ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, May 06, 2020

Impossible? Part III

III. Into the Breach

Should it occur to anyone to start curbing the excesses of feminism in earnest, then obviously the most important step will be to deprive women of the right to vote. In itself, doing so ought not to be too difficult. In most modern countries, feeding in the right computer program and pressing a few buttons would suffice to do the job. No longer will my wife and I receive our Israeli, blue and white, voting cards in tandem. Instead of pinning two cards to the fridge as, in the past year, we have done no fewer than three times, I shall do so only with one. To prevent disenfranchised women from disrupting the voting process, as some of them regularly did at the turn of the twentieth century, perhaps a few of the noisiest ones should be placed under protective custody for a couple of days. Having each polling station watched by a policeman or two would not present a problem either.

The real problem is a different one. In ancient Greece women’s rights and democracy were entirely separate. Neither in Athens nor in any other city were women allowed either to vote or to hold public office. To the extent that it was democratic, as in some respects it was, the same applied to republican Rome. Not so in the modern world. In it, right from the beginning the demand for women’s enfranchisement has been riding piggyback on democracy. When Congress issued the Declaration of Independence Abigail Adams, wife of president to-be John Adams, complained that it mentioned men but not women. As the French Revolution broke out more than one woman insisted that the newly-adopted rights of men should be extended to women too. The best-known one was the abovementioned Mary Wollstonecraft. Another, Olympe de Gouges, was actually executed; though less for denouncing the “despotic” rule of men over women than for advocating the return of the monarchy. Not accidentally did John Stuart Mill, the most ardent male feminist of all time, publish The Subjection of Women in 1869, the year that marked a vast extension of the British electorate. To this day it is almost exclusively democratic countries that pay attention to women’s rights. Neither Putin, nor Xi, nor Khamenei, nor Kim Jong-un seems to be very interested in them. Nor, since they do not put great store on attracting female voters, or any voters for that matter, is there any reason why they should.

The long and the short of it is, if women are to be disenfranchised democracy will have to be abolished as well. Given its deep roots in Western civilization, that is a much harder proposition. Who could make the attempt? For Ms. Atwood the answer is clear: the armed forces which, throughout history and until very recently, used to be the bastions of masculinity. Or, more specifically, some secret group active within them and ready to take the bit between its teeth. Perhaps we might add elements of the police, the intelligence services, and various private security organizations. Here it is important to realize that many of those organizations’ CEOs are themselves former generals and senior police officers, making it easier for them to communicate and cooperate.

Whatever their precise nature, what makes these organizations potentially dangerous is not just the fact that they are authorized to carry weapons and, in certain cases, use them. It is their members’ detailed grasp of the way the state security organs work and, therefore, how they can be subverted and/or harnessed to the conspirators’ purpose. Who is in charge of what? Whom does he report to? What channels does he use, and how to ensure that those channels either remain open or are blocked?

Mounting a coup is not cheap. In this case the money may come from the kind of billionaire worried about being made to share Harvey Weinstein’s fate—and, given the brave new judiciary climate as well as the growing menace of #MeToo, what billionaire shouldn’t be? In the novels, all we really know about the conspirators is that they call themselves the Sons of Jacob. The reference is to the patriarch of that name. Tricked into marrying two sisters, he discovered that the younger one was unable to have children. Jealous of her sister, she nagged him (“give me children, or else I die”) until he gave way and slept with her handmaid. Now it was the turn of the older one to become jealous, so he impregnated her handmaids as well. Not exactly my idea of fun, but what was the poor man to do?

Here it is worth recalling that, whatever feminists have said and done, all the above-mentioned forces, agencies, firms, etc. remain almost as male-dominated as they were five or six decades ago. Not only is the number of their female members fairly limited, but few of them occupy key positions.

As one top Pentagon official in a position to know told me years ago when it was still relatively safe to do so, basically they cause little but trouble. Not simply by complaining; that is something women have no monopoly on. But because their complaints are so often self-contradictory. If female soldiers are not treated on an equal basis with men, e.g in respect to pay, promotion, and conditions of service, they complain about discrimination. If they are treated on an equal basis with men, e.g in respect to training and deployment, they also complain; this time because their femininity, meaning weaker physiques, greater susceptibility to certain diseases, pregnancy and motherhood is not given due consideration and does not lead to the privileges, such as shorter hours and better conditions, to which they feel entitled.

As anyone who has ever watched men and women engaged in co-ed training knows, there simply is no way out. If the same exercises are prescribed for people of both sexes, far more women will be injured and far fewer will graduate whereas the men, being stronger, will get hardly any training at all. If, to the contrary, trainees of each sex are made to perform to different standards, then the men will complain that, to gain credit, they must work harder than women. As, for example, by running longer distances, carrying heavier loads, and the like. The worst thing those responsible can do is to put men and women trainees into a situation where they have to physically touch each other. As, for example, in the now world-famous Israeli form of hand-to-hand combat known as krav maga (literally, “body-to-body battle”). Under such circumstances serious training becomes impossible. All that is left is a something more like Tai Chi or a ballet.

In some armies, these problems and others like them have long brought about a situation where male personnel are more afraid of their female colleagues than of the enemy. And no wonder: the U.S military e.g has more sexual assault response coordinators (SARCs) than it does recruiters. In my experience this fear has even spread to retired male officers; they are worried that walls may have ears. Responses to the problem vary. With Vice President Mike Pence providing the example, in- and out of the military a growing number of men refuse to be alone with any woman other than their wives, thus opening the door to complaints about discrimination. Many others will not meet with female co-workers unless a third person is present, thereby opening the door to even more complaints, this time about the violation of privacy.

Through all this, one thing remains clear. Should those in charge gird their loins and decide that enough is enough, then both in the military and in the civilian world a great many working women could be dispensed with fairly quickly and sent home. The place they occupied until 1965 or so; and which, to the mind of many men and such women as consider their children too precious to be raised by strangers, they should never have left to begin with.

I. Introduction
II. The Road to Herland
III. Into the Breach
IV. Brave New World
V. Conclusion

Labels: , ,

83 Comments:

Blogger ScottC May 06, 2020 8:50 AM  

This man is brilliant. I love how he identified Mary Wollenstonecraft as the founder of "modern" feminism.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 06, 2020 9:11 AM  

Music to my ears. My primary drive for self-employment had been to get away from women in the workplace more so than 1099 independence.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia May 06, 2020 9:15 AM  

"Hitler in Hell" is a fantasy, and so is the solution to feminism proffered here, no matter how trenchant the analysis.

The feminine sensibility -- the mind that doesn't fully grasp her own contradictions, the tormented sensibility that wants freedom yet yearns for submission, the bitterness of unmoored sexuality, and, above all, the overarching desire to avoid civilization building risk no matter what the cost -- is let loose upon the land.

And thus we have Gretchen Whitmer.

And she will not be the last.



Blogger Brett baker May 06, 2020 9:17 AM  

I could accept the van Creveld dictatorship.

Blogger Doktor Jeep May 06, 2020 9:38 AM  

Long have I been forced to conclude that womens' suffrage must end for civilization to be saved, but that women and their simps would first see to the end of civilization.
The simps will do it because they think it will get them female validation. The women do it because they are hard wired to bring about optimal reproductive strategy. That being the case: the end of civilization means the return of warlords and harems. And the top toughest alpha males getting the best women is the most optimal reproductive strategy. Notably, it was when we defeated elements, predators, and disease, mastered agriculture, and then did away with caste and class systems and added democracy, that we suddenly have endless hordes of deleterious genetics that get worse with each generation. It was at the start of the success of Western Civilization that stupidity, Marxism, femenism, and churchianity, rose.
It's as if civilization killed itself.
Femenism is just a part of it. Suffrage is the pointy end of it.

I love this series. Thanks.

Blogger McChuck May 06, 2020 9:45 AM  

No woman has ever successfully completed Ranger School, for all that several have certificates signed by moral cowards saying they graduated from the course.

Blogger megabar May 06, 2020 9:49 AM  

It would be interesting to go through various issues and see if women are right on some where men are wrong. For example, I could believe (but do not know) if women are more opposed to pointless military conflicts than men.

If there are substantial issues like that, one possible solution would be to split the male and female electorate into two separate bodies, like the legislative branch, and make major policy have to be ratified by both. In theory, we could get the benefits of both sexes' instincts that way.

It's just a musing. In practice, I don't know if it could be make to work well, nor do I know if the premise itself is valid.

Blogger Stilicho May 06, 2020 9:49 AM  

The speculation that it will require a coup to get rid of democracy in the West is in error. The trend is in the direction of the end of democracy (such as we have) anyway. Right now, we are witnessing a battle between the entrenched globalist Madarins of the deep state and the nationalist,populist (perhaps even representative) autocracy that is vaguely represented by leaders like Trump.

Democracy may just die on the vine to be replaced by what remains to be seen.

Blogger Shane Bradman May 06, 2020 9:51 AM  

The biggest disaster of women's rights is how the wages were decimated. Once all the women were tricked into finding jobs and getting degrees, the labour supply near doubled and the demand remained the same. This drove down wages DRAMATICALLY. Think of your current job. You would earn twice as much if women didn't work. You could support your entire family and be well off with your wage alone. Your family collectively would have more leisure time and less stress. It would be easier for the poor to be able to rise out of poverty. Young men would be able to afford property many years sooner, and would be getting married at younger ages and having more children.
What is more ridiculous is that women HATE working. They hate it. They all complain about how awful their job is, and what petty shit their coworkers are up to. They don't like 9-5 desk jobs. They refuse to do manual labour. They prefer the freedom of being at home and deciding for themselves what they will do each day.

Blogger RandyB May 06, 2020 9:54 AM  

Feminism is too useful a tool for controlling men. Such a group would have to value a genuine good ahead of exercising that control.

Blogger MaskettaMan May 06, 2020 9:58 AM  

While it's pleasing to imagine that any military coup would work toward the common and necessary good, that's the only point of the exercise.

The trend towards universal suffrage wasn't a mistake, it was part of a larger trend beyond that, towards a constant cheapening of the vote. With the ultimate end being reducing the common man to voting on meaningless details, while big money makes all of the decisions.

To blame enfranchised groups of the population is to swing at symptoms and not causes, IMHO.

Blogger Sterling Pilgrim May 06, 2020 10:07 AM  

Not impossible, but, in America at least, it would require a huge catalyst... civil war, states succeeding en masse and bolstering their own federal powers.
Especially in the South, where many women loudly complain about abortion and immigration, they are even more passionate about their right to complain and free pass to be stubborn. I still hear the phrase “if momma ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy!” and other idioms about “pleasing the wife”.
I don’t know how the the modern “separatist-homesteader” set like wranglestar and Owen feel about telling their wives not to vote, but Vox bringing this up is a good start to getting the ball rolling. Any sensible woman must be able to assess womanhood with clear and biblical analysis.

Blogger d May 06, 2020 10:09 AM  

One family one vote.

The nullification of that, thereby radically weakening the family as a vote bloc and so strenghtening the otherwise fringe blocs to such an extent they overpowered their mutual enemy bloc by forming a "rainbow" of alliances, was the toxin that killed our world.

Hustlers, like magicians, have us focusing on "x" while they do "y". Setting us on their course, we never correct. Ever. It's maddening. The man versus woman thing is as much a canard as all other peasant versus peasant categorizations. Pimps know to keep their bottom bitches at each others throats.

No new form of governance is required. Rather, merely reconstitute the republic. The fact that it skyrocketed past civilizations having thousands of years head start should be a clue to its value. That everyone is either happily surrendering it, or submissively so, is macabre.

Blogger CF Neal May 06, 2020 10:31 AM  

Wow.

Just wow.

I've been in discussions, with SERIOUS students of history & others interested in returning American Republicanism to its once glorious position -- we've been hashing this very subject out FOR YEARS & YEARS.

Perhaps such "Impossible" reform will one day become possible.

To God be the glory!

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer May 06, 2020 10:34 AM  

The problem is that a lot of younger men have been conditioned to believe that men and women are equal in all aspects. A couple of years ago I was in a barbershop and some 20ish guy was ranting about how someone he knew in the national guard had told him that women could not keep up with the men physically. You could tell that he was quite upset and angry that someone would say it. And he would not accept it.

And an even more ridiculous example, I read recently that Freddie Prinz Jr. is showing clips from Buffy The Vampire Slayer to his and Gellar's children to show them that women can fight just as well as men.

Blogger Dave May 06, 2020 10:35 AM  

John Stuart Mill, the most ardent male feminist of all time

If one had the ability to travel back in time and challenge Mill to a duel, is there any doubt he would refuse?

Blogger Shane Bradman May 06, 2020 11:09 AM  

One family one vote is a good policy. Restrict voting to married men. Of course, this requires banning sodomite marriages so gay "families" don't get two voted. Women don't care about voting.

Blogger MichaelJMaier May 06, 2020 11:18 AM  

Bill Burr: "You know what makes women happy? NOTHING!"

Blogger Sheila4g May 06, 2020 11:26 AM  

@9 Shane Bradman: "What is more ridiculous is that women HATE working. They hate it. They all complain about how awful their job is, and what petty shit their coworkers are up to. They don't like 9-5 desk jobs."

Watch what they do, not what they say. Going to work is their main form of socializing. Gossiping in the elevator. Doing lunch. It's their entire social network and hierarchy. It's also their form of economic 'empowerment.' Returning to asking their husbands for money would be anathema to most of them. Listen to all their complaints about having to stay home and watch their own progeny now - they hate the lack of outside attention. My husband is thrilled going to work now with his building mostly empty of all the empty-headed women, but most of them are itching to get back to their roosts.

Blogger Akulkis May 06, 2020 11:41 AM  

"For example, I could believe (but do not know) if women are more opposed to pointless military conflicts than men."

Female national leaders get in more wars(*) than their male counterparts.


When selecting by leader's sex:
# of wars participated in during leader's term in power / # of leaders

Blogger Akulkis May 06, 2020 11:51 AM  

"My husband is thrilled going to work now with his building mostly empty of all the empty-headed women, but most of them are itching to get back to their roosts."

Employers are seeing that many of their office staff can "work from home."

Without direct contact, the gossip is going to go down. Especially with so much communication being digital, and thus recordable. If, after all of this is over, employers start saying "Uh, you just continue to work from home...." how many of these paper pushers will continue to do so for, say, 10 years. And of those who do, will the percentage of time devoted to gossip and other mean-girl games stay at pre-pandemic levels? I doubt it.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 06, 2020 12:12 PM  

What's been going on in Michigan with our governor, affectionately known as the Iron Ding-Ba,t is quite surreal to me.

I had predicted a great deal of this woman's behavior in my book, The Great Divide Game (currently on sale $0.99).

I had taken the book down for a while out of embarrassment because once I was out of the creative silo and looked at the whole my work. My fictional feminist governor's actions seemed just too far out there.

That a woman who had gotten as far as Gina Kent had would be behave as she did, even if she was a uber-feminist seemed way too unlikely.

Looking over the actions of real world actions of Gretchen Whitmer, it's now obvious that I didn't push Gina Kent far enough.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 06, 2020 12:43 PM  

The long and the short of it is, if women are to be disenfranchised democracy will have to be abolished as well. Given its deep roots in Western civilization, that is a much harder proposition.
Female Suffrage is a deep rooted part of Western Civ.
In ancient Greece women’s rights and democracy were entirely separate. Neither in Athens nor in any other city were women allowed either to vote or to hold public office. To the extent that it was democratic, as in some respects it was, the same applied to republican Rome.
Female Suffrage is a recent introduction to Western Civ.

Make up your mind, dude.

Female Suffrage is a very recent innovation, barely a century old, with no roots in Western Civ.

The Ancient Greek democracies influenced Western Civ - at least the American branch of it - mainly as bad examples. Democracy is bad, and Western Civ doesn't do it. For 2,000 years we had monarchs, even if we choose them ourselves. In 1790 the American branch dropped the titles and the hereditary privilge, but we kept the familiar, non-democratic forms.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( according to the 13th Amendment, Slavery is neither Cruel nor Unusual: MSAGA ) May 06, 2020 12:48 PM  

1. ScottC May 06, 2020 8:50 AM
I love how he identified Mary Wollenstonecraft as



the mother of Mary Shelley, author of 'Frankenstein' and daughter of a cuck.


7. megabar May 06, 2020 9:49 AM
if women are more opposed to pointless military conflicts


a - define "pointless"

b - can a conflict which results in better reproductive opportunities for the men fighting ( "me love you long time", Korean comfort women, French and Russian mistresses of German occupiers in WW2, Gen. Hooker's camp followers, etc ) ever be considered pointless?

c - the White Feather Society of WW1 refutes you entirely



8. Stilicho May 06, 2020 9:49 AM
The speculation that it will require a coup to get rid of democracy in the West is in error.


whether it's "required" or not, is there even any impetus within the ranks to see this done?

i can't hardly even get .mil people on this board to read the Law and admit that the Constitution authorizes no mechanism to prevent a State from choosing to leave the Union.

and you think they're going to overthrow the Constitution and Muh Dumbocracy?

maybe i'm wrong, but i can't see it happening in the US forces. they tend to be all in on the public school brainwashing.


11. MaskettaMan May 06, 2020 9:58 AM
The trend towards universal suffrage wasn't a mistake, it was


a foundational principle of The Communist Manifesto.

Blogger DiGi377 May 06, 2020 12:49 PM  

I agree many women react emotionally and are quite irrational and tend towards group think. They vote for security and compassionate feelings which are detrimental long term. A lot of women's behavior embarrasses me. However disenfranchise one half of the adult population? No matter what political views are held by them? Shall single women be forced to rely on male relatives for economic security too? (Neither party would be happy about that.)

It would be better to undermine and weaken the pernicious influence of feminist thought in our education and popular culture. It will take time but can be done. (I'm an optimist)

Work on changing the culture in your own sphere of influence - your own perceptions and beliefs, your kids, your wives or girlfriends, your relatives, your friends, your churches.

I hear stories of women behaving selfishly and I wonder how their men let them get away with it and never called them out. I migrated here as an adult so the sense of entitlement amongst women here really struck me. Early in my arrival, I remember being aghast by a woman (Boomer) proudly admitting she never cooked for her son as she hated cooking and viewed it as drudgery. It amazed me she never saw it as a useful life skill to pass on.

I've heard many a sermon about relationships and there's always the mandatory joke about the wife being the real boss and keeping her happy. You know that joke. Makes me cringe every time. It's been done to death. Just stop it.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 06, 2020 1:05 PM  

Shane Bradman wrote:Of course, this requires banning sodomite marriages so gay "families" don't get two voted.
We have to ban that anyway, so no downside.
Shane Bradman wrote:Women don't care about voting.
My grandmother was 20 when they forced the right to vote on women. She saw it as a damnable imposition, and so did many of her contemporaries.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 06, 2020 1:15 PM  

DiGi377 wrote:A lot of women's behavior embarrasses me. However disenfranchise one half of the adult population? No matter what political views are held by them? Shall single women be forced to rely on male relatives for economic security too? (Neither party would be happy about that.)
Yes to all that. Or say goodby to indoor plumbing and electricity.

Women cannot build or maintain civilization; on their own they can only destroy. Proverbs 14:1. A wise woman follows her husband's lead.

Blogger Sheila4g May 06, 2020 1:22 PM  

@25 DiGi377: "However disenfranchise one half of the adult population? No matter what political views are held by them? Shall single women be forced to rely on male relatives for economic security too? (Neither party would be happy about that.)"

Since your entire comment is predicated on the validity of universal suffrage (an historical error based on an utterly erroneous belief in human equality) it negates any other points you choose to make. Neither most men nor almost any women are intelligent and more importantly, rational enough to granted the right to vote, let alone attempt to herd their fellows. This was yet another universally recognized truth, jettisoned along with so much else from the past. You admit to being an immigrant and then suggest changing the 'culture.' Culture is downstream from genetics. Change the people, change the culture and the country and the future. Even the discussion of politics and the validity of the franchise is ultimately a waste of time unless one first changes the people - back to something resembling a genuine ethnos.

Blogger bramley May 06, 2020 1:23 PM  

All for disenfranchisement, not only for all women, but also most men. One problem that would have to be faced first is being able to state clearly who is or is not a man or woman, so far has our society degenerated into the hyper-plurality of relativist spectrum toting nutters.

Thinking about the military, it brought to mind an episode of Futurama, wherein Leela has to pretend to be a man to sign up for the army so as to fight in a pointless war of aggression against a planet of logical brain aliens. It's funny to think how far things have shifted in the culture that such an idea was normal 20 years ago when that was made, and how Leela was portrayed as being a brave woman by having to prove herself more competent than the other soldiers. The irony being that it was meant to be a parody of Starship Troopers, yet the plot of that film had women as equals to men in every respect including the potential to become cannon fodder. It also showed that sexual relations in mixed encampments could not be avoided. Many-layered, hmm. Fedora.

Blogger papabear May 06, 2020 1:49 PM  

@23 " Given its deep roots in Western civilization, that is a much harder proposition."

"Its" --> democracy, not female suffrage

Blogger Martel May 06, 2020 1:49 PM  

"One family one vote is a good policy. Restrict voting to married men."

In a article about military coups, you propose disenfranchising a large proportion of fighting men?
This policy will, at most, last until the next war, when it will be done away with, if not by ballot, then bullet.

"The fact that it skyrocketed past civilizations having thousands of years head start should be a clue to its value."

When the Chinese find this out, we'll really be in trouble.


Blogger papabear May 06, 2020 1:53 PM  

@25 "However disenfranchise one half of the adult population? No matter what political views are held by them? Shall single women be forced to rely on male relatives for economic security too? (Neither party would be happy about that.)"

Yes to disenfranchising of the women. The default is for them to be under guardianship of a male relative for protection and security, and for whom they would be working in some capacity in the domestic economy, or outside of the house may be permissible under guidelines of sex division of labor. If single women don't like it, they would be welcome to leave the community.

There will be no "reform" to bring this about on a wide scale; more likely it will be a consequence of collapse.

Blogger VD May 06, 2020 2:01 PM  

It would be better to undermine and weaken the pernicious influence of feminist thought in our education and popular culture. It will take time but can be done. (I'm an optimist)

And you're wrong. You don't have the time. The entire society is already close to collapse. Van Creveld is a historian and he is simply pointing out what is likely to come next.

Blogger VD May 06, 2020 2:04 PM  

I've been in discussions, with SERIOUS students of history & others interested in returning American Republicanism to its once glorious position -- we've been hashing this very subject out FOR YEARS & YEARS.

Thank you for your service.

Blogger Morrisfactor May 06, 2020 2:22 PM  

Great series. Thanks for printing it. And I like to remind people of three quotes - all by Russian hero Vladimir Lenin: "Feminism is the vanguard of Socialism", "Socialism is the vanguard of Communism", and "Break up the family and you destroy the country".

Blogger Laconic May 06, 2020 2:25 PM  

They kinda stuck at their jobs too. I've had so many problems with women at work who don't do shit but complain about me to my bosses. I started taking photos of them playing on their phones at work. Lazy bitches.half of them are anyways

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 06, 2020 2:29 PM  

papabear wrote:
"Its" --> democracy, not female suffrage

Democracy's place in Western Civ is as a cautionary tale: don't do that, look how badly it turned out for Athens. Yes, the Greek heritage is part of our civilization, but we have never governed ourselves that way.

In 1790, when we had the opportunity to restructure our government, we explicitly rejected the Athenian form in favor of the Roman form.

Blogger Gen. Kong May 06, 2020 2:29 PM  

Excellent series. The first state in the US to fall was frontier Wyoming (1869, then a territory). By 1920 26 of the 48 states had full female suffrage or partial (presidential elections) suffrage. Curiously, the primary stronghold of the movement was the western half of the country. See wiki map. Despite the fact that less than 2/3 of the states allowed women to vote by 1920, goose was already cooked by then thanks to the amendments for popular election of senators, income tax and the Federal reserve law. With unlimited bankster money in play and a women as de-facto president in the last year of the Wilson regime, flipping the remaining 10 states needed to ratify the cursed amendment was not that hard.

I rather doubt there are enough in the military left who could pull off the scenario mentioned - at least in the Banana homeland. I think Creveld is right that it would require a coup with the establishment of a de-facto dictatorship to dismantle the insane feminist cancer given the extent to which it has has grown and mestastized throughout the west. One interesting takeaway is that communist and former communist countries (China, Russia) appear to be less poisoned by feminism than the so-called "liberal democracies".

Blogger Canadian Warlord May 06, 2020 2:34 PM  

There are a few potential endgame scenarios that feminism is bringing about itself:

1) A million men in any Western country, one one pre-planned day, change their legal status to identify as women. Hilarity ensues.

2) Patriarchy party gets 50% of the vote, ie. men finally do what they're being accused of.

3) Political separation within the west of non-western cultures. Happening soon in Vancouver.

I don't know if there's a way to plan something faster? Or a way to organize it publicly?

Blogger Skyler the Weird May 06, 2020 2:51 PM  

Women stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima. I saw it on Battlefield V.

Blogger Johnny May 06, 2020 2:56 PM  

@5

White women voted solidly for Trump in 2016. In fact is only white women voted Trump would've won more handily than he already did. And that's counting Jewish women as white.

Women aren't the problem. Only 7% of women identify as feminists and those are mostly lesbians, childless catladies, and nonwhites. The problem comes in when you have billionaire donors, the media, and the government giving feminists institutional power and brainwashing people. The former two are composed mostly of foreigners and the latter is mostly just a puppet of foreigners.

With the foreigners kept from doing harm, men and women of our nation would mostly revert to tradition and nationalism (Many are already like that).

Blogger map May 06, 2020 2:58 PM  

Sheila4g wrote:Gossiping in the elevator. Doing lunch. It's their entire social network and hierarchy. It's also their form of economic 'empowerment.' Returning to asking their husbands for money would be anathema to most of them. Listen to all their complaints about having to stay home and watch their own progeny now - they hate the lack of outside attention.

This is why this "work-from-home" stuff is not going to take. It's not an accident that the former female CEO of Yahoo! ended remote working and forced everyone to come into the office. High School isn't fun when the building is empty.

Blogger map May 06, 2020 3:16 PM  

In any discussion of feminism, I always go back to John Glubb and his conclusion that feminism is common: Feminism is the last stage before a civilization collapses. This happened in Baghdad, when women were allowed to be judges and tax collectors. The period of feminism led to the collapse of ancient Baghdad, to the point that women could not walk the streets without being attacked. Feminism ended pretty quickly then.

Blogger SirHamster May 06, 2020 3:33 PM  

megabar wrote:For example, I could believe (but do not know) if women are more opposed to pointless military conflicts than men.
"Let's you and him fight."

Women are opposed to paying any personal cost for war, but they don't mind men fighting, and the opportunity to sleep with the sexy victors.

Blogger Macs May 06, 2020 3:36 PM  

I support women having their own separate military units. Let them figure out the details and if they fail no big deal we just culled herd a bit.

Blogger map May 06, 2020 3:40 PM  

Regarding "The Handmaid's Tale," I think there is a slight misunderstanding of Atwood's point. Atwood is, obviously, Cabal and Cabal is really obsessed with surviving and competing bloodlines. THT is just one of their pieces of gnostic literature.

Remember, the central premise of THT is that civilization faces a devastating virus that renders most women infertile. What kind of social structure, then, do you need to guarantee that those women who can have children are shunted into child-bearing and not anything else? Well...Gilead.

Atwood is not describing a world where civilization stages a backlash against feminism. She is describing a mirror universe designed to enforce all of the strictures of feminism in this world, toward the Cabal purpose of defeating competing bloodlines.

How does that happen? Because all forms of progressivism are designed to halt reproduction in non-Cabal families. In a society where childbirth is nearly impossible but highly desired, all forms of progressivism must be destroyed. In a society where childbirth is easy and not desired by Cabal, all forms of progressivism are to be pushed. THT is, basically, a handbook for the world that Cabal wants, a world where all undesirable bloodlines are purged.

All forms of progressivism are designed to destroy competing bloodlines: Homosexuality, female empowerment, body-positivism, you name it. Cabal thinks...Hmmm...can I start a meme on facebook to get women to shave their heads...let's see if that takes...and boom, the weaker bloodlines do things that slowly lead to their extinction. Progressiviem need only successfully take in a woman's prime childbearing years. Once that is done, you can do whatever you want with her...put her in a camp or simply have her advocate for the same system just to sabotage other women.

Blogger SirHamster May 06, 2020 3:43 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:The long and the short of it is, if women are to be disenfranchised democracy will have to be abolished as well. Given its deep roots in Western civilization, that is a much harder proposition.

Female Suffrage is a deep rooted part of Western Civ.

He is saying democracy is a deep rooted part of Western Civ.

Ending female suffrage is tied to ending democracy. Neither of those concepts is going to be popular with Americans at this point in time. But it must come.

Blogger Greg from the Piedmont May 06, 2020 4:09 PM  

Went to Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning in the early 90s. It was "branch immaterial" co-ed, and male and female candidates were billeted in alternating rooms.

The first few days we were treated to many discussions of "girl power" and that women have the right to be there just as much as men. When the female candidates spoke, they were loud about how they should be allowed to go into any branch they wanted, including Infantry. Being Infantry since OSUT basic, I kept a straight face.

The standards for PT tests were skewed in favor of women. The longest road march in OCS was 9.5 miles with a 30 pound ruck. Some of the admin BS the cadre taught us was where the women shined, but their command abilities during field training exercises had some terrible moments for which they were never held accountable.

Things between men and women went like you would expect them to go. During the individual night land nav test, "couples" disappeared while running their lanes. Four candidates did not complete their lanes in time and were recycled. One female candidate was asleep in her room by herself when a male candidate came in and molested her.

The honor candidate for the cycle was a petite female who excelled at the admin stuff so well, that it wasn't noticed she did not handle her command opportunities as well.

I still thank God I had my branch of choice, Infantry. Yeah, there were still some cunts around, but they were males.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 06, 2020 4:20 PM  

SirHamster wrote:He is saying democracy is a deep rooted part of Western Civ.
I'm disagreeing with him on that one point.

Blogger SirHamster May 06, 2020 5:09 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:SirHamster wrote:He is saying democracy is a deep rooted part of Western Civ.
I'm disagreeing with him on that one point.

Western Civ has 3 legs: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

Greeks and democracy are tied together. Democracy is a part of Western Civ as its history and tradition, even if not practiced.

The value of democracy, even if not implemented in the political system, is recognition of the populist forces in a society, and the need to serve the general public for long term stability and prosperity.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants May 06, 2020 5:10 PM  

"Women aren't the problem."

Yes, and no. Women are indeed a huge problem, even the white Trumpeters, but the bigger issue is the men
who allow women to do what they do, and often encourage them to do these things.
Women have never and will never be able to do anything unless men support them doing so. Another commenter is correct when they say the younger men for the most part are fully onboard the "women are equal" lie.

Years ago I won a business award. This required me to submit all of the accomplishments that I personally had made so the person giving the speech could introduce me using them.
I only wrote down one thing, the birth of my children.
This did not go over well and made me realize self employment was my only future.
It would be great if all of these women stuck in lockdown suddenly realized how much they are missing by going back out for work and how terrible it is that they are once more
sticking their children in the prison holding centers known as public schools, but it doesn't seem to be the case, overall.

Blogger DeepThought May 06, 2020 5:38 PM  

To those arguing that it was not feminism and women who have helped put our civilization in decline, do us all a favor.

Get your head out of your wife's ass. Cuck.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 06, 2020 5:53 PM  

@14

Too bad y'all just talked.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 06, 2020 7:18 PM  

"For example, I could believe (but do not know) if women are more opposed to pointless military conflicts than men.

They'll get in more initially petty wars just because they can and are more cruel, and be mortally averse to ones that actually need fighting if they look dangerous.

"And of those who do, will the percentage of time devoted to gossip and other mean-girl games stay at pre-pandemic levels? I doubt it."

It'd increase through social websites because there's no direct oversight of them. Claims of discrimination would be used as a pushback against the logical reaction to this, but ultimately either they'd be fired, or the costs would be socialized. Eliminating the possibility of remote work because of women being involved in it is a socialized cost.

"Shall single women be forced to rely on male relatives for economic security too?"

Yes.

"White women voted solidly for Trump in 2016. In fact is only white women voted Trump would've won more handily than he already did. And that's counting Jewish women as white."

Even a blind idiot can hit the target when it's broad enough. Guess how many more European derived men voted for Trump.

"With the foreigners kept from doing harm, men and women of our nation would mostly revert to tradition and nationalism"

Tradition is women having no vote. Foreigners can't be expelled while women do have the vote.

"I support women having their own separate military units."

The main point of being in the military to them is about being around military males. We've been there and done that and the constant push by them is for integrated units, and it always will be, and it always was going to be. They will want to be in all the same places with all the same privileges and more, and have no responsibilities.

"Remember, the central premise of THT is that civilization faces a devastating virus that renders most women infertile. What kind of social structure, then, do you need to guarantee that those women who can have children are shunted into child-bearing and not anything else? Well...Gilead."

Realistically most of the infertile women would be either dead or permanent professional prostitutes until dead within a couple of generations. It would happen a hundred different ways, but there's the outcome. Ironically you might have small feral collectives of women forming, like some abominable combination of autonomous death camp and coven, and those to be driven away from civilization or eradicated by the surviving men after about one generation because of their purely and overtly malicious presence.

Sound at all familiar?

Blogger L.Fairchild May 06, 2020 7:25 PM  

Yes and yes. My entire social life was my workplace. This is worth keeping in mind, because many women see "returning to the home" as being isolated, and in this culture of moving from our home towns & not knowing our neighbors, it's largely accurate. Maybe they've pushed social distancing so as to keep all these newly fledged homemakers from visiting each other. If women at home had the kind of socializing that happens at work, they'd probably leave in droves.

Blogger Lyon May 06, 2020 7:35 PM  

@39. Canadian Warlord

"Political separation within the west of non-western cultures. Happening soon in Vancouver"

Do tell! Please expand.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 06, 2020 8:09 PM  

When Congress issued the Declaration of Independence Abigail Adams, wife of president to-be John Adams, complained that it mentioned men but not women.
Yankee women ruin everything.

Blogger Monotonous Languor May 06, 2020 9:46 PM  

In case of divorce, franchise is awarded exclusively to the male.

Blogger Monotonous Languor May 06, 2020 9:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Primus Pilus May 06, 2020 9:51 PM  

Johnny wrote:White women voted solidly for Trump in 2016. In fact is only white women voted Trump would've won more handily than he already did. And that's counting Jewish women as white.

Women aren't the problem. Only 7% of women identify as feminists and those are mostly lesbians, childless catladies, and nonwhites. The problem comes in when you have billionaire donors, the media, and the government giving feminists institutional power and brainwashing people. The former two are composed mostly of foreigners and the latter is mostly just a puppet of foreigners.


A) If only white men voted in 2016, Trump's margin of victory would have been much higher than if only white women voted.

B) If only white men held the franchise, period, we wouldn't have needed Trump to begin with, and he'd be considered a fringe left-winger in US politics.

Blogger Monotonous Languor May 06, 2020 10:03 PM  

All women have been brainwashed by feminist thought, and therefore all women are latent feminazis regardless of whether they identify as such. When a wife decides her husband is not the ever going to be the alpha she craves, then she will turn to no-fault divorce and Uncle Sugar's largesse without a moment's hesitation.

Blogger Damelon Brinn May 06, 2020 10:04 PM  

"if women are to be disenfranchised democracy will have to be abolished as well. Given its deep roots in Western civilization, that is a much harder proposition."

It might be easier to get rid of democracy altogether than female suffrage alone. Whites (at least in America) have been taught that democracy is the pinnacle of governance, but I think we'd take to a strong monarch well enough in tough times. Women would give up power to one Alpha leader faster than they'd give it up to men in general.

And Latins and Africans, even when democracy is imposed on them, generally give it up before long and go back to some form of big-man or military government. They see no moral value in voting.

Blogger Akulkis May 06, 2020 10:08 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Shield up sword swinging pipes blasting May 06, 2020 10:11 PM  

Way back when I was a young lad in Royal Canadian Army Cadets. I felt the sting of having girls involved in the organization. Oh well I guess it was a plus because it made me hesitant to join the club of organized welfare of which is the CDN army.

Blogger Akulkis May 06, 2020 10:15 PM  

DiGi377 wrote:A lot of women's behavior embarrasses me. However disenfranchise one half of the adult population? No matter what political views are held by them? Shall single women be forced to rely on male relatives for economic security too? (Neither party would be happy about that.)

Not satisfied with a man saying it?

"I would gladly give up my right to vote if it would prevent every idiot woman from ever stepping inside a voting booth."
--Ann Coulter.

Blogger John Rockwell May 06, 2020 10:20 PM  

Johnny wrote:@5

White women voted solidly for Trump in 2016. In fact is only white women voted Trump would've won more handily than he already did. And that's counting Jewish women as white.

Women aren't the problem. Only 7% of women identify as feminists and those are mostly lesbians, childless catladies, and nonwhites. The problem comes in when you have billionaire donors, the media, and the government giving feminists institutional power and brainwashing people. The former two are composed mostly of foreigners and the latter is mostly just a puppet of foreigners.

With the foreigners kept from doing harm, men and women of our nation would mostly revert to tradition and nationalism (Many are already like that).


Not necessarily. Otherwise it wouldn't have been successful in the 19th and 20th century in a country that is so called traditional and nationalistic.

Blogger Student in Blue May 06, 2020 10:52 PM  

@49. Ominous Cowherd
I'm disagreeing with him on that one point.

Given he didn't use "Western Civ" to refer to Rome and ancient Greece, I believe Martin van Creveld is using "Western Civ" as a shorthand for the relatively recent US, Europe, Australia, Canada, or at least our 'modern understanding' of such.

Which is why he makes clear that in the ancient world, democracy and female voting wasn't that way, but "Not so in the modern world."

Blogger DiGi377 May 07, 2020 12:03 AM  

@28. You mistook my acknowledgement of a historical fact as validation. The (suffrage) horse bolted from the stable a long time ago. Your comment also implies if most are not fit to deserve to vote - only a small number of the capably minded, then we are left to the mercies of a ruling elite who will become corrupt and self-serving. What would prevent that?

My comments were on how to live in the now, in the present situation. But I see I was talking apples in an oranges discussion - I wasn't focusing on future scenario.

@32. Papabear, is this the best "new society" that can be thought up? A version of sharia lite? In a collapsed society, if women agreed to give up the "old ways" to achieve safety and access to resources, then this must be an extremely dysfunctional and dangerous society. What makes it better than the current system?

And for the new society to have a hope of working it would need men to be solidly righteous. Weak, flawed, selfish men would only create more dysfunction and corruption. Are there enough boys being brought up and inculcated with these values to pull it off? I'm thinking of today's seedlings being tomorrow's oaks etc. Sharia lite would be so easily abused and corrupted.

Blogger Michael May 07, 2020 12:14 AM  

I see The 1619 Project to denigrate Western culture won a fake (((prize))) this week.
Barf. I find it uterly repulsive. But, as they say, let them make their own bed.
Could you image (((The New York Times))) trying that sort of thing in China?
LOL
Incidentally, Scott Adams said the Pulitzer Prize 'board' is actually composed of 6 people - who aren't that widely read. What a farce.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 07, 2020 3:42 AM  

"However disenfranchise one half of the adult population?"

Not coincidentally very little of the mature and politically responsible population.

"is this the best "new society" that can be thought up? A version of sharia lite?"

We were doing this correctly nearly a thousand years before Islam existed.

"In a collapsed society, if women agreed to give up the "old ways" to achieve safety and access to resources, then this must be an extremely dysfunctional and dangerous society."

On the contrary, it would be a highly functional society, moreso than now, in order to survive the harsher environs.

"What makes it better than the current system?"

The children, the relationships, the strength, the efficiency, the lack of comparative deviance, the actual arts and music, the people, really absolutely everything except the cheap plastic knicknacks, instagram whoring, and glut of crappy food and entertainment that you're addicted to.

Oh, and its future, since it has one.

"Sharia lite would be so easily abused and corrupted."

Less easily and less detrimentally than what we have now, and if you're still alive you'll like it better whether you think you would or not.

>"Oh noes bois gonna put rules on me."

>Yes.

Blogger Damelon Brinn May 07, 2020 8:00 AM  

However disenfranchise one half of the adult population?

At least. Do half the people you know actually pay enough attention to vote sensibly? Half the people I know don't, and I try not to associate with idiots.

I would be glad to restrict the vote to any of these groups, even though in many cases it would take my vote away: only men, only whites, only landowners, only military vets, only married people, only parents, only gun owners, only net taxpayers, only those who pay a poll tax, only those whose grandparents were all born in America, only dog owners, only blondes.... Any of those would basically eliminate the Democrat Party and many Republicans and move the country hard right.

Blogger The Cooler May 07, 2020 8:43 AM  

Women aren't the problem. Only 7% of women identify as feminists

And the overwhelming majority of blacks that self-identify as 'conservative' voted for Hillary Clinton. Something in the neighborhood of 90%.

You don't understand Team Woman, bud.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 07, 2020 8:48 AM  

Student in Blue wrote:Given he didn't use "Western Civ" to refer to Rome and ancient Greece, I believe Martin van Creveld is using "Western Civ" as a shorthand for the relatively recent US, Europe, Australia, Canada, or at least our 'modern understanding' of such.
If ``Western Civ'' means ``Current Poz,'' then sure, democracy and female suffrage are its pillars, have been for a century. I usually think of ``Western Civ'' and ``Current Poz'' as antithetical rather than equivalent.

Blogger liberranter May 07, 2020 7:23 PM  


Women aren't the problem. Only 7% of women identify as feminists and those are mostly lesbians, childless catladies, and nonwhites.

Whether or not any given woman "identifies" as a feminist is irrelevant. ALL women in the western world enjoy spillover benefits from feminism acquired over the last 50-plus years that they would sooner die than give up. These include (but ate by no means limited to) abortion on demand, no-fault divorce, default custody of their children in the wake of no-fault divorce, the right to financial independence, even if married, and the right to manage their finances independently of their husbands; and Affirmative Action preferences in education and employment.

ALL of these are not just destructive to civilization, but ultimately to the women themselves. Yet EVERY woman will still fight to the death to keep them, whether her role model is Gloria Steinem or June Cleaver. Thus, ALL women are de facto feminists, whether they wear the label or not.

Blogger DiGi377 May 07, 2020 8:19 PM  

@70 Azure Amaranthine:
Your comments were interesting, but to illustrate why i have concerns over potential abuses I offer this bit of family history. It will be my last post on this thread so you can have the last word if you wish.

In the 1880s a mining engineer migrated from England to Australia with wife and family. When the wife died he took off with the housekeeper leaving his children to fend for themselves. A century later descendants of his second family were discovered on the other side of the continent.

The older children were 2 teen girls, with younger brothers and a much younger child born on the ship during the migration journey. We can't imagine the financial and emotional hardships they must've endured.

Yet, the morals, social and cultural values of the period were the opposite of what that man chose to do. I don't know how your new society would deal with this situation. I would hope somewhat better than what occurred back then.

Why did my ancestor abandon his children from his first wife? Because it was more convenient I suppose. How does one fix that moral failure - ever? No man-made society will solve it all. Does that mean the society is a failure? No, and I do agree that many current evils would be eradicated, or vastly decreased - but there would still be evils popping up. I'm not convinced this has been seriously addressed in all the speculation.

Blogger Akulkis May 07, 2020 9:13 PM  

Digi... The dead wife having voting rights wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. The victims were those who men protect most, MUCH more reliably than mothers.

The man was clearly a degenerate. Many women FLOCK to degenerates (look how many voted for Bill Clinton), while men want to do nothing more than give those men a good final swing at the end of a rope.

Blogger Uncle Maffoo May 07, 2020 9:38 PM  

Johnny wrote:Only 7% of women identify as feminists and those are mostly lesbians, childless catladies, and nonwhites.

Black males are only about 6.5% of the population, but...

Blogger p_q May 07, 2020 9:58 PM  

@75 DiGi377

Aren't the number one victims of child rape children from single mother homes?
Hasn't feminism directly led to rise of single mother homes?
The society of equality and enfranchisement is also the society of rampant child rape and predation, men have a greater interest and greater capability to ward off sexual predators. Whilst single motherhood was possible in a patriarchal society the rates were far far lower than what they are now and one can only assume so were the rates of child sexual abuse.

Even if you try and say that predator men had access to their own children it's a dark that they most likely only had access to their children rather than drifting from single mother home to single mother home preying on kids.

Blogger Johnny May 08, 2020 9:13 AM  

@54

>Tradition is women having no vote. Foreigners can't be expelled while women do have the vote.

It'd be impossible to deny women the right to vote. It'd be easier just to end democracy altogether or restrict the vote to people who're married with children or who've served in the military as Combat Arms (Or non-Combat Arms and have been awarded for putting their life in danger). White men and women with children wouldn't partake in Globalism (Especially without a (((Wealthy Tribe))) controlling the media and financing NGO's and politicians). Combat vets wouldn't either and they'd likely be a check against unnecessary wars.

@66

>Not necessarily. Otherwise it wouldn't have been successful in the 19th and 20th century in a country that is so called traditional and nationalistic.

America wasn't that bad in the 19th century. The 20th century became bad mostly due to black people, amerindians, Puerto Ricans, and most importantly Jews.

@72

See my reply to Azure.

@77
That 7% is bolstered by the media and financiers of a certain tribe. Without them that 7% would be on the fringe.

Blogger SirHamster May 08, 2020 11:19 AM  

Akulkis wrote:The man was clearly a degenerate. Many women FLOCK to degenerates (look how many voted for Bill Clinton), while men want to do nothing more than give those men a good final swing at the end of a rope.
Case in point: 2 wives and a housekeeper fell for said man.

3 women chose to follow/go with an unfaithful man. Giving women the privilege of voting won't generate better results.

On the other hand, with women suffrage, we have college girls with triple-digit N-counts who have been abandoned by far more sexy men.

Women suffrage results in women suffering.

Blogger Linda Fox May 08, 2020 1:15 PM  

Hmmm. Maybe allow widowed women to retain their family vote?
Hadn't actually thought about the cabal lines protecting themselves, by incentivizing their family growth, while making it nearly impossible for the average family to have replacement numbers of kids.
As a woman, I'd not be happy about losing my vote (particularly as my husband is far more Progressive than I). However, I do have some influence, through my blog, and my posts on social media. So, it might work out well, if it keeps the female nitwits from voting.

Blogger Lightning in My Hands May 08, 2020 3:10 PM  

And this confirms that co-ed martial art training is ludicrous.

Blogger Canadian Warlord May 08, 2020 4:47 PM  

Vancouver is a series of smaller municipalities, already splitting along ethnic lines. Richmond is predominantly Chinese, Surrey mostly Sikhs. If you look at the city councils, at the provincial parliament, you will see ethnic voting blocs.

I cannot imagine a parallel universe where those cultures can tolerate feminism, or the special 'rights' of 'First Nations' people's, or the environmental movement.

I don't even think we're going to get to a white minority in BC before there are fireworks. Almost all trucking there, except for logging up north, has been taken over by Indian (slurpy not casino) outfits that bend the labour rules and have immigrant relatives as wage slaves who don't know their rights. What will happen when this army of men is replaced by robots overnight? They live in the most expensive real estate in the country. There will be discontent, blaming of whitey, and the solidifying of borders that are all but in place geographically already.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts