Sex and the City, which premiered 20 years ago this week, changed the way women thought about sex. The assertion of the show’s main character, Carrie Bradshaw, that she will start having sex “like men” — sleeping around and feeling “nothing” afterwards — struck a chord. It was a new kind of fairy tale — a glitzy, glamorous, New York City Cinderella ditching the prince but keeping the shoes. Twenty years later, though, these “real-life” Carrie Bradshaws are single, childless, and many are starting to wonder what happened to their happy endings.
In the early 2000s, modeling themselves on Carrie Bradshaw and her friends, women in their 20s and early 30s began to have sex “like men.” One night stands and sexual exploration became the ultimate feminist statement. If men could do it, then why shouldn’t they? “There was no such thing as a bad date,” writes dating columnist Julia Allison of her time living the Sex and the City lifestyle, “only a good date or a good brunch story.”
In fact, in the years since the show’s premiere, Sex and the City has come to be seen as not feminist enough — receiving criticism for leaving its four heroines happily paired up romantically by the series finale. In 2010, The Telegraphcomplained that “The happiest character, Charlotte, is by far the most conventional – rich husband, children, no job (by the end), a Park Avenue palace.” In 2017, Marie Clairecalled one of the show’s main characters “anti-feminist” for saying that “everyone needs a man.” If a lesson is to be learned from the show, today’s critics seem to be suggesting, it’s that it didn’t go far enough. In order to be truly feminist, it seems, women must give up romance altogether.
There’s only one problem: eventually women do want to settle down. In fact, many of the women who bought into the Sex and the City lifestyle 20 years ago are coming forward to share their regrets. Julia Allison says the show literally “ruined her life.” She says it peddled a “fear of intimacy disguised as empowerment.” Writing for The New York Post, Allison wistfully wonders what her life might have been like if she hadn’t bought into the Sex and the City philosophy. “Perhaps I’d be married with children now?”
In her memoir, Unwifeable, journalist and former dating columnist Mandy Stadtmiller describes how a decade of living the “real-life Carrie Bradshaw” lifestyle left her fearful that there “might be no one out there left for me at all.” She writes, “I told myself I was a feminist,” but, ultimately, she came to realize that happiness came, not from casual sex and no-strings-attached relationships, but from “only revealing [her heart] when someone has proven themselves worthy.”
The fact that the women of Sex and the City ultimately want to settle down is not the unrealistic lie the show sold these women. The lie is that they can settle down after spending their 20s and 30s sleeping around. At the time, it seemed like a radical act of feminism to do away with Prince Charming and focus, instead, on the dress, the shoes, and the physical attraction. After all, as novelist Keira Cass said, “Cinderella never asked for a prince, she asked for a night off and a dress.” But suddenly, with biological clocks ticking and one man after another running away from the thought of commitment, these women are beginning to wonder. Maybe Cinderella knew something they didn’t, after all.
He’s 100% right! Why are White women so obsessed with ugly tattoos and working out?
We get it, you are hot. But did you have to permanently affix tramp stamps to your entire body and then prance around the gym half-naked so that every guy has no choice but to stare at you as you walk by doing your gym version of the thot parade?
Here’s a secret guys, that thot is a damaged basket case on the inside.
I know that many normie men find these kinds of women attractive because they are secretly turned on by pathological hostile misandry. They like a woman who is slightly gender fluid with an elevated androgen count thatcan beat them in arm wrestling and put them in a rear naked choke if they get out of line.
After all, gender is a social construct.
Here is that same woman in 30 years:
Hey, Grandma! May I have another bowl of cereal?
I am not saying that having a tattoo or two in itself is disgusting or bad. Many people in our movement have them, and they usually have some sort of racial or cultural significance, so I am mostly fine with those. However, completely canvassing your entire body with a bunch of Chinese symbols or letters, long strings of gibberish in Sanskrit, skulls, devils, butterflies, hearts with your name in it, et cetera, is just plain ludicrous, LARPy, and screams of serious deep-seated psychological and emotional issues.
Unfortunately, many White women have fallen prey to narcissism. They believe whole-heartedly in the White Girl Magic meme of unmitigated agency for White Women that permeates almost every society known to mankind- and trust me, most of it is correct. White women are in fact the most beautiful compared to any other race by far. White men, in addition to every other race, have put them on a pedestal. However, the only reason they arrived and remain on that pedestal is because of White men. And as a result, they are the most spoiled and entitled group of people that this planet has ever produced.
To be sure, it is lamentable how White women give themselves far too much credit for their elevated status in the world. That, my dear ladies, was bestowed upon you by us. You really should thank us all on a daily basis. We earned your elevated status with our blood, sweat, and tears. Don’t get me wrong, you did help, but not as much as you’d like to think. Therefore, you should never complain about being some oppressed group of people, or how much the White patriarchy has kept you down. That is nonsense, and you know it. The White patriarchy has rewarded you, White women, above all others.
Attention whore much?
We also have to be completely honest with ourselves, gentlemen. A good-looking White woman receives a ridiculous amount propositions for sex on a daily basis. If men received as many offers, we would never leave our bedrooms. So give White women credit, they do have a whole hell of a lot of restraint.
On the other hand, my problem with White woman is the pathetic amount of narcissism and conceitedness that many of them exhibit; ergo, the constant workout routine and “sexy” tattoos. There is nothing wrong with exercising as long as it is about being healthy; the problem is that their motivation tends only to be about their own vanity via how many men hit on them or ask them out for a date.
Oh, and about that reality check I promised, my dear White angels. We need to talk about how rather than spending your days pursuing traditional relationships and having children, you spend them taking selfies, shopping, binge drinking, having meaningless casual sex, using men as interchangeable placeholders to buy you material possessions, and constantly talking about the exciting and scintillating life of the Kardashians. (OMG, What is Kim wearing today and has she lost the baby weight??!!)
Hey, we all understand how important that is ladies. I mean, we might be at war with Russia soon, the country is falling apart, most of us cannot find anything more than a part-time job, and White Genocide, but forget all that, who is the designer of Kim’s shoes in tonight’s E-News exclusive?! You absolutely do deserve a little self-indulgence after all that hard work studying for your sociology exam and posting your various meal pics online, right?
Ladies, I do not mean to just pick on you. Men mimic the same idiotic behavior when they focus on sportsball, which is more pathetic in many ways. It’s all a sick obsession with the the false reality of pop culture that people create in their minds as a barrier between them and their cognitive dissonance.
Many Whites want love, happiness, companionship, and children, but they do not want to take any time out of their busy lives to work towards achieving any depth, self-awareness, and personal sacrifice that would lead up to those goals. They attempt to find a hollowed shell of these ambitions through social media or dating websites that are totally based on superficiality, which leave most feeling empty and sad at the end of the day. For the thot, that void is then filled by the obsession with the tattoos and working out, The tattoos are their armor, and the constant endorphin rush from the workouts help them to escape from the reality of their emotional pain.
This is precisely why the Alt-Right movement has started a paradigm shift to change these kinds of behaviors. No, I am not dog-whistling White Sharia, but I am demanding more and better from our women. We want women that would be happy and excited to go on a date to the Metropolitan Museum of Art rather than some brutally disappointing Hollywood film. We no longer want our women to be pieces of meat covered in tramp stamps twerking at a wet t-shirt contest, who are vapid automatons without acumen or culture. We want good wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and grandmothers, of whom we can be proud. Ladies, we are asking more from you and ourselves. There is no such thing as a self-made man or woman. We have to complement one another, not slip into androgyny and self-mutilation.
Through Feminism, the Jew attacks the core, primal identity of the female, weakening society by disallowing women to be who and what they are: caregivers.
By Andrew Anglin
The Rise of Globo-Homo Super State
Though weak natured and pathetic men have often framed feminism as an attack on males and masculinity, I assert that it is in reality a direct attack on femininity and the female identity. The very core nature of the human female has been obscured and vilified by the Jews who conceived and led this movement, and this has been one of the largest factors contributing to the fallout of Western civilization. In order to restore natural law to society, the female will have to be strengthened, and the only possible way to do this is to reestablish the feminine identity by dissolving the Jewish doctrine of feminism.
The premise of feminism is that females had been oppressed by males throughout the entire history of the human race. This should have struck all people as patently absurd, but through clever, emotion-based propaganda, the Jews were able to garnish wide support for this insane assertion. The Jewish racial “equality” movements were based on the ridiculous concept that “race does not exist,” just so the gender “equality” movements asserted that “gender is a social construct.” This Marxist doctrine cannot be viewed as anything other than a war on the Natural Order.
What is a Woman?
The human species, not too terribly long ago, existed in balance with the natural world. We lived in tribes, hunting and farming our food. Like all other species on the planet, the most base drive, beyond self-preservation, was the propagation of our genes. Within this order of nature, it was necessary for males and females to take on variant roles in society, due to their variant physical forms. It was impossible for a man to birth a child, just as it was impossible for a woman to spend days fighting the elements hunting, or fighting in a war over resources with a neighboring population. Because of these variant roles, which resulted from the variant physical characteristics, the sexes maintained variant psychological make-ups and definitively variant identities. Absolutely nothing about our biology has changed, but still the Jews, with their doctrine of cultural ((((((((((((Marxism)))))))))))), actually expect us to believe that none of this matters anymore, simply because it is now possible, due to technology, for a woman to provide herself with food and shelter without the assistance of a man.
It is the biological nature of a man to feel a need to protect and care for women, given that it is the woman that ensures his genes are passed on. The biological nature of a woman includes a desire to be cared for and protected by a man. The woman, having a much higher level of estrogen than a man, has an entirely different psychological make-up, and is much more driven by emotion – she is designed this way, because it is this orientation which allows her to properly nurture children. Because of this much higher level of emotion which exists in her psychological processes, it is clearly only sensible for her to allow men to make the major decisions about issues of key importance, at least those which do not involve children. Because in the natural world, the man, due to his own psychological drives, is always going to be driven to do what it best for the one who births and cares for his progeny, he will make these decisions with the good of his women in mind.
The 1sr wave of Feminism, women’s suffrage.
I will note here that a post-menopausal woman, whose psychological make-up changes due to a rebalancing of emotions, is often able to think much more like a man, and thus we have the the archetypal image of the “wise old woman.”
Both men and women posses a base, animal drive to reproduce. This is what hornyness and sexual attraction are. Regardless of popular Marxist doctrine, the reason that the sex act exists is to make babies; this doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be enjoyable, but the fact is, if we were capable of producing offspring through binary fission, we would not have sexual organs at all. The reason sex is enjoyable is the same reason a steak tastes good – when you see a juicy piece of meat, you don’t say “I need to consume this source of iron,” you say “that looks delicious”; in the same way when you see an beautiful woman, you don’t say “I would like to use this person as a means to reproduce my genetics,” but instead feel emotions and physical urges.
The difference between men and women is that the man’s body does not know whether or not he has produced children. Though I think a man can consciously develop a desire to produce children, even within a cultural paradigm that tells him this is unnecessary and simply a burden upon him, a woman’s body knows that she has not produced a child, and this can lead to psychological unrest and ultimately a form of mental illness.
What the Jew has Done to Her
A woman is by nature designed to focus on producing and nurturing children, as well as caring for the emotional needs of her male partner. She is not designed to bring home food, even when bringing home food amounts to acquiring monetary notes, rather than hunting or working a field. When we as a society force a woman into the work place, we are robbing her of her most basic identity. Women are either forced to forgo producing children in order to allow them to pursue a “profession,” or they are expected to perform the nigh impossible feat of raising and caring for children while holding a job. In maintaining this feminist ideal as a foundational aspect of our modern society, we are destroying the right of women to develop and maintain the identity that nature bestows upon them.
In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex, which is considered to be the dawn of the “second wave” of feminism (the “first wave” had been much more reasonable and was not even called feminism, and though it may ultimately not have been totally positive, it won’t be discussed here). She herein made the insane assertion that the entire history of our species was a history of “female oppression,” argued that gender was a social construct and coined the term “reproductive slavery” to describe the female role as life-giver. Though de Beauvior was ostensibly not a Jew herself, the entire basis of her argument was drawn from Jewish sources, including ((((((((((((Freud)))))))))))) and ((((((((((((Marx)))))))))))).
At the time she wrote the book, she was having an affair with the Jew novelist Nelson Algren. Many Jews have asserted that he was the entire inspiration for the book, as she stated that before she met him, she had never perceived any inequality between men and women. We may note that Simone’s long time boyfriend, the confusion artist, communist and Jew-lover (possible crypto) Jean-Paul Sartre, was having an affair with his adopted daughter, an Algerian Jewess named Arlette Elkaïm, while de Beauvior was sleeping with Algren.
((((((((((((Betty Friedan)))))))))))) and the Dawn of Jew Feminism in America
The Jewish plot to destroy the western female really picked up speed in the chaos of the 1960s. Jew psychologist ((((((((((((Betty Friedan)))))))))))) (born Bettye Naomi ((((((((((((Goldstein))))))))))))) published the book The Feminine Mystique in 1963, where she presented the the bizarre assertion that virtually all American housewives were unhappy with their lives, and backed it up with faked studies. She said that most if not all women were wasting their lives on children, while harboring the secret desire to be careering intellectuals and called this baseless claim “the problem that has no name.”
Following the faked research of Alfred Kinsey, ((((((((((((Friedan)))))))))))) also claimed that most housewives were sexually perverse, having an obsession with sexual gratification due to their inability to be fulfilled by the thing that has fulfilled all female mammals since the beginning of existence: children. She again use faked studies, which no other researcher was ever able to confirm or reproduce, to back up this scandalous assertion.
In promoting the insane fantasy that most housewives were sexual perverts, having constant affairs with anyone they could find, she made the impressionable housewives who read the book feel like they should also be doing this type of thing. This process of indoctrinating women into the world of sexual perversion was later streamlined by Ms. Magazine. Note that the Jewish race has a completely different set of values than White Europeans, and they have traditionally been much more sexually perverse. Jewish women probably do tend to cheat on their husbands, and thus this is yet another example of Jews rewriting our cultural heritage and value system with their own.
With The Feminine Mystique, the sickening Jewess ((((((((((((Betty Friedan)))))))))))) laid out a blueprint for the collapse of the ancient European social order. The weird Jewish advocate of the destruction of all society and its replacement with an insane science fiction nightmare world, ((((((((((((Alvin Toffler)))))))))))), correctly called it when he declared that this book “pulled the trigger on history.”
((((((((((((Friedan)))))))))))) later went on to found the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), one of the most influential forces in the fight to legalize the murder of unborn children in America, with fellow Jew Bernard Nathanson. The organization still exists as an advocacy group for the more extreme forms of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion, where the doctor waits for the baby’s head to start crowning and then drills a hole in his or her skull and sucks the brain out, as well as the “right” of high school girls to have abortions without their parents consent. The organization is still run by Jews.
Additionally, though the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was allegedly not Jewish, her husband was. After Sanger stepped down as the head of said organization, she was succeeded by Alan Frank Guttmacher, the Jewish son of a Rabbi. Like the larger movement of feminism, the movement to psychologically manipulate fragile women into murdering their own children has been an almost entirely Jewish affair.
((((((((((((Gloria Steinem)))))))))))), the Radical Jew Culture Destroyer
In 1969, the Jewish abortion promoter ((((((((((((Gloria Steinem)))))))))))) published the essay After Black Power, Women’s Liberation (note the direct, shameless piggy-backing onto the Black rights movement – Jews have continually exploited Black people as a means to promote their own goals), where she just repeated everything that ((((((((((((Friedan)))))))))))) had said in a more extreme manner. The Jew-dominated media catapulted this into the public mind, awarding it with relevance by pretending to be opposed to it, rather than tossing it aside as utterly irrelevant pseudo-intellectual communist revolutionary gibberish. This is yet another example of the media deciding what matters, while being able to promote it on any grounds they wish.
In the essay, she hailed a new dawn of sexual promiscuity and divorce as a positive social development. She did not simply push the idea that women have a right to choose how they live their lives, but demanded that women who desire a traditional lifestyle be attacked and terrorized, calling them “Uncle Toms.” She directly implied that abortions are great, and every woman should have one. She openly declared communism, and cited her racial brother and comrade, ((((((((((((Karl Marx)))))))))))), as a source of her opinions.
She was promoting a Big Lie in the way only a Jew could.
Speaking on the issue of forming a radical “women’s rights” movement within the existing chaos of the wider Jewish-driven cultural revolution raging through traditional American society, she says:
[Women] couldn’t become black or risk jail by burning their draft cards, but they could change society from the bottom up by radicalizing (engaging with basic truth) the consciousness of women; by going into the streets on such women’s issues as abortion, free childcare centers, and a final break with the 19th century definition of women as sex objects whose main function is to service men and their children.
Let’s think about what this means. We first notice that she is promoting radicalization of consciousness, which is Jew-speak for inciting hysteria. She claims that American women are going to do this “from the bottom up,” which is interesting coming from a public figure who belongs to an alien race and is setting herself up to be the leader of this movement. She then goes on to claim that women should no longer bear responsibility for their own actions, instead the government and society should, before claiming that being a mother amounts to de Beauvoir’s “reproductive slavery.”
The interesting thing here is that the exact situation that we have now could have come about by exciting White men to radicalization. A Jewish man could have popped up and been promoted by the media, claiming that White men were sick of working to support their families, that having to pay for food and a house for a woman and her children to live in was slavery to women, that women only wanted them for their sperm and they were demanding the right to divorce their wives and force their girlfriends to have abortions, and if there were children around they wanted the government to raise them for free.
The reason that the Jew did not launch a masculinist movement declaring that women were leeches that needed to get jobs and pay for their own needs and children has to do with the above mentioned issue of the differences between male and female biology. Women are much more volatile and susceptible to emotional propaganda. If the Jew would have come out with a radical men’s liberation movement, men would have laughed and dismissed it as ridiculous, with even the most feeble-minded of them saying to themselves “well, not having a wife and kids would allow me more free time and a lot of extra spending money, but I kinda like my wife and kids” – because for men, logic will trump emotion, all things being equal.
Jews play on weakness. These victors of World War Two began destroying the foundations of our society as soon as they were finished with Hitler’s Germany, and they did this by attacking weaknesses and exploiting them. They used Blacks – a genuinely disenfranchised group – as a battering ram against traditional White society, stirring up violence on both sides and making the situation unworkable, they stirred up the idealism of youth against their own war in Vietnam, the exploited the teenage sex drive and desire to release energy with their free love and drugs. And they attacked the emotional vulnerability of women with the feminist movement.
((((((((((((Steinem)))))))))))) later went on to found Ms. Magazine, a radical feminist publication that encouraged women to have sex with as many strangers as possible, have regular abortions, fight with their husbands and complain constantly. It played up this imagined victimhood, claiming that traditional gender roles amounted to some kind of a holocaust.
The fire that these Jews lit in the 1960s has just kept on burning. It isn’t going to go out until there’s no more fuel – meaning that our traditional culture has been completely exterminated – or until someone stands up and puts it out.
The Here and Now
The effects of the Jewish feminist movement that began in the 1960s have been staggering. We are now living in a world where females literally have no idea what they are, and are forced at every stage of their life to be something different than what their biology is demanding that they be.
Whereas the Jews demanded that it was a “right” of the female to work, it very quickly changed into a duty. A traditional single-income household is now almost entirely a thing of the past. This was no doubt a part of the Jewish feminist agenda, as given that when you add women to the workforce, you double the amount of available labor, and thus labor itself is only worth half as much in this unregulated capitalist system. This has put a tremendous burden on those families still existing the West. I wonder what percentage of women today would be willing to go back and trade abortion rights, “freedom from reproductive slavery” and all of the rest of the incomprehensible, sentimentally romanticized Jew gibberish that the baby-boomer generation bought into for a chance to live a traditional lifestyle. Surely, whatever perceived oppression women felt they were suffering under in the post-war period couldn’t have been as bad as this.
Like the ground-breaking feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s, the modern feminist movement, often referred to as the “third wave,” is totally dominated by Jews. The entire media apparatus, even that which claims to be conservative, has embraced the doctrines of feminism. Promiscuity is now promoted in schools, with marriage largely having become a thing of the past. Forty percent of children are born out of wedlock. The entirety of the Jew-run entertainment media apparatus promotes all of this, endlessly churning out more and more degrading material to force down the throats of the proles.
Presently, one in three pregnancies in this country ends in abortion. I do not think the statistics are available on what percentage of these babies are White, but it is rather obvious that it would be the vast majority. Because of the death of morality – brought to you by the Jews who crushed Christianity by turning it into a religion of soulless material pursuits and spinning it into the realm of science fiction – you now have teenage girls getting pregnant in high school; 50 years of feminism have convinced a large percentage of people in this country that it is then her “right” to murder the child without even telling her parents. Schools are known to have feminist guidance counselors who encourage them to make this decision.
Even if one were to make the argument that abortion is a morally sound form of birth control, it is a known fact that women who kill their babies develop life-long psychological problems because of it. Killing ones own children is one of the most blatantly deranged and insane aspects of this hellish Jew-ridden society we live in. Can you imagine a monkey or a wolf killing her own children because “they have other things to do with their life?” This is not simply murder – it is an attack on the most fundamental aspect of all life on earth – the desire to reproduce.
How much more of this are we willing to take from these sickening Jews? When is enough going to be enough?
I am not arguing against feminine strength. I am not claiming that every single woman should be doing nothing but cooking and making babies. I am simply saying that the vast majority of women have a deep-rooted desire to be protected by men so that they are free to focus on producing and raising children. This does not mean that some special individual females won’t decide to engage in intellectual pursuits, and certainly doesn’t mean that women are incapable of engaging in intellectual pursuits. The reality is that women do very well working in a lot of different fields, as long as they are not placed in positions of authority, but the fact remains that this is not generally what women would choose for themselves if they were given the choice, as it leaves them either absolutely emotionally and physically drained as they attempt to do careering along with raising children, or leaves them hollow and unfulfilled if they forgo raising children in favor of pursuing a career.
We should also be thinking about the children themselves – could any of this possibly be good for them?
It is my contention that women should be able to choose for themselves what kind of life they want to live, but the default position of society should be to provide a climate where women are encouraged to birth and raise children. All throughout history we have had scenarios where exceptionally strong women have played major roles in the larger whole of public society. However, for most powerful, intelligent and passionate women, the old saying that “behind every great man, there is a great woman” has held the truth of the matter. Women, as wives and mothers, provide the home environment within which men are capable of becoming successful in their endeavors.
The hard reality is that the feminist movement is not a product of Western civilization; it is, like every other major change our society has underwent in the last 100 years, a creation of the Jew. It is impossible that without the Jewish influence, White society would have embraced these radical changes to the social order.
If men are to become men again, and rise up with strength and fury and take back their society, it must follow that women also become women again, resuming their role as the backbone of our society, taking care of the home, raising healthy children and providing emotional respite for their husbands.
What we seek to do is restore the natural order which the Jew has upset with his lies and manipulation.
I’ve had a front-row seat in the culture war for over a decade, but I haven’t made any big policy declarations like other movements. Men’s rights activists their “family law reform” platform. The MGTOW group has “legalize prostitution and invent realistic sex bots.” The alt right has “white ethno-state.” The alt lite has “civic nationalism.” When it comes to policy, I’ve been quiet, solely focusing on fostering truth and masculinity. Only now am I ready to make the commitment to a policy platform which nips the essential problem in the bud in a way that other movements do not. We must repeal women’s suffrage, starting with the 19th Amendment in the United States. Once this is accomplished, no other planned or conscious action must be taken to solve nearly all our societal ills.
The origin of our problems
Today’s problems are all branches of a radical leftist root that has been normalized through feminism, social justice, and socialism. Allowing women to vote has made it effortless to elect leftist politicians who hate the family unit, men, and healthy market competition, while simultaneously weakening society by pushing women into work and giving them generous welfare in the form of handouts to single moms and the able-bodied along with make-work jobs for females in bloated government bureaucracies.
Thanks to leftism, we have seen the rise of a techno-matriarchy with an agenda of male disempowerment and persecution that transfers resources and soft power from men to women while solidifying hard power among elite globalists who control it all to uphold their own high-level aims. Individual globalists work together as an oligarchy to enact a divide-and-conquer strategy among races and sexes to fund leftist causes, politicians, and NGOs. The group with the most money to influence “democratic” politics and public opinion implants their useful idiots and political puppets to maintain control.
These puppets, whether on the “right” or “left,” have a true center on the left end of the spectrum for the sheer reason that votes from women must be gained. The manosphere cannon has shown that women have special mental faculties that operate almost exclusively on emotion, submission, and social conflict more than logic, dominance, and merit. Western countries have transformed into a national representation of the female psyche.
Appeasing women leads to civilization destruction
To appease female voters and their destructive nature of promiscuity and drama, a symptom of which is collectively propelling a book about a woman being brutally dominated by a man (50 Shades Of Grey) to one of the best selling books of all time, society has veered so far to the left that it is crumbling at its base through declining birth rates and collapse of the family unit. Because we have given women suffrage, it has become necessary to gain their votes by promising whatever they want in the moment, including the removal of all gates to the sexual market so they can engage in the great game of “alpha male hunting,” which has led to such unbridled chaos and sterility that we have to import third-world people as these empowered female voters abort nearly 60 million American babies. The demographic crisis the West faces today is primarily due to allowing women to do as they please instead of imposing healthy standards on their behavior and choices. The direct cause of this horror movie is giving women the vote.
I haven’t even touched the surface of the problems we have today that stem from having to appeal to the female vote: lowering of academic standards in universities to allow them to “excel,” promotion of degeneracy in media, invention of apps and technology to allow frictionless casual sex with bad boys, promotion of sex change operations among children, re-defining fat women as “beautiful at any size,” legalization of gay marriage, use of murder (abortion) as birth control, maligning normal masculinity as “toxic masculinity,” and elevation of damaging myths such as “rape culture” and the “wage gap” to foment gender fear and confusion. The culture has degraded because women have been at the forefront of degrading it. Their true nature, once unimpaired by societal limits, embarks on an tragic mission of destruction to recreate reality in a way to make them appear more attractive to high status men, no matter the consequence.
The problems I mentioned above would take thousands of local and Federal laws to address individually, and it would meet intense opposition from globalists who would fund the sort of antifascist protests and Deep State interference that we have seen thwarting Donald Trump. And even if those thousands of laws are passed, there is no guarantee that a renewed leftward push, thanks to ongoing demographic changes, wouldn’t roll them back. Is there a way to solve the problems while being assured that they couldn’t be repealed over the course of several generations? I’ve thought about this dilemma for years, after scratching the surface with previous thought experiments, and can only come to one conclusion: the problems in society can only be solved, and remain solved beyond one generation, by repealing women’s suffrage.
The ultimate solution
Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.
Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.
Within three elections, the entirety of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.
Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.
Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.
It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary reality. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.
This is excellent article produced by the knowledgeable, intelligent and open-minded human being. I’ve first hand experience with the Judeo-Communist-lesbian-feminist totality in Eastern Europe and the above narration brings back the unhappy memories. I was young at that time, and had not fully understood the older men that insisted that the socialist system and even the Judeo-Communist system wouldn’t be so bad, if it won’t be screwed by the greedy Jews and wicked women. Now, I’m 72 and the current Judeo-lesbian-feminist totality in the United States is a painful déjà vu to me.
IT IS MY OPINION THAT MEN AND WOMEN ARE TWO MOST PRODUCTIVE BUT ALSO MOST DESTRUCTIVE SPECIES WALKING ON THIS PLANET. WHY WE ARE HERE, AND HOW WE GET THERE IS THE AGE-LONG SUBJECT OF MANY SPECULATIONS AND RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OFTEN CAUSING THE MOST BLOODY WARS.
BUT IT IS IRREFUTABLE THAT WOMEN NEVER BEEN A PROGRESSIVE BUT ALWAYS REGRESSIVE FORCE NEEDING PROTECTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY NURSE CHILDREN. THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY, WHENEVER THEY CAME TO POWER THEIR REGENCY NEVER LASTED TOO LONG, AND ALWAYS MARKED THE END OF THEIR KINGDOM, EMPIRE, AND EVEN ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE CRASH ALMOST NEVER HAPPEN DURING THEIR REGIME, BUT SHORTLY AFTER. TO THESE DAYS, HISTORIANS COULDN’T COME TO THE CONSENT WHETHER WERE THE WOMEN WHO RAN THEIR DOMAINS DOWN, OR WHETHER THEY CAME TO POWER DUE TO GENERAL DECAY AND THERE WAS NOT MUCH LEFT FOR THEM TO SCREW.
HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE EGYPTIAN, EUROPEAN AND CHINESE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WOMEN TYPICALLY CAME TO POWER DUE TO GENERAL CORRUPTION STEAMING FROM THE PREVIOUS RULER(S) INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE MALE HEIR. THEN, THE RULING WOMEN GAVE THE FULL EAR TO THE FALSE BUT GOOD SMELLING AND SMOOTHLY SPEAKING ADVISERS, OVEREXTENDED ALL POSSIBLE RESOURCES AND THUS SET THE STAGE FOR POPULAR UNREST. ON TOP OF THAT, THEY MADE SURE THAT THEIR SUCCESSOR WOULD BE EITHER THEIR INCOMPETENT SOON OR NEPHEW, OR SOME OTHER GOOD LOOKING AND SMELLING RELATIVE THAT WOULD SATISFY THEIR FEMININE VIEWS AND PHILOSOPHIES. SINCE THE PLANET EARTH WAS NEVER A PEACEFUL PLACE, THERE ALWAYS WAS A NEIGHBORING KING, SULTAN, OR EMPEROR READY TO EXPLORE THE RESULTING WEAKNESSES. NOW, SINCE THE CURRENT JUDEO-LESBIAN-FEMINIST TOTALITY LEADING TO THE REINVENTION OF THE EVER-CRASHING MATRIARCHY COVERS THE ENTIRE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, WE ARE YET TO SEE HOW IT WOULD END AT THIS TIME.
AMERICAN FEMINISTS PROUDLY CLAIM THE CREDIT FOR ENACTING OF GREAT NUMBER OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS AND OTHER OPPRESSIVE LAWS. IN FACT, THEY BECAME THE LAW, JUDGE, AND JURY, AND ON THEIR PHONE-CALL THE JACKBOOTED COMMANDO IS ALWAYS READY TO INVADE INTO THEIR HOME AND ON THEIR BEHALF SHOOT TO DEATH THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD. REGARDLESS OF THE MONSTROSITY OF AMERICAN JUDEO-LESBIAN-FEMINIST TOTALITY, THEY FELL FAR BEHIND THE EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN FEMINISTS THAT SHAPED THEMSELVES DURING THE OUTBURST OF EUROPEAN QUEENS AND CZARINAS IN RUSSIA. THEIR FEEBLEMINDED RULES EVENTUALLY LED TO THE WW I, AND CONSEQUENTLY WWII. THEN, THEY BECOME THE BACKBONE FOR JUDEO-COMMUNIST AS WELL AS JUDEO-CAPITALIST GOVERNMENTS THROUGHOUT THE EUROPE AND FROM THERE SPREAD TO THE OTHER COUNTRIES.
FEMINIST GOALS AND OPPOSITION TO FEMINISM IN THE PRE-WWII EUROPE IS PERHAPS BEST ILLUSTRATED BY TWO FOLLOWING SPEECHES PUBLISHED IN THE TEXTBOOK WESTERN HERITAGE, 5TH EDITION, PAGE 1006 AND 1054, USED IN AMERICAN COLLEGES. THE FIRST CITED PHILOSOPHY WAS WIDELY ADOPTED BY THE FEMINISTS IN EASTERN EUROPE, AND TO MY PAINFUL AMAZEMENT IS IDENTICAL TO THE PHILOSOPHY EMBRACED BY THE AMERICAN FEMINISTS.
Communist Women Demand a New Family Life
Western Heritage Editorial Comment: While Lenin sought to consolidate the Bolshevik revolution against internal and external enemies, there existed within the young Soviet Union a vast utopian impulse to change and reform virtually eve social institution that had existed before the revolution or that was associated in the Communists minds with capitalist society.
Alexandra Kollontai (1872—1952) was a spokesperson of the political left within the early Soviet Union. In Communist circles, there had been much speculation on how the end of bourgeois society might change the structure of the family and the position of women. In the following passage written in 1920, Kollontai states the visions of this change. During the years immediately after the revolution, rumors circulated in both Europe and America about sexual and family experimentation in the Soviet Union. Statements such as this fostered such rumors. Kollontai herself later became a supporter of Stalin and a Soviet diplomat.
Here is what Kollontai said: There is no escaping the fact: the old type of family has seen its day. It is not the fault of the Communist State, it is the result of the changed conditions of life. The family is ceasing to be a necessity of the State, as it was in the past; on the contrary, it is worse than useless, since it needlessly holds back the female workers from more productive and far more serious work….But on the ruins of the former family we shall soon see a new form rising which will involve altogether different relations between men and women, and which will be a union of affection and comradeship, a union of two equal members of the Communist society, both of them free, both of them independent, both of them workers. No more domestic “servitude” of women. No more inequality within the family. No more fear on the part of the woman lest she remain without support or aid with little ones in her arms if her husband should desert her. The woman in the Communist city no longer depends on her husband but on her work. It is not her husband but her robust arms which will support her. There will be no more anxiety as to the fate of her children. The State of the Workers will assume responsibly for these. Marriage will be purified of all its material elements, of all money calculations, which constitute a hideous blemish on family life in our days….
The woman who is called upon to struggle in the great cause of the liberation of the workers—such a woman should know that in the new State there will be no more room for such petty divisions as were formerly under stood: “These are my own children, to them I owe all my maternal solicitude, all my affection; those are your children, my neighbor’s children; I am not concerned with them. I have enough to do with my own.” Henceforth the worker-mother, who is conscious of her social function, will rise to a point where she no longer differentiates between yours and mine; she must remember that there are henceforth only our children, those of the Communist State, the common possession of all the workers.
The Worker’s State has need of a new form of relation between the sexes. The narrow and exclusive affection of the mother for her own children must expand until it embraces all the children of the great proletarian family. In place of the indissoluble marriage based on the servitude of woman, we shall see rise the free union, fortified by the love and mutual respect of the two members of the Workers’ State, equal in their rights and in their obligations. In place of the individual and egotistic family there will arise a great universal family of workers, in which all the workers, men and women, will be, above all, workers, comrades.
Alexandra Kollontai, Communism and the Family, as reprinted in Rudolf Schlesinger, ed. and trans., The Family in the USSR (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949), pp. 67—69.
* * *
Hitler Rejects the Emancipation of Women
Western Heritage Editorial Comment: According to the Nazi ideology, women are indispensable for producing and rearing of children and for supporting of their husbands in their homes. In this speech, Hitler urges this view on the role of women. He uses anti-Semitism to discredit those writers who had urged the emancipation of women from their traditional roles and occupations. Hitler returns here to the ‘separate spheres” concept of the relationship of men and women. His traditional view of women was directed against contrary views that were associated with the Soviet experiment during the interwar years. This Nazi outlook on women and the family should be contrasted with the view set forth by the young Bolshevik Alexandra Kollontai.
Here is what Hitler says: The slogan “Emancipation of women” was invented by Jewish intellectuals and its content was formed by the same spirit. In the really good times of German life the German woman had no need to emancipate herself. She possessed exactly what nature had necessarily given her to administer and preserve just as the man in his good times had no need to fear that he would be ousted from his position in relation to the woman….
If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? How could the greater world survive if there were no one to make the cares of the smaller world the content of their lives? No, the greater world is built on the foundation of this smaller world. This great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. Providence has entrusted to the woman the cares of that world which is her very own, and only on the basis of this smaller world can the man’s world be formed and built up. The two worlds are not antagonistic. They complement each other, they belong together just as man and woman belong together.
We do not consider it correct for the woman to interfere in the world of the man, in his main sphere. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct. To the one belongs the strength of feeling, the strength of the soul. To the other belongs the strength of vision, of toughness, of decision, and of the willingness to act. In the one case this strength demands the willingness of the woman to risk her life to preserve this important cell and to multiply it, and in the other case it demands from the man the readiness to safeguard life.
The sacrifices which the man makes in the struggle of his nation, the woman makes in the preservation of that nation in individual cases. What the man gives in courage on the battle field, the woman gives in eternal self-sacrifice, in eternal pain and suffering. Every child that a woman brings into the world is a battle, a battle waged for the existence of her people….
So our women’s movement is for us not something which inscribes on its banner as its programme the fight against men, but something which has as its programme the common fight together with men. For the new National Socialist national community acquires a firm basis precisely because we have gained the trust of millions of women as fanatical fellow-combatants, women who have fought for the common task of preserving life….
Whereas previously the programmes of the liberal, intellectualist women’s movements contained many points, the programme of our National Socialist Women’s movement has in reality but one single point, and that point is the child, that tiny creature which must be born and grow strong and which alone gives meaning to the whole 1ife-strugle.
J. Noakes and C. Pridham, eds., Nazism, 1919—1945, vol. 2, State, Economy and Society 1933—39: A Documentary Reader, Exeter Studies in History No. 8 (Exeter: University of Exeter, 1984), pp. 449—450.
Alexandra Kollontai was a model for Eastern European women, and the excerpts intend to contrast two opposite social trends that continue to resonate in our time.
Despite their simplicity, memes have a true power. They are essential tools to spread an opinion and convince a vast audience.
They are effective because they are relatable, easily shared and above all, viral if successful. A meme is the digital response to paper propaganda.
A nearly perfect video, but you also seem to omit the fact that many men pushed the mainstreamization of geek culture for females, therefore male mother need. Women partake in those activities as long as they aren’t made fun of or criticized and quite opposite, praised. If cleaning a septic tank would become the next trending thing they’ll just jump in shit right away, but only because it’s hip. If geek culture wasn’t pushed like this in the past 10 years by males to impress females, we wouldn’t have seen that much female presence in comic con events, gaming and so on. The problem isn’t that some twats stick their noses in other’s people business, but they are also encouraged to do that without men thinking of the consequences. Maybe I’m wrong, but food for though.
And memes have done a lot to explain vital principles of game to beginners. Here are a few nuggets:
If all those could be condensed in a few words it would be: “Do not listen to what women say. Observe what they do”.
Memeologists in the audience might criticise the fact that all those images are not “memes” per se. I would argue that cold, brutal reality makes the best memes.
I had to narrow it down to twenty, but feel more than welcome to add classics that I might have forgotten.
Housing Minister ((((((Dominic Raab)))))) has been thrust into the spotlight after a loose-lipped secretary was exposed by an undercover reporter for allegedly selling sex on a ‘sugar-daddy’ website.
The astonishing expose, revealed by the Daily Mirror, alleges that the 20-year-old diary secretary met with an undercover journalist, who was posing as a wealthy businessman. The woman allegedly boasted that she knew Raab’s “every move” and joked about how she’d “love to get sacked” for having sex on her boss’ desk.
Raab’s bold staffer told the undercover reporter that she hoped to earn up to £5,000 ($6,950) a month from her rich clients, but promised discretion (yes, you read that right) by insisting that “everything is protected.” She admitted that her civil service bosses would “have an issue” with her extra work, but said that she did not “see too much of a contrast between this and going on multiple Tinder dates.”
A lot of women really shouldn’t be in the white collar workforce.
They should be professional prostitutes.
Also, this woman would, presumably, have access to confidential documents and sensitive information.
That means her sugar daddies would as well, no?
If there was any country in the world left with some agency, they would have a field day spying on the UK. It must be so easy at this point.
But Russia is still playing nice and China seems to only care about Taiwan and India atm.
These catastrophic civilizational-ending mistakes would never be allowed to happen in the West if there was a competent countervailing power block out there.
All of it was kept under wraps by the Cold War. Gay rights, tranny shit, extreme female hypergamy – all of it started coming out only after the end of the Cold War.
I wish that war had never ended to be quite honest.
The inimitable Joan Blondell said it best in an episode of Starsky & Hutch: “There are no REAL men left in the world, just sissy boys.” Indeed, many of these “sissy boys” have made their way into my life, providing a thousand proofs of the absurdity of modern American culture. A few decades later, her sentiments were echoed by a female citizen journalist, albeit with slightly different language: “Men have lost their testicular fortitude.” Her soft voice ran over the clumsy phrase “testicular fortitude” like a vehicle driving through a dangerous stretch of city.
Even men who LOOK like men — with muscles protruding from their skin-tight t-shirts — seem only to have achieved a caricature of masculinity. Many of them obsessively inhabit two of the only remaining arenas where men are still allowed to be men: sports and gyms.
They are often are so utterly de-individulaized that they seem wholly incapable of channeling the other long-lost aspects of masculinity: good manners, a robust interest in the world, a beaming heroism, respect for tradition but an openness to new ideas, a dignified sexual prowess that does not hang itself on cheap crudities, a jolly good humor, and a willingness to take charge and assert the natural aggression and dominance of the “classic male.” When men fail to give these things to the world, all of society tends to become the chaotic mess that it is now.
I came of age with pains so large that I never quite saw myself as a MAN. At times when I heard myself speak, the voice that spoke seemed to belong to someone else — it was a voice I did not recognize. An explosion of homosexuality and bi-sexuality, and also sexual ambiguity, only confused matters more, as both straight and gay men seemed to exist in the same void of emasculation disguised by flashy clothes and lifestyles and highfalutin political agendas.
Everywhere I went, straight men were being replaced by effeminate gay men or bossy, bitchy, authoritarian, and completely unlikable women. The educational and entertainment fields are only two examples of this unfortunate trend; straight men seemed to have been largely edged out, and if they did exist at all… they were usually geeks or eunuchs who did nothing to ensure that masculinity remained a strong or relevant force in professional operations.
I couldn’t change all that. But what I could change was myself. I started watching more male-oriented TV shows, such as The Lone Ranger, Starsky & Hutch, The Virginian, The Rifleman, and so on, absorbing the strong and triumphant masculinity that these shows displayed. I overturned all traces of political correctness (which houses a profound anti-male agenda), engaging at times in such ribald, uncensored language that it shocked even my closest cronies.
For instance, when a shrill, obnoxious feminist complained vociferously that women were “underrepresented as world leaders,” I said saucily: “Maybe that’s because you screw up all the countries, businesses, and avenues of society that you do rule. In the sixty or seventy years since women have taken on men’s roles in massive numbers, society has become a disgusting cesspool of nastiness, hatred, confusion, and manufactured rage. If this is what happens when women are ‘liberated,’ then perhaps they should go back to baking brownies… starting with you! Although I’m sure your brownies would be just as stale as you are.”
She didn’t have a neat, readily-available response to that because no one ever talks back to those women. No one dares. They have been given unchallenged control of almost all avenues of society. That is why they have done such damage to the world.
We, as men, have been brainwashed into thinking that we always have to be nice, that we have to like and accept everyone and everything (even the vilest forms of degeneracy), and that we must “respect” women even as they are DIS-respecting us. We even faithfully watch the TV shows that bash us, such as: Law and Order SVU, which cleverly uses the delicate matter of rape to insert a savage male-hating agenda, as if the male sexual impulse is synonymous with the instinct to rape and kill… and all men are potential or closeted rapists who must be punished with exposure, public humiliation, and incarceration.
Even though I am still an oddball, at times a goofball, and hardly the dictionary-definition of a “classic male,” I ultimately became the man that was once hidden beneath a meek exterior.