, tattoos, piercings, blue hair, and the like (there are plenty of modern feminists, admittedly, who still appear as I have described). Instead, they physically appear to be no different than every other adult woman. This gives the feminist message of today a less threatening appearance and, thereby, more acceptable to the gullible women who might entertain such notions.

The question naturally arises why women are so seemingly susceptible to such radical social and political movements? Why do women so often comprise the shock troops and first ranks of any Leftist political protest?

I think there are reasons for this, none of which are accidental.

The first reason lies in a woman’s nature. Women are nurturers. They are disposed to care for, treat and help others. They are natural do-gooders. They have an innate pull to help and ease the suffering of the less fortunate. Their inclination is to make things better. They are helpers at heart. These are not necessarily bad qualities, but they must be kept in check lest it morph into the kind of militant ‘woke’ women who have taken hold in our society.

The collective insanity of our women is perhaps no more perfectly illustrated in the massive numbers of American women who are rabidly pro-abortion. If women do indeed possess nurturing qualities when it comes to babies and children, why are so many of them willing to terminate their pregnancies — even to the point of supporting partial-birth and after-birth abortions?

These same women must literally suppress their most natural instincts in order to support abortion. Spiraling to this level of evil doesn’t occur overnight. No, it occurs incrementally until one completely sears and deadens their moral conscience. What accounts for this other than a nationwide mass delusion of our women? What sort of wickedness has crept into their hearts and minds for them to celebrate laws that permit the deaths of millions of unborn and partially born babies?

The second reason lies in the emotional nature of women. They tend to think from the heart and not so much from the head. Women, generally, tend to be less critical and cautious in their thinking than men. They are often reactionary, and their heartstrings can be more easily pulled than their male counterparts.

Obviously, there are exceptions to what I’m saying. There are plenty of women who are careful thinkers and who are not as easily manipulated emotionally as other women. But in my estimation these kinds of women are the exception and not the norm. They are the outliers. I don’t even think it comes natural to them. They must fight against their more trusting and emotional natures in some way.

Bear in mind that I’m not saying that men are completely free of emotionalism and less critically minded in the way women generally are. There are plenty of men who can be just as irrational at times and emotionally driven. But overall males tend to be different in this realm than females. Men are not so easily emotionally manipulated as women, and in this sense the two sexes really are different from each other.

It should surprise no one, then, why religious charlatans and radical Marxist groups have so easily preyed on females. They too understand the nature of females, and they exploit it for all it’s worth. Most churches are filled with women, and they often lead the various committees and church ministries. Even cosmetic manufacturers target women in their advertisements in ways that comport with the nature and unique proclivities of females.

They know good-and-well that most women are gullible and can be easily manipulated. They would never admit it, of course, but they would not have had the same level of marketing success if these fundamental distinctions were not kept in mind.

Go to any Leftist protest, and you will witness crowds of angry women with posters and picket signs on behalf of their political cause. The sheer numerical dominance of female protesters, in fact, often serves as the impetus for some men to join the cause so they can have easy access to all the women. The point being that women are the ‘weaker sex’ and not just physically, but emotionally and in terms of critical awareness.

I would add that the presence of large numbers of women at Marxist and feminist political rallies serves also to disarm any political opponents who may be in attendance. Who would, after all, like to be surrounded by throngs of hostile and screeching women? Any male who sought to engage them would be drowned out with a barrage of epithets and the vilest profanity. Today’s loud-mouthed ‘pussy hats’ are not ashamed to say what they really think. Even if a melee broke out, what man would want to be filmed fighting a woman? Women, then, are used by Leftist activist groups to intimidate and demoralize any male opposition that might be present.

The third reason lies in what women are told about themselves by those who control the messaging. Women in America are told they can do anything a man can, and even better too. Women are portrayed in the media, television and Hollywood as practically super-heroes. These are lies, of course, but we’re not allowed to say so. Expect consequences if you do.

Turn on any television commercial and the woman is always portrayed as smarter and more quick-witted than any man. Males are portrayed as clueless and dull-minded. Whether it’s working as a police officer or in combat infantry, females can do it all. There are no intellectual or physical barriers, and anyone who suggests there might be is a backward patriarchal fool.

Anyone who appeals to the physical limitations of women compared to men in the realm of sports, is immediately denounced. No amount of reality and facts will persuade the feminist mindset.

For example, during a CBS This Morning interview, the once great professional tennis player (now retired), John McEnroe, tried to talk some sense into host Gail King when he stated in a 2017 NPR interview that if Serena Williams “played the men’s circuit she’d be like 700 in the world.” She wouldn’t accept it even though McEnroe admitted that Serena was “the greatest female tennis player that ever lived.” Gail wanted so badly for McEnroe to say that Serena was the greatest tennis player among both men and women. To his credit, he wouldn’t say it because it wasn’t true.

At one point, McEnroe was asked by one of Gail’s co-hosts, “Would you like to apologize?” Thankfully, he refused to cave to such pressure. Yet it serves to illustrate that fundamental and biological differences between men and women, including differences in physical abilities, cannot be admitted even when the facts are readily available.

Also, why must people apologize for an opinion they have, especially if it is sincerely held and can be proven? The question reveals more about the mindset of the person asking for the apology than the opinion of McEnroe.

The reality of innate male and female differences and their physical abilities should be patently obvious to anyone, but is now denied so as not to arouse the displeasure of today’s feminists. We must pretend that men and women are the same. We must deny what our lying eyes see and what we instinctively know.

Any man who dares to publicly challenge the reality-denying worldview of ‘woke’ feminism will soon find himself de-platformed and likely unemployed. A voice free to express itself, personal dignity, and even employment cannot be given to society’s ‘heretics.’ The very things that feminists demand and force upon society they quickly deny to anyone who challenges their dogma. It only serves to prove just how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest they are at their core.

The fourth reason lies in the breakdown of the family and society. Feminism did not arise in a vacuum. There were an array of historical events and influences that contributed to its development. Like most misguided political movements, especially those that had strong Jewish and Marxist influences, it was just a matter of time before what seemed like a well-intentioned movement for ‘equality’ turned into a nation destroying agenda led largely by crazed women bent on imposing their Utopian values on the rest of us.

It has been said that when even the women of any society become as debased as the men of that same society, you can rest assured that its days are numbered. Surely America’s days are numbered if one considers how far too many of our women conduct themselves, especially when given a platform. Just look at how they dress. You can’t go to any store or public event without seeing an enormous ham-beast wallowing about attired in the tightest and most revealing clothes imaginable. Jiggles and cellulite for all to see. Tatted sleeves on every arm. Pierced like an African tribesmen, and a foul mouth to boot. She has no sense of shame. No self-awareness. God help the man who’d dare to suggest that she’s not the Greek goddess she imagines herself to be!

There is nothing gracious or even feminine about them. Nothing that could be deemed dignified or classy. They are not soft-spoken nor reasonable — the very qualities that might attract more men to their cause!

This is what our American women have morphed into. This is what ‘woke’ feminism does to the women of any society stupid enough to tolerate it. Is it any wonder why so many American men are turning to Asian and Eastern European women who possess the slimness, femininity, grace, and traditional values they want?

Our women, in truth, have abandoned the natural order of things. They are in complete rebellion, but they are too brainwashed and self-righteous to see it. At least two generations of American women have been duped into believing that causal sex, abortion, and climbing the corporate ladder will bring them happiness. A good many of them have discovered it doesn’t. They are now in their late 30s and 40s, and they want to get married and have children. But for most of them, it’s too late.

Some of them have only recently discovered what they were intended to be all along — namely, mothers and homemakers. Instead of saving themselves sexually for their husbands, partnering with those same husbands, and rearing responsible children possessing real values and character, they opted for a corporate career with no husband and no children. They spent their best years pursuing a worthless college degree (at least in most cases) and partying. Having hit the wall by the time they reached thirty, and having gone through multiple sexual partners, there remains few marriageable men and those who are single may not necessarily want a woman who has a host of bed notches to her name.

The fifth reason is because men have largely abdicated their role as leaders in the home, church, and society. Women have rebelled against the natural order of things, no doubt, but men have also allowed it to happen. They have remained content to do nothing about it. They have become passive. Some of these same men have aligned with feminists in order to have access to them and to gain their approval. Other men have done it because like so many feminists they too have a need to virtue-signal.

When our men refuse to take their leadership roles in society, there will arise plenty of women who will be glad to do it for them. And this is where the problems begin.

Far too many men do not have their lives together. They have no framework or worldview in which to interpret the society around them. They have not developed a practical philosophy of marriage and child-rearing. Most men do not even think in such terms. It’s completely foreign to them. Their fathers never taught nor modeled before them how a husband and father is to conduct himself. There is a complete absence on the part of these same fathers of imparting values and practical wisdom to their sons. They either haven’t considered it or don’t think it’s important to do so. Their own fathers may have never addressed such subjects. And so whatever knowledge is gained by our young men is almost always based on a liberal and materialistic worldview — which will always prove detrimental to the lives and future of Whites.

I know this will be difficult for many to accept, but the dominance of women in almost every realm of our society is not a good indicator of our national health. When women and transexuals are promoted to important and even strategic positions within our military, this is not a good sign. It certainly signals to our enemies that we are weak, that we are driven more by popular ‘woke’ rhetoric and artificial constructs than by the safety of our countrymen. Any nation, such as the U.S., that exalts and virtually deifies women sets itself on a course that will surely collapse under the weight of its own stupidity. This is not to say that honorable and virtuous women should not be honored by society, but only that national and social policies should not be determined by what women ‘feel’ nor by any false or inflated views of what they can do.

In other words, when women rule a nation’s most important institutions — especially if its foundation are ideologically ‘woke’ — it will inevitably self-destruct. Consider, for example, Germany’s former Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the problems she saddled her nation with because of her bleeding heart for Islamic migrants. In Sweden, 47% of its Riksdag (parliament) is comprised of women. Switzerland’s Federal Assembly has 41.5% females. It should surprise no one that these same countries also have extremely liberal social policies and permit large numbers of Islamic people to immigrate.

While there may be some historical exceptions to what I have written, the point remains: Women in national leadership roles generally tend to weaken a nation because of their sympathetic natures, their susceptibility to social contagion, and poor discernment.

The same thing could be said about the presence of women in the police profession. Although women do well in support roles (e.g., dispatchers), they do not have the natural physical traits and upper body strength that’s required to do the job. Most male cops will admit this, albeit privately. Is it any wonder why so many female officers are injured in the course of their duties? Most male felons will comply with a female officer only when she’s accompanied by stronger male officers.

When women are given endless platforms to spew the sappiest political drivel, including the most nation-destroying social ideas, and then celebrated for it, this too is not a good thing. It is a sign that we are done with as a nation since only a people bent on national suicide would permit it. And it’s not because there aren’t any intelligent and perceptive women because there surely are. But when a society tolerates only one viewpoint — a liberal feminist one — there is little hope that that same society will turn out wiser and stronger in the end.

The old 1968 Virginia Slims cigarette TV commercial used to say, “You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby” — but for great numbers of American women, it’s been a self-imposed disaster for themselves and the nation at every step.

80 replies
  1. Caryl Johnston
    Caryl Johnston says:

    Bravo! Yes I detest feminism too and I’m glad there is someone out there who perceives the harm that feminism has done. Feminism has abdicated on the task of civilization and has given us over to thugs–the global predators, the capitalist fanatic destroyers. Our nation is without joy, romance, whimsicality, improbability– and so much of that is due to the hatred to the natural order–which means: Men and Women. Check out my poetry book–Indulge Me Once. Love poetry–can you imagine!

  2. John Alder
    John Alder says:

    Remember Reverend Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition? Non White races and White women but White men pretty much not represented. Usually the first to complain about pro White literature being distributed will be a White woman. A problem that requires a remedy and soon !

  3. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    As Yul Brenner said in The King and I, ‘Etc, etc, etc. Feminism was created by the Frankfurt School-directly or indirectly-to destroy Western Christian Civilization. Full Stop. It is misnamed, just as all Jewish inspired social and political movements are, e.g., Affirmative Action, Inclusiveness, XXX Pride, Racism, blah blah.

    All in this article is nothing new, but it is totally true. I have said this many times: As a Western Man your chances of finding a good woman in a complete sense are very slim. They are easily externally controlled by prevailing, new, or peer group narratives, memes, fashionable “movements”, etc. Your are wise to consider alternatives, namely Eastern European across the latitude east to Japan and China. South American women of Euro stock are outstanding and do not require assembly.

    All the women you saw in the audience of Oprah, Ellen, and Rosie-White, well educated-and screaming for their heroine, are poison, zombied, drowning in toxic waste and if you embrace them, they will take you down with them. I’ve had female engineers who worked for me spit out, “I hate feminists”. Real women.

  4. Bruno
    Bruno says:

    Wow -what an article. I recall -it was long ago- KMac noting something to the effect than any man marrying today might be making a mistake. Everyone I know in the US has been divorced. When I was a kid only one case was known. Today anyone denying the vanishing American family has not visited schools (where half the kids have no dads in their homes).

    I’ve just taken my granddaughter to her piano lesson and have a million things on the burner. Otherwise, it would be a pleasure to note what I’ve seen in the US, Poland. Russia and other countries. I’m glad Saint Merkel was noted. She was a disaster for our gene pool.

    BTW Japan, China and Russia are mostly ruled by male politicos (less emotion). Becuz of our current trends it’s more than possible the only countries than will remain majority will be the Baltic States, Byelorussia, Poland, Russia… China and Japan will also prosper in that area. America will morph into some sort of a conglomerate…

  5. Tom
    Tom says:

    Good article – all true. If one wants women to return to a natural state of existence with men then the key is to get rid of gratuitous welfare. Right now, the main support system for single women is government patronage. Government allows them to be “independent”. Basically, we’re all subsidizing female left-wing lunacy. Drastically restrict the function of the state in civil society and the problem goes away.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Basically, we’re all subsidizing female left-wing lunacy.”

      Superb observation .

  6. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    Excellent article! I want to point out a couple of things:

    Radical/fanatical feminists are not “vocal and confrontational”; that is a ridiculous understatement. They are LOUD and OBNOXIOUS!

    The fact that men are afraid to get involved in a physical confrontation with these harpies is because most (White) men are despicable cowards or are under the spell of a totally outdated, misplaced, ridiculous and suicidal concept of chivalry that said (among other things) “you must not hit a woman”. BTW, let’s remember that a code of honour only applies to those who observe and respect it.

    Finally, let’s remember the saying “It takes two to tango”. We arrived at this awful situation because most of us (men) have done sweet FA about it. You do not argue with a rabid beast, you kill it! What do you reckon would happen if a group of let’s say 200 of these neurotic harpies are confronted/attacked by 20 men ready to use their fists or baseball bats?

    That was the spirit that animated white men in the past, particularly the German brownshirts and the Italian blackshirts who went out and bit the hell out of the Red thugs who tried to take over the nation. Unfortunately, those men no longer exist, particularly thanks to the Americans and their “greatest generation”, but that is another story…

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      Bingo on that Angeiicus, and a great article by the author as well. It’s sad to say, but the fact is, White racial identity is innately weak to begin with. Our self limiting racial foibles are many, and the direct cause of our decline and our current existential predicament. Jewry is, of course, exploiting and compounding the situation.

      Furthermore, as much as I love our people (and our women in particular), and after a lifetime of observation and reflection, I honestly have to state a sad fact. To wit: most White women are the most gullible, and credulous form of mammalian life on earth, bar none.

      It’s simply our racial nature, that is oftentimes our great strength, and also our debilitating weakness. This is a potentially lethal paradox that is going to be brutally tested in the coming years.

  7. Frederick Ford
    Frederick Ford says:

    Social Liberalism is the kind of liberalism in which an individual thinks the human group is an oppressive institution and this has especially been the case with women who come from groups that have been male-led where their only role was child-rearing which took up most of their lives and so they could not express themselves as individuals due to this.

    So women rebelled against this system along with its standards & expectations, which restricted their own individuality, and became unbridled individuals as a result. For modern White women, therefore, individuality encompasses their morals, their lifestyle, and their actions with some going as far as being so unattractive to men just to reinforce this individuality. In fact, individuality itself is why men have no idea how to raise a family or find a “good” wife and why women are always pursuing a career, not having children, and sleeping around with others.

    In order to change the fate of the White Race, as well as eliminate feminism, individuality, and human group values need to be reconciled and subsequently cooperate with each other. Religion has been able to do this for centuries but now we need a new way to do this because the West has rejected religion and the following documents will explain how as well as the reality of race to provide a basis for a human group. .

  8. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    I read an interesting take on this a while ago which I think is totally correct. It goes like this:
    “Women and low T men view the world through a lens of, is something acceptable, NOT is something true.”

    These groups of people are filtering information through the parameters of, “Will the rest of the group agree with me.” This is why we see so much of this herd mentality behavior with these groups. The take goes on to say, “Only high IQ, high T men and autists will be able to parse information through a lens of truth without concern for its popularity.”

    When it comes to the majority of society, you’re dealing with a bunch of really dull, hive mind thinkers who just want to do the popular thing because it’s easy, and are terrified of being a social pariah for being different. Sadly, most women fall into this bracket, and that’s why you see so many women joining today’s momentarily popular woke-ism.

    • Frenly Groyper
      Frenly Groyper says:

      Virtue signalling cowards always support the dominant narratives however harmful and unfortunately they represent a large percentage of those within our tribe. Must’ve been easy for the long nose tribe to recognise and exploit.

  9. Buck
    Buck says:

    You missed one. Emma Lazuras, who went to great lengths to have a plaque pleading for all the dregs of the world to come to America placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.
    I’ve concluded that piece of copper should have been removed years ago. About the time Cuba unloaded their prisons onto the USofA.

    • Sam J.
      Sam J. says:

      I always like to point out that the Jews didn’t pay for the Statue of Liberty. The French did. They also didn’t pay for the base of the Statue of Liberty. The average American did. No what they did was use political power to put a plaque on it that said the whole thing represented the idea that we needed as many wretched people in US as possible. They hijacked the whole thing. All in all, a fairly good representation of the Jews behavior on anything.

      In fact the original meaning of the Statue of Liberty was that as long as Liberties light still shown in the US there would be a hope of freedom in the world. That was the original plaque for it.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        An excellent reminder; thank you. I’d add only that an important figure in what you term the Jewish hijacking of the project was the immensely wealthy and powerful newspaper magnate (((Joseph Pulitzer))).

        The idea for the statue was proposed in the late 1860s, and the statue was installed on its pedestal in New York Harbor in 1886—in other words, 136 years ago. Let that number serve as a reminder of how far back in history the disproportionate, indeed inordinate power of the Jew in American society extends!

      • Al Ross
        Al Ross says:

        You may be correct . I do not know enough French history to ascertain the racial composition of the donors to the Eleutheria facsimile’s construction.

        However , we all know that a Jewess , Emma Lazarus, added the trite tribute to proletarian – led multi culturalism which adorns the monstrosity and advertises the US as a dumping ground for anthropoid rubbish.

  10. Andreas
    Andreas says:

    Well written and informative. I hope that these treacherous White women get what’s coming to them for all of the evil and degenerate things they have done to weaken and destroy White Western Civilization.

  11. anonym
    anonym says:

    Jewish activists has taken advantage of women’s weaknesses (or rather, kindness, sensibility, empathy – traits that are wonderful in a normal european society) and are using it as a weapon against us. But it’s hardly unique, or more damaging than all the other ways they infiltrate and manipulate. Anyone who’s decent, honest and trusting is vulnerable to exploitative psychopaths.

    Because of Christianity’s semitic misogyny – where women are treated as cattle – women had to organize and stand up for themselves. These organizations was infiltrated by Jewish marxists, and hence, we now have a “feminist” movement waging a “gender war” against European men and the norms of European society.

    The homosexuals likewise organized because of the semitic superstitious obesession with homosexuals, but had their movement hijacked by Jews who are using it as a wreckingball to destroy our society.

    The entire left has been overtaken by Jewish activists – instead of ordinary social democracy (fair wages, good working conditions, public education/healthcare and a safety net for the most vulnerable) we now have a neo marxist “left”, hellbent on destroying our society. The non-Jewish European left had it’s roots in Bismark’s Prussia, and Hitler’s National Socialism was one variant of it, along with Scandinavian Social Democracy.

    The conservatives and liberals likewise, has been infiltrated and hijacked by Jewish activists. The neo liberal merchant “right” of Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and Milton Friedman has nothing in common with the traditional european conservative tradition. The genuine conservative tradition protected everything that shouldn’t be valued in money – the Jewish “conservatives” turned it on its head and turned our society into a shopping mall where everything is for sale and nothing is sacred.

    The Jewish neo conservatives harnessed the european fighting spirit and duped us into a series of sionist warcrimes in the Middle East.

    The list of these Jewish successes are long, and, I’d say, begins with Christianity (and might reach its climax with woke multiculturalism – a blend of all the Jewish toxins).

    In short: saying that we shouldn’t have female politicians because they’re vulnerable to Jewish manipulation, is the same as saying that we shouldn’t have unions, or armies, or business, because it can be infiltrated and abused by Jews. I’d rather say we shouldn’t have Jews. Semites belong in the Middle East, not here.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “In short: saying that we shouldn’t have female politicians because they’re vulnerable to Jewish manipulation, is the same as saying that we shouldn’t have unions, or armies, or business, because it can be infiltrated and abused by Jews. I’d rather say we shouldn’t have Jews.”

      Absolutely right! I started a comment as soon as I had read this misguided article, but quickly said ‘Hell with it”, just laugh at what I know the very predictable comments will be, but don’t bother trying to educate these fools.

      Now, thanks to anonym, I can just quickly confirm that Adolf Hitler’s government realized that reforms could only accomplish so much, that no German nation could withstand its intriguing Jews and they would have to go. A few of you here may offer a minimum of lip service to this, but no action. You are the problem.

      • RockaBoatus
        RockaBoatus says:

        “In short: saying that we shouldn’t have female politicians because they’re vulnerable to Jewish manipulation, is the same as saying that we shouldn’t have unions, or armies, or business, because it can be infiltrated and abused by Jews. I’d rather say we shouldn’t have Jews” – In the 19th century way before the modern feminist movement emerged in the late 1950s and even before Jews took such a stranglehold on the U.S., many American women were already involved in the suffrage movement. There was already a growing radicalness among them. Some of it was well-intentioned and proper, but some of it was not. Jews didn’t invent it, but they surely exploited it to their benefit.

        My article already explained why women should not be in certain high and strategic positions (e.g., military, law enforcement) due to the proclivities of their nature, and this was not because Jews might potentially use it against White society. Yes, Jews will do such things and they have. Yet that was not why I cautioned against it. It is due to their innate weaknesses (e.g., gullibility and emotional proclivities).

        Yes, of course we “shouldn’t have Jews,” but we do and they’re not leaving anytime soon. We shouldn’t have Blacks, illegal immigration, nor a corrupt federal government either, but sad to say we do. The assumption behind this line of reasoning is that if Jews weren’t in control of so much of our country, our women would not have rebelled in the ways they have. But I don’t believe this for a minute.

        If it were not the Jews it would have been some other group or influence. I grant that without the presence of Jews, the circumstances in our country would be much better. But we would have still had our share of national problems because Whites are far from perfect and this includes our women.

        • Angelicus
          Angelicus says:

          Excellent reply. You are right, most women are incapable of logical thinking and get carried away too easily by emotions. Otherwise, how do you explain that the majority of hysterical, screaming low-lives asking for open borders, LGTB “education”, abortion, etc, etc, are women?

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Do you ever have any facts or source material to back up what you say? You express pure opinion based on nothing real. I would be happy to pit my intellect against yours any day. I have written literally hundreds of persuasive articles since 2008 posted on two different websites that continue to be well-read; what have you got? Nothing but a few comments beginning about 2-3 years ago, I would estimate.

            Any man who tries to lift himself out of obscurity by pushing down on the shoulders of women isn’t worth much. I would say a man can be judged by how he treats women. The complaint that “most [cop-out word”] women are incapable of logical thinking and get carried away too easily by emotions” is a trite and never-proven complaint by loser men. Or gay guys. What is your name and what do you look like? Why are you too cowardly to reveal yourself? You Internet lurkers are not at all interesting, nor are you taken seriously … except by other lurkers maybe.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          The point of my ‘quote’ from anonym was ‘his point’ that it’s more important/effective to prohibit JEWISH politicians, union, army or business leaders, than to prohibit white FEMALES in those roles. That’s what I meant to call ‘absolutely right.’ Instead of agreeing, you rush to defend your article and attack women’s suffrage, calling them “radicals” for wanting to gain the right to vote. The awakened American women were against our entering WWII! Did you even know that? And how right they were! Please take a look at my article from 2011, The leaders of the anti-war movement were Christian women/mothers like Elizabeth Dilling and Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, both Jew-wise conservative power-houses, who could put 95% of men to shame (including you). They were both attacked by the Roosevelt administration, with Dilling arrested and tried under the Smith Act of 1940 (later found unconstitutional).

          You, like so many male commenters here (especially of late) think Jewish power took hold much later in this country than it did.

          “… in the late 1950s and even before Jews took such a stranglehold on the U.S., many American women were already involved in the suffrage movement. There was already a growing radicalness among them.”

          That’s just not the real story. Put down your bible and read Henry Ford’s “The International Jew” to educate yourself.

          Your argument that women should not be in “certain high and strategic positions (e.g.,military, law enforcement)” is weak; very few women originally WANTED to be in those positions. I think they were recruited. I have always said that women should not be allowed in the military, police or firefighters except in a supporting role, nor do I want a woman president … ever! But is it women who have pushed for that, apart from dykes and lesbians? No. It’s those institutions themselves. It’s male politicians who seem to ejaculate all over themselves over the idea of a woman U.S. president! Only because they think it’s popular.

          Your final two paragraphs in the comment above show that you are quite tolerant of Jews. Clearly you see white women as the bigger problem. AND it seems to be the bible that leads you to this conclusion, or supports it. Perhaps, therefore, it could be concluded that it is you bible-quoting Christians who are the bigger problem going forward. There are MANY who think this. I’ve never been one of them. But I’m always willing to learn and change for the greater good.

          • Captainchaos
            Captainchaos says:

            There weren’t many women at the top of the food chain in NS Germany either, Carolyn. It seems that Hitler wished to empower women to lead other women within traditionally feminine spheres. But were women to be generals and the like? That apparently was not in the cards.

          • Poupon Marx
            Poupon Marx says:

            Carolyn, it must be stated as a Cosmic Truth that women’s jobs and primary reason of existence is to produce children. The rest is cocktail party chatter of little matter.

            In another comment, you tout the patriotic service of the pre WWII women. Those women, as a group of any number are GONE, replaced by the harpies and fast food ham sandwich girls, who are other-directed. See the Lonely Crowd. Their potential for damage is like a rabid bear that is blind and deaf in a shop full of crystal

            Phyllis Schafly Founder of Eagle Forum is the kind of gal you are talking about. The loudest, foul, and hateful speech against her came from……other women, the same old cohort: college educated White women.

          • RockaBoatus
            RockaBoatus says:

            With all due respect, Carolyn, I understood exactly why you quoted the comments of anonym. And I thought his comments and your agreement with it was simplistic. I agreed with the spirit or sentiment of it because Jews have indeed weaponized our women, but it didn’t really address the problem at hand in any real or practical way.

            Yes, I am no fan of the women’s suffrage movement. They may not be considered “radicals” to the same degree that our contemporary American women are, but they were definitely “radicals” for their time. The seeds they planted inevitably led to much of the confusion and chaos we see today in the U.S. among women.

            And yes, again, women in my view should not be allowed to vote. Giving women voting rights has led to colossal problems in America and throughout the West. The subject is too involved to get into now, but that is my opinion on the matter.

            No, I don’t believe that Jewish power only took hold much later in the country. It could be traced to a much earlier time period than the 1960s or even the women’s suffrage movement. But as in most things, there is a progression. Jews did not have the same level of control back then as they have had since the 1950s. All of what we are witnessing today with Jews culturally subverting our nation took root over a 140 years ago, but that stranglehold did not fully take place until much later.

            No, I will not put down my Bible. And yes, I have already read Henry Ford’s, ‘The International Jew,’ and I would highly recommend it. I have read numerous other books addressing the JQ as well.

            Carolyn, you don’t want women in the military, as cops, or even a woman president – ever!? I’m glad to hear that. See, you and I are not so far off from each other?

            I’m “quite tolerant of Jews”? No, I’m sorry you have misunderstood me and my motives. I clearly understand the problems that Jews bring to White our societies (see my article here at TOO: ‘My Journey to the Jewish Question’).

            “Clearly you see white women as the bigger problem” – No, I clearly view Jews as the bigger problem. Our women just like Blacks in America have been weaponized by Jews against the greater White majority. And just as the issue of Black criminal dysfunction must be addressed and not ignored, so also the issue of ‘woke’ feminism must be addressed and condemned.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            TO CAPTAINCHAOS:
            Did I ever say differently from what you just wrote to me below? If you think so, show me. Maybe you should read more carefully — that would be a start.

            TO P.M.:
            You think you know what women’s job is; what about your own or man’s “job” — have you carried that out to perfection? And since no one can believe a word you say and you’re a proven liar, you need to submit some proof of who you are and what you’ve done.
            Don’t be guilty of casting the first stone, when you hide your own identity.

            Phyllis Schlafly is not who I had/have in mind; I never cared for her … and I’m a college educated woman.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            TO ROCKABOAT: on June 6, 2022 at 1:42 pm you wrote:
            “I’m quite tolerant of Jews? No, I’m sorry you have misunderstood me and my motives. I clearly understand the problems that Jews bring to our White societies”

            No, I don’t misunderstand. “Clearly understanding the problems” does not equate to intolerance of the situation. Intolerance is what the German National Socialists felt — that Jews could not be tolerated in German society. YOU, otoh, see the problems but you can tolerate them because “they are here and we can’t do anything about it.”
            You mean YOU won’t do anything about it BECAUSE Jewish entrenched power is too strong, so instead you’ll pick on powerless women and get tough there. You even lump White women together with Blacks (!), which is the ultimate insult and what all male chauvinists do.

            The current problem with U.S. leftist-leaning women is totally caused by the abdication of men in family life, due probably more to Jew-produced inducements to pleasures outside of family life than anything women have done. Don’t try to change women until you change men; that should be your first priority. Some men are trying to do that but they are a tiny minority. I know that when men are truly better human beings, women will fall right back in line with them.

            I’m convinced the two world wars had the most to do with the social fabric falling apart; that’s why my focus is there. Bible reading won’t help as much as getting Jews out of our educational decision-making (ie. off school boards, for ex.)

          • Angelicus
            Angelicus says:

            Dear Carolyn: You have just proved my point with your abusive language and your rants directed at everyone who dares to express an opinion contrary to yours.

            So, you have “written literary hundreds of persuasive articles”, well, good for you! I don’t remember seeing any of them quoted by intelligent people from “the extreme Right”. BTW, have you noticed that 99% of talented writers and thinkers from the revolutionary Right HAVE BEEN and ARE MEN?

            Who is trying “to lift himself out of the obscurity by pushing down on the shoulders of women”? What a ridiculous metaphor! (LOL)

            If you looked at the obnoxious Marxist-Feminist slobs that appear from time to time on TV hurling abuse at everyone who is White and respectable you will notice that the majority of them ARE WOMEN. Unfortunately, there is no one as blind as that one who refuses to see.

            You are very sad… (LOL)

        • anonym
          anonym says:

          “If it were not the Jews it would have been some other group or influence. I grant that without the presence of Jews, the circumstances in our country would be much better. But we would have still had our share of national problems because Whites are far from perfect and this includes our women.”

          I long for those kinds of national problems. Normal European problems. Unfilled potholes, debates about lowering or raising the taxes a few percent, women complaining about men splashing on the toilet seat when they pee, too much violence on TV…

          I just want my home back, please. And my home wasn’t invaded by feminists, it was invaded by millions of arabs, brought here by Jewish activists, made possible by Bush Jr fighting Gog and Magog in Babylon, laying the Middle East in ruins. Merkel, AOC or even Hillary has nothing on Bush Jr when it comes to being duped by the Jews – he probably has the all-time record.

          • RockaBoatus
            RockaBoatus says:

            “I just want my home back, please. And my home wasn’t invaded by feminists, it was invaded by millions of arabs, brought here by Jewish activists” – Your home wasn’t invaded by Blacks nor by illegal immigrants either. Blacks were brought here largely by Whites who couldn’t resist the financial perks of forcing others to work on their behalf. Sure, Jews played a role in it too, but Whites need to be careful in blaming others for what they allowed to occur. Yet we still need to address typical Black criminality and dysfunction, don’t we? Sure, they’ve been weaponized by Jews and White traitors, but none of this negates the need for us to warn our people against them.

            Your home wasn’t invaded by millions of illegal immigrants either. They were allowed in by both political parties, albeit for different reasons. Millions of White-owned businesses looked the other way because they wanted cheap labor. Like Black slavery, they wanted something for nothing and never bothered to consider the long-term consequences of it all. And now we have a nation that’s looking browner each and every day. Sure, Jews were involved in it and even orchestrated much of it. But there were plenty of complicit Whites who gladly went along with it. Yet we still need to address the issue of illegal immigration, don’t we?

            The same goes with all the crazy and nation-destroying ‘woke’ feminists that march continuously throughout our cities. Jewish subversion doesn’t negate the need to address the insanity of so many of our women. Granted, the new ‘woke’ feminism is but a symptom of Jewish control, but it still needs to investigated and refuted so that more of our women don’t fall prey to it.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      “Because of Christianity’s semitic misogyny – where women are treated as cattle – women had to organize and stand up for themselves” – Christianity does indeed have Semitic origins because the Founder of Christianity and its earliest followers were Jewish. But that’s as far as it goes. Jesus and the writings of the apostles are profoundly anti-Talmudic which explains why Jews have a long history of doing their best to destroy the Christian faith. If Jews can’t completely nullify it, they seek ways to water it down because they know its message is antithetical to everything they want and stand for.

      Any notion that Pauline Christianity and rabbinical Judaism have joined ranks to deceive the goyim is utterly laughable. It sounds persuasive to the ears of those who don’t know any better, and who haven’t bothered to assiduously investigate the vast and competing differences between the Christian faith and Talmudic Judaism. But as the old adage goes: “The simple believe everything” (Proverbs 14:15).

      The notion that Christianity treats women like cattle is both unfair and false. In fact, the Christian view of marriage and how husbands were to treat their wives was considered somewhat radical during the early centuries of the church (and even now!). Ephesians 5:25 commands husbands to love their wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her. Later in the same chapter in v.28, husbands are urged to love their wives even as they do their own bodies. I Peter 3:7 commands husbands to honor their wives, and to live with them in an understanding way as the weaker vessel.

      None of this even remotely suggests that Christianity favors treating women as cattle.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        “. . the Founder of Christianity and its earliest followers were Jewish.”
        Isn’t this a bit of a misnomer? The Pharisees that persecuted Jesus you could call Jews, with them there was a straight line back to the black magic and magicians of Babylon, and forward with Talmundism to what we today call Jews.
        But surely all this has very little to do with the majority of the people of ancient Israel where Jesus came from?

        • RockaBoatus
          RockaBoatus says:

          Thanks for your comments Emicho. I don’t have time and space to address the deeper question of the origin and meaning of the term “Jews,” but only to point out that both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 which discuss the paternal origins of Jesus say that He was a descendant of Judah (see also Revelation 5:5). Jesus was a Jew, and he adhered to customary Jewish/Israelite practices from the time He was born (e.g., He was circumcised, attended the synagogue and even read from the Isaiah scroll, and followed the Levitical system until the day of His own sacrifice).

          There is little doubt in my mind that the Israelites who entered Babylon incorporated some of their pagan practices and beliefs, including having mixed with them as well. Their syncretism of both Mosaic laws combined with ancient paganism aroused the anger of Christ Himself who viewed their “traditions of the elders” as counterfeit to what Yahweh originally taught His people. He told them that both Moses and Prophets would condemn them. It’s no wonder the Pharisees and the scribes hated Christ so much and ever since.

          By the way, whether the modern Jews are true descendants of the ancient Israelites or whether they are descendants of the Khazars or perhaps a mixture of both, I am not dogmatic about. I tend to think that Ashkenazi Jews have a mixture of Khazar, European, and Semitic ancestry (some perhaps more than others).

      • Captainchaos
        Captainchaos says:

        Yet in the present day the various Protestant denominations have become a Judaized husk. The task assigned to someone such as yourself is obvious: to begin the task of creating a new Confession and new Catechisms that will spiritually empower Nordics in their Final battle against Jews for dominion of the earth.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        What you call Pauline Christianity does not always line up with the words of Jesus. Paul went into some detail about the differences of rights & responsibilities for men and women in the Church. Jesus never said a word about it.

        Jesus never restricted women in any way. He even said that in the Kingdom of Heaven there were no male and female, but all were the same. During a gathering in the home of Lazarus (I think), Jesus praised Mary for sitting among those listening to him speak instead of being in the kitchen with her sister Martha preparing food for the guests. He said Mary made the better choice! There are other examples.

        So whom do the churches follow? Paul or Jesus? It’s ridiculous to think it could be Paul. And there IS a discrepancy here. Like in all true teachings, the only goal is to KNOW and/or come into the spiritual reality, not to maintain worldly institutions or feed the body.

        • RockaBoatus
          RockaBoatus says:

          Simply because Jesus did not address at length church protocol and the sort of things that Paul covered in his epistles in no way proves or even suggests there was any conflict between Paul and Jesus. There is no contradiction in the least. It’s simply a matter of understanding the flow of redemptive history. During the life of Jesus, He emphasized the coming of the kingdom, His messiahship, qualities or traits of those who are kingdom citizens (see Matthew 5), His death on behalf of sinners, and the inauguration of the New Covenant.

          Later, in the case of Paul, the New Covenant was already established and there was the pressing need to address practical and church-related issues. You simply have different periods of time with different matters needing to be addressed. I would say Paul expands on what Jesus taught, but he did not contradict His words.

          Jesus said that in heaven there is no marriage or giving in marriage, but I’m not aware of any passage where he declared “that in the Kingdom of Heaven there were no male and female, but all were the same.” I think you’re thinking of Galatians 3:28, but even in that text Paul is not denying basic, fundamental distinctions between males and females not the separate roles they may play. Rather, he’s emphasizing that in Christ Body’s, the Church, such distinctions as male and female, Jew and gentile, rich or poor, slave or free, or any other earthly distinctions does not really matter because we are all one in Christ Jesus. He is emphasizing the essential oneness of believers and not any modern-day egalitarian construct.

          By the way, the same Paul who wrote the Book of Galatians also wrote the Book of 1 Timothy in which he prohibits women from exercising authority in the church by teaching men (“I do not permit a woman to teach”). So while all believers are on in Christ – regardless of gender – there are still protocols that are to be maintained when it comes to church polity (e.g., only qualified men can serves as elders in the church – 1 Timothy 3).

          “Jesus never restricted women in any way” – Jesus did permit women to follow Him, to minister to Him, and he was extremely gracious and understanding of them. He praised women when He felt it to be right. Yet with that said, He certainly did not appoint any woman as part of His inner circle of Twelve apostles. Jesus appointed Peter as the “rock” and not Miriam. In this sense, Christianity and Jesus Himself were quite revolutionary toward women when one considers the era they live in.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Rock: “I’m not aware of any passage where he declared “that in the Kingdom of Heaven there were no male and female, but all were the same.” I think you’re thinking of Galatians 3:28, ”

            NO. I am NOT thinking of Galatians, a Paul Epistle, but of Matthew and Mark, where Jesus said all were like the angels of God in Heaven.
            I just didn’t word it the same, from memory.
            Matt. 22:29-30 Jesus answered and said to them, You err, because you do not understand the scriptures nor the power of God.
            For at the resurrection of the dead, they neither marry women, nor are women given to men in marriage, but they are like the angels of God in heaven.

            Mark 12: 23-25
            23 Therefore at the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For all seven had married her. 24 Jesus said to them, Do you not err, because you do not understand the scriptures, nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry women, nor are women given in marriage to men; but they are like the angels in heaven.

            IOW, we are all the same. The resurrection (rising from the dead) is when they “ascend to Heaven” and dwell in the Kingdom of Heaven. Are the angels male or female? No.

            BTW, I didn’t mention the word conflict, only you do. Just that Jesus saw male and female equally even though he was aware the society around him did not. Paul was not so revolutionary. Could it be said that Paul was more Jewish than Jesus was?

            And let’s remember that Paul never knew Jesus while the disciples did, and we only have Paul’s word for it that Jesus spoke to him and advised him.
            Please don’t give me your church gobble-de-gook about covenants, etc. and expect me to swallow it whole. Don’t think Jesus ever used the word ‘covenant.’

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “He certainly did not appoint any woman as part of His inner circle of Twelve apostles. Jesus appointed Peter as the “rock” and not Miriam.”

            I thought I better make my comments while I could still do it! Jesus was operating within the boundaries of Judaic society and the synagogues. If he had appointed or encouraged any women to stand as equals among the men, he would have put those women in grave danger. He followed certain protocols so as not to invite even more shock & anger against his message. Considering his genuine friendships with women, that was a minimum requirement.

            “Jesus appointed Peter as the “rock” and not Miriam.”
            There’s a consensus of bible scholars who believe that passage to be added later – by the Church Fathers of course. They felt the faithful needed to hear it from Jesus’ own lips to assure their legitimacy. Please see for interesting & useful commentary.

        • Poupon Marx
          Poupon Marx says:

          The current problem with U.S. leftist-leaning women is totally caused by the abdication of men in family life, due probably more to Jew-produced inducements to pleasures outside of family life than anything women have done. Don’t try to change women until you change men; that should be your first priority. Some men are trying to do that but they are a tiny minority. I know that when men are truly better human beings, women will fall right back in line with them.

          Carolyn, there’s hope for tomorrow if we wake up today, said that American sage, Ted Nugent. Your case consisting of transplantation or responsibility, dismissal of feminine pathology on a suicidal scale, minimizing the brain salad surgery done on women by Jews, but then continued under self powered psychosis by the wimmen themselves is counter productive and very queer. It seems that you do not want women to be happy, fulfilled, and restored to mental health.

          I can post much much more to support my case by real, intelligent, thinking, and righteous women. Show me what you got. You must realize that you will fail.

    • RealityCheck
      RealityCheck says:

      There are 16 comments here, so far, and yours is the only intelligent one. It provides some solid food for thought and is more balanced and realistic. Thanks…

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        … [your comment] is the only intelligent one. It provides some solid food for thought and is more balanced and realistic.

        As Carolyn Yeager appears to agree with you, perhaps you and she could join “anonym” in a similarly thoughtful, balanced, and realistic discussion of the relative merits of such other “solid foods” as Doritos and Pringles, especially with regard to the harm that “semitic obsessions” have done to their nutritional content. I for one should be all ears.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      “Because of Christianity’s semitic misogyny – where women are treated as cattle.”
      You may be confused because where you come from man/cattle relations mirror man/wife relations.
      If we can all agree to the obvious fact that feminism has been catastrophic not just to our societies, but for the poor woman themselves, then the logical thing is to go back 120 odd years pre-feminism, to when women were the property of the male members of their family.
      Women would be safer, happier, we would have such a thing as a functioning civilization, but . . . . but . . . women wouldn’t be ‘free’.
      Free to whore themselves out in their youth, then tear down our social order as Jewish Janissaries when they’re past it.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” The genuine conservative tradition protected everything that shouldn’t be valued in money – the Jewish “conservatives” turned it on its head and turned our society into a shopping mall where everything is for sale and nothing is sacred. ”

      Except that elite Jewish plutocrats
      ( aka ILLuminati global oligarchs ) apparently tend to view money as being sacred ;
      whereas traditional Christians view people ( human life ) as being sacred — not money .

      The West is in the last phase of abrogating Christianity because of a typical Christian’s disastrously egregious virtual inability to adequately discriminate
      ( as revealed by
      overwhelming empirical historical evidence )
      the potentially sacred value of like-minded people from the potentially lethal value of adversarial-minded people .

    • Karen Toffan
      Karen Toffan says:

      Thank you anonym for that most excellent comment. I was going to comment on this partially true but misguided article but it is now unnecessary.

  12. Raeto West
    Raeto West says:

    I’m amazed how imperceptive this person is. Many white women aren’t rich and are paid by Jews to act in ways liked by Jews – to wave signs, screech, expose their tits, advocate abortion — for whites, not for Jews though, or for blacks. Jews don’t want abortions or eugenics for themselves; they have enough problems and prefer to be supported by whites. And they don’t want abortions for blacks, provided they are in white societies and can cause harm.
    The ‘writer’ mentions church, failing to notice the content is all Jewish crap. I’m reminded of Barbara Smoker in the UK, who told me that the USA was largely a collection of simple types, as in India.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      “I’m amazed how imperceptive this person is. Many white women aren’t rich and are paid by Jews to act in ways liked by Jews – to wave signs, screech, expose their tits, advocate abortion” – I never said nor suggested in my article that the White women who promote ‘woke’ feminism were rich or paid by Jews. There are plenty of White women who are poor and government-dependent, and yet who still support the kind of radical feminism we witness daily in the news and social media.

      Even though Jews play a disproportionate role behind the current feminist rage against White males, I would venture to say that few, if any, of these same females perceive Jews as the source of it. The raucous women at these protests are not directly paid by Jews at all, although the organizers of it may receive a stipend of some sorts from various Jewish activist organizations. Most of the White feminists don’t feel the need to get paid because they think they’re on a divine mission to ‘save humanity.’

      • Raeto West
        Raeto West says:

        Hi, RockaBoatus. You don’t actually give evidence for the non-payment of women for waving banners, going in mass to meetings, and all the rest of it.

        • RockaBoatus
          RockaBoatus says:

          I could never prove it in the case of each individual women, and if I tried it would be a colossal waste of time. I have more important things to investigate and write about.

          Do you really believe the greater number of these women are individually paid to protest and carry banners? I don’t believe it for a minute. That’s because far too many of our American women would gladly protest without the slightest request for payment. They are true believers, and fanatical ones at that. They don’t need shekels because they’re on a ‘mission.’

          A good many of them are financially stable, so asking or demanding a fee would not be something they feel is necessary. That, of course, is different when it comes to those who engage in full-time activism and organizing such protest rallies. But for the average American ‘pussy hat,’ no such remuneration is required.

  13. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    Hi. Is it okay if I use this platform to spew some revolutionary rhetoric? This is off-topic, by the way.

    I watched the “trooping the colour” in honor of Queen Elizabeth’s 70-year reign, having found a stream showing closeups of the massive crowd walking peacefully down the mall to Buckingham Palace. I would estimate that the portion of that throng who could easily identify as albino to be about 99.99%. All age groups well represented. This was not an old folks’ party.

    London itself is about 40% visible ethnic minority and England overall about only 78% white. So, would it be ungracious of me to speculate as to why the 40 per cent non-albinos were seriously under-represented in the folks attending the Platinum Jubilee celebrations? Racism, perhaps?

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      I think your stats are a bit old, London has been majority non-white for years.
      -At the 2011 census, London had a population of 8,173,941. Of this number 44.9% were White British.- Wikipedia
      If you consider all the non whites who wouldn’t have bothered to fill in the census, add in all the illegals, then 11 years ago it would probably be more like 60%+ non-white. By now it will be heading towards 75%.
      The Grenfell Tower fire was a good example of this, they’d no idea how much Third World invaders were cooked in that farce.
      All I can say is thank God we ‘won’ WWII, or else we might have had to speak German!
      NOTE- Nazi Germany didn’t force France, Italy, Holland, Poland or any nation they occupied to speak German.

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      I watched some of the 70th stuff on TV, trying to work out how much was accurately reported. It’s notable that some of the actions ascribed to Elizabeth – knighting Robert Mugabe, knighting war criminals against Iraq, and other things – were omitted from the ridiculous praise by the media whores and ancient ‘pop royalty’. I’d guess that few immigrants have any love for the ‘Royal Family’ and view the celebrations as irrelevant to themselves. The ‘Jubilee’ is accurately names; it’s just another Jewish thing.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        The British royal family is the most disgusting and hateful of the whole monarchic lot. Not only not one of them dared EVER to say anything about the ongoing cultural and racial genocide of the British people, but the few comments made by any of them (mainly the moronic Prince of Wales) about the state of the country have always been nothing but enthusiastic praise for the growing tide of colour (blacks and browns), the destruction of the genuinely English cultural heritage (in art, literature, architecture, law manners, etc), the brutal COVID regulations and anything anti-White you may imagine.

        The root of all this was the Civil War when the stupid and weak Charles I was defeated by Cromwell (that means the Parliament = wealthy City merchants = the corrupt nobility). The so-called “Restoration” was a sham because Charles II was forced to accept a series of conditions (The Declaration from Breda) that limited the power of the king. The final blow to the power of the Crown was given by the Parliament after the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. Since then the king or queen of England has been nothing but a puppet in the hands of the Parliament which has been controlled by the great bankers since the XIXth century.

        • Barkingmad
          Barkingmad says:

          No, the “royals” are not friends of the White people in England or anywhere else. It is unfortunate that people seem to love that rancid lot just because of the pageantry and the sense of history involved. We are attracted to them like certain birds to shiny bits of glass.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        The nonwhites are uninterested in the “royal” family for the wrong reasons. It’s not a simple lack of interest. As you know.

        The thousands out there over the 4-day celebrations are, I doubt, all there for the correct reasons. Most folks enjoy pageantry, parades, reminiscences of history, etc. and feel a need to be part of something supposedly happy. A portion of the parade participants today (Sunday, June 5th) were quite entertaining. I was rather taken with the silly motorized corgis pulling their female handlers along.

        @Emicho. Yup. At least we don’t have to speak German! In ninth grade, after our teacher mentioned the shooting of jewish children during the holocaust, the girl sitting behind me, of German ethnicity, whispered to me, “I could cheerfully wring the Germans’ necks.” Quote unquote

        Re the statistics. Some lump together all whites in London/Britain and other stats separate White English and White nonEnglish, ie, all those Poles and Portuguese, etc.

  14. Karen Conley
    Karen Conley says:

    I totally agree. A woman’s place is in the home raising a family and being a partner to her husband. I have had to work over the years due to my husband’s being disabled but I have always had 9 to 5 office jobs and have never sought to have a career. .

  15. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    Western Man AND Woman’s essential ally and paesano: Helen Smith, Ph.D., wife of Glen Reynolds, Instapundit.

    She, like Christina Hoc Summers, declared war on feminism decades ago. And they are both Jewish! They are deracinted.

    Helen-G-d bless her has been pounding feminists and standing with men for a long time. Her book, is a must read, especially for couples.

  16. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thanks Rock. This is another of many contributions to a sick-as-hell subject but you did a good job.

    I’ve always found the women from the 40’s, 50’s, so strong in many ways. Strong and at the same time, beautiful, smart, witty, and sexy. They’re the kind of gals a guy likes to be around, even if he’s not involved with her; she holds her own. And of course I wasn’t around then, so I’m thinking of actresses from those times, Norman Rockwell pieces etc… Heddy Lamar was actually a genius. She created something that led to cell phone technology. Audrey Hepburn, Ava Gardner, Lauren Becal, Katherine Hepburn, Liz Taylor. I’m not a big movie guy but at least women back then knew how to dress, men too for that matter. You will find similar traits in women like that today from Eastern Europe, especially and surprisingly, from not only the Slavic countries, but many of the ex Soviet countries; Georgia, Kazakhstan, Albania, Romania. All very beautiful, all speak at least three languages fluently, good educations, dress well at all times, they’re strong. I was married to a Russian gal. Even though our marriage didn’t work out, we’re still best of friends. She’s amazing. Have dated gals from those other places. Georgian women and Kazak women are just amazing and super smart. And they know everything about the Jews which makes talking to them easy for me.

    Anyway, living most of my life on the East Coast, I have dealt with my fair share of the ‘screechers’. They do and think what the TV tells them to do and you will never, ever be able to talk any sense into them.

    I remember during the Saint George Floyd riot days, I had to go over to a store on Flatbush Avenue. The train stops right at the Barclays Center, which is where the Brooklyn Nets play. This is where people and organizers would meet when they would stage demonstrations for Saint George during that time in that area. It just so happened that I had gotten there when they were all gathering at Barclays for a demonstration.

    Flatbush Avenue going into Park Slope is, not a hill but a bit of a steep incline. When I got to the store, I turned around and the demonstrators were making their way up. I noticed that most of the protestors were… drum roll… you guessed it, white women. There were a few blacks and older, white men sprinkled in, but the crowd was I would say, at least 85% white women.

    On the street there were black guys with tables set up selling Saint George t-shirts, bumper stickers, BLM shirts, buttons, and on it goes. I said to one in my best Brooklyn black talk, ‘yo my brother, here come them white women, you gonna make some bank.’ He let out a laugh and said; “I hope so my brother, I hope so.” (I’m not black btw. Brother, Nigga, all acceptable between the races here now).

    One thing that saddened me about the crowd is that the white women bring their children with them. Many, were hoisted on their Mom’s shoulders carrying such signs stating BLM, Stop White Privilege, Floyd Was Martyred, etc., and that really saddened me.

    I’m assuming that much of it was virtue signaling to their fellow, wealthy, politically correct, woke, sjw, white neighbors.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      Thanks Bobby, and you’re right that a lot of the people involved in selling their merchandise at such feminist ‘woke’ rallies have as their real motive to make money off all the gullible women.

      And yes, it’s sad when feminists bring their children to their public protests. The next generation is surely going to be even more crazed in the head than these foolish mothers.

  17. david1
    david1 says:

    Baptist Minster Warns America: Why Women Must Not Preach Or Lead

    “You tamper with this order, chaos is unending”

    Your men will fall by the sword. Guess what?? When women take over a culture, men become weak. When men become weak, they can be conquered. You’re watching that happen in this country. As more and more and more and more women ascend to power, more and more men become weaker and weaker, and the level of vulnerability just keeps escalating.
    Your men will fall by the sword, because they’ve become weak. You’ve literally lived out the curse of Genesis 3.

    You’ve desired to dominate him and you’ve done it, and your mighty ones are going to fall in battle, and her gates will lament and mourn. And deserted she will sit on the ground. Guess what, when all the men have been slaughtered, you can sit there with all your jewellery and junk, because you’ve been conquered because you’ve overpowered your protectors.

  18. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” No amount of reality and facts will persuade the feminist mindset.”

    Likewise , nothing will dissuade the zio-Jew masters of that mindset from their grand finale of the destruction of Western Christian civilization and subsequent conquest of the world ;

    which is based on the extant permission given by their God about three thousand years ago in

    The Jewish Holy Torah / KJV / Book of Genesis

    / chapter numero uno : verse 26 :

    To wit ___

    And God said , …
    … … …
    … let them have dominion over all the [ world ]
    … … …
    whereby the ancient Hebrew spiritual progenitors ,
    of those whom are now called “the Jews”,
    subsequently first exemplified about 2500 years ago
    their superior knowledge of subversive methodology ,
    by successfully effecting the cancellation of that world renown ancient Tower of Babel construction project ,
    in an event
    that resulted in the death of the grandiose ambition of an apparently corrupt King Nimrod and which is rendered as the most venerable allegory of all time in

    The Jewish Holy Torah / KJV / Book of Genesis

    / chapter 11 : verses 1 – 9 .

    The chosenhite jewmasters have overall considerably more superiority of knowledge about humanity
    ( such as anthropology , psychology , sociology , medicine , history , biology , genetics , theology , behavioral sciences , economics , et al )
    and considerably more ownership of mind-kontrol technologies
    ( such as media , various entertainment modes , education establishments , legal establishments , medical establishments , political establishments , governments , et al )
    than the vast majority of Whites .

    In other words , the jewish masters of self-enslaved Christian Whites have far superior mindset management capabilities
    than Whites .

    However , regular TOO commenter “Captainchaos” has advocated perhaps the only pragmaticly feasible way to secure White racial preservation by adult Whites , both men and women , whom could break the various grips of lethal jewish mass mind-kontrols on disparate population groups

    ( such as Jews , Christians , Muslims , Democrats , Republicans , urbans , rurals , suburbans , liberals , conservatives , Whites , blacks , browns , yellows , native , indigenous , immigrant , etc. )

    if Whites have enough collective political intelligence and courage to engage in asymmetric warfare — if necessary — against a hopelessly corrupt and incorrigible status quo political establishment in order to successfully initiate a Red State secession movement as a first step prior to establishing a viable WN Confederacy , of noncontiguous seceded states , dedicated to White racial preservation .

    However , the Jewish powers-that-be abide by a standard operating procedure to either overtly or covertly put a Jew out in a front leadership position

    ( from which a movement could be conveniently sabotaged and cancelled at any time deemed necessary )

    of any significant political movement away from their center of power and which has been assigned to the appropriate one of 360 circle degrees with the elite plutocrat jewmasterss conveniently at the center of all political movements .

    Can anyone persuasively vouch for “Captainchaos” not being a covert zio-Jew double agent ?

    In any case ,
    be assured that a USA Red State secession is the best option for a pragmaticly necessary White racial preservationist first step prior to establishing a dedicated WN Confederacy that would be unavoidably in conflict with the present established zio-Jew global hegemonic despotic genocide of Whites .

  19. Fleur
    Fleur says:

    Just because some groups of white ( as you mention specifically white) woman turn out to be a nutters/fanatics does not mean the entire female white race should be tarred with the same brush.
    Seems to be that the white race is being under attack for awhile now , the white race is now not more then 10% worldwide so no worries ‘ your specially white liberal woman’ will not be here soon, the white genocide is coming along nicely.

    The lioness is the hunter not the lion.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      I appreciate your comments and I understand what you’re trying to say, but at no point did I say that ALL of our White women are “nutters/fanatics.” I made it plain that my criticism applies to MANY of our women – a growing number of them no doubt – but certainly not to all of them. I also made it clear that there are plenty of women who are not as easily manipulated and who are clear thinkers. They are the outliers.

      With that said, however, a wise nation protects its women from the Jewish deceptions of ‘woke’ liberalism and cultural Marxism. And it certainly doesn’t permit them high ranking government positions in which their ‘weaker natures’ (so to speak) will impact the moral, cultural, and economic health of that same nation.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        but at no point did I say that ALL of our White women are “nutters/fanatics.” I made it plain that my criticism applies to MANY of our women – a growing number of them no doubt – but certainly not to all of them.


        You didn’t have to. MOST college educated women are useless for a future for Whites. Worse than useless. A higher percentage of Asian women survive the brainwashing and Mesmatron of the Jewniversity. I give them overall priority of the Blue Eyed, Blond Dirndl. “Aryan” airhead, Nordic “Nor Dick”, use and lose.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          What is an anti-White non-While bloke like you even doing here on this website for the “promotion of White identity & culture,” promoting marriage with Asian women and constantly trashing European women?

          Clearly, Mr. Dum-dum, the more White men mate with non-White women, the faster the White race will decline. Clearly, that is not a concern for you. You are an enemy of the White West; It’s a legitimate question why you’re allowed to plaster your anti-West comments all over this site when so many others who are loyal Racialist Whites can’t get all comments approved (for one reason or another).

          This is called White suicide … or it used to be.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Seconded—with admiration for the accuracy of the indictment and the justified fervor of its expression.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Thank you Pierre. You are a man who will consistently stand for his beliefs, no matter coming from seeming friend or foe.

            I, in turn, admire your previous comment coining the clever “the Hymn to Him” and saying it’s plateau had been reached here already several days ago!

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            H/t, Carolyn. There is great generosity in your words, and I deeply appreciate them.

            Apropos white women’s wrecking white men’s lives and Western civilization, it is beyond distressing to see that about 85 percent of the complaints have the gravitas found in a coarse teenage boy’s flippant remark that, because some girl doesn’t swoon in his presence, she must have the rag on.

            Gullibility and conformity—i.e., conformity with the Establishment’s social, political, and psychosexual Narrative—are morally and intellectually infectious agents. They are components of the only true pandemic that anyone need fear. That the symptoms of these agents manifest themselves in certain white women with the high visibility of the measles’ red spots unfortunately serves to distract attention from the less obvious ways these agents also infect the male members of white societies.

            The only workable response I see to our enemies’ exploitation of the inherent weaknesses in both women and men is to ensure that children are born and reared within a stable, loving family. It is the only environment ideally suited to the full display of the markedly different strengths and weaknesses of women and men within a context wherein the sexes’ profound complementarity is also plain. Alas, looking to restore even a small fraction of this once-normative familial state seems today a pipe dream.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Hey Flour! Is that your real name? It’s a gorgeous name and reminds me much of the heart-brakingly beautiful Susan Hampshire in the original version of The Forsyte Saga.
      If anyone can cancel name any American television production that can compare to Forsyte, The Pallisers or Upstairs Downstairs I’d love to hear about it.
      If anyone is interested in WWI I would highly recommend the Upstairs Downstairs episodes that deal with that subject. It will definitely educate anyone on the impact of that disaster on Britians.
      You could read five books on the English WWI home front and learn less than you do in just a few brilliant episodes. That’s why I recommend it. It’s a short, sharp, but shocking education in the the way that that war, frankly just blew the guts out of the society, at ALL levels.
      The Forsye Saga doesn’t document WWI at all, even although it covers those years. But just looking at Susan Hampshire as Fluer, and all is forgiven.
      She’s also the star of Pallisers, she’s incredible in that too, just it doesn’t have the close ups. Perhaps the black and white adds also to her magic.

  20. Xavier
    Xavier says:

    I’m going to paste my comment from the UNZ review here: –

    This is a well written article but it’s missing one vital piece – feminism’s appeal to the average woman.

    Every mass movement has two components – Ideology (worldview) and mass appeal. Feminism’s ideology, which resolves around social engineering, has been discussed many times so let’s instead focus on mass appeal. The latter appeals to personal self interest and sometimes the more baser instincts of people. Women are far more opportunistic than western societies give them credit for and feminists implicitly understand this. So what does feminism offer the average woman? Quite a bit actually. Abortion, child support, meetoo (power without accountability), affirmative action, and most importantly – validation (the only currency that matters to women outside of money). As someone rightly observed – feminism is a union for women, but the union dues are paid for by men. Feminists have successfully legislated aspects of hypergamy and reshaped our culture around female worship and validation. Feminism offers women a world where their reckless shenanigans have no consequences because the social and financial costs are absorbed by the male tax payer. In any society outside the west, women who spend their youth in promiscuity would be shamed and possibly even destitute. In the west, there is welfare and a culture of validation which provides these skanks with an endless supply of pliant men who will happily raise Tyrone’s bastard spawn.

    Women by nature are more base than men. Philosophy, especially moral philosophy, have exclusively been the domain of men with women contributing virtually nothing to those endeavors. Thus women lack the ability to comprehend ideals in the same manner as men. However, women are intuitively aware of how ideals affect men and thus are able to mimic idealism to more effectively manipulate men. Women will bandy about words like “equality” and “fairness” while enacting legislature that is authoritarian, grossly unfair, and hostile to men.

    Since feminism appeals to base instincts (encouraging women to think through their vaginas) it is then hardly surprising that western women are shockingly deficient in higher virtues such as humility, etiquette, grace, and gratitude.

    See the author’s response to my comment here –

  21. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Women are irrational; that’s all there is to that. Their heads are full of cotton, hay, and rags. They’re nothing but exasperating, irritating, vacillating, calculating, agitating, maddening, and infuriating hags.

    Whenever the subject is women, it is invariably the case that those complaining about them never manage to stop short of the point where proportionality and sense begin to get trampled in the dust.

    In the present context, I suggest that the “Hymn to Him” moment was reached several days ago.

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      I fear , my friend, that your considerable intellect is wasted on the cheaper seats like ” sweetness on the desert air”.

      However , as one who admires one’s friends for the virtues sparingly existent in oneself , your tenacity is always admired.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Thank you, Al, but trust me: tenacity comes easier at 76.5 years than it does at 40 or 50 or 60, not least because one looks such a fool if he fails to hold on tight!

        Obiter dictum: did you know that, even in his own time, Gray’s contemporaries referred to him as Churchyard Gray? Boswell wrote somewhere that he was never sure whether the epithet implied praise or scorn.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:


      The only workable response I see to our enemies’ exploitation of the inherent weaknesses in both women and men is to ensure that children are born and reared within a stable, loving family. It is the only environment ideally suited to the full display of the markedly different strengths and weaknesses of women and men within a context wherein the sexes’ profound complementarity is also plain. Alas, looking to restore even a small fraction of this once-normative familial state seems today a pipe dream

      If you could be so indulgent, could you find the time to CONCRETELY suggest a remedy, palliative, antidote to the dismal state of the Western Female? We can’t see them, so rule that out. Merely stating that we should rear children to do thls or that, or be….is an abstract and absconding from the premises.

      What I prescribe or recommend has the weight of direct observation and engagement with many different peoples, not seminars, texts, opinions and “Imagine…..”. The textual, abstract framework was long ago when I left the university in 1971 due to the increasing politicization and skewing of the social sciences and humanities.

      Please spare me pieties, and the tsk, tsk of a scold abstracted from Western canonical text.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        You may talk all you like, but you aren’t interested in a solution. Rather, you already know what the solution is and where it is to be found, but it simply doesn’t appeal to you.

        One thing I can tell you with certainty: the solution isn’t Buddhism, a self-important, self-indulgent fraud masquerading as the highway to insight. Buddhism’s popularity with Jews, especially the hippest of them, ought to be all anyone needs to see to get wise to Buddhism’s emptiness!
        The West—as it existed from its pre-Christian roots in Attic Greece to its effective takeover by Jews in what is still grandiosely called the Enlightenment—is a lost cause. It is a fortress that has been occupied by its sworn enemies, who have effected a total revolution within the forms. Whether what was original, true, profound, and eminently worthwhile about the West can be salvaged in the century to come is something I neither know, of course, nor about which I would hazard a guess. (You probably will, but then you would, wouldn’t you?) Yet before a desirable and sound successor society to the Christian West at its height can emerge, however, that there will be blood—a great deal of blood—is, sadly, the way to bet.

Comments are closed.