Counter-Currents
Kathryn Steinle, who was murdered by an illegal Mexican immigrant on July 1, 2015.
717 words
If ever there were an argument against giving women the vote, it’s demonstrated in the media’s attempt to hijack women’s hindbrains and override all possibility of rational thought by playing literal audio of children crying for their parents at the US-Mexico border.
If there were ever a way to get people who have no vested interest in an issue, and have spent no time studying the facts of a case, riled up enough to march out to vote, this is it. The sound of crying has such a powerful mammalian impact on women that it can literally cause them to lactate. A company called Hygeia attaches a button to their breast pump products that allows women to record the sound of their children crying so that they can press it later to trigger letdown when they’re away from their children.
These are absolutely natural and healthy instincts for women to have. They obviously work to allow women to be more effective at performing feminine duties. But they do not make women better men. They do not scale into the big-picture scale of mass politics.
These people are literally committing emotional abuse against women in order to brutally force their policies past the challenges of public discourse. And you’d better believe there will be thousands of pregnant and post-partum women as well as women with PTSD who will be affected by this abusive manipulation enough to vote for whatever the people manipulating them tell them will make it better.
Never mind the fact that we saw a significant increase in the number of children forcibly separated from their families before this policy was put into place.
Never mind the fact that this is actually exactly why this policy was implemented.
Yes, I’m talking about children forcibly separated from their families by migrant kidnappers.
The Department of Homeland Security reports that between October 2017 and February 2018, there was a whopping three hundred and fifteen percent increase in the number of cases of adults with minors “fraudulently posing as ‘family units’ to gain entry.”
The report also states:
DHS does not have a blanket policy of separating families at the border. However, DHS does have a responsibility to protect all minors in our custody. This means DHS will separate adults and minors under certain circumstances. These circumstances include: 1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship, 2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or 3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.
Think about what ending this policy would mean. It would mean literally rewarding child traffickers and kidnappers with an increased chance of citizenship for engaging in kidnapping and trafficking. This is exactly what we were doing before, and it’s exactly why we saw a greater than three hundred percent jump in this very activity under the catch-and-release system we had before.
Of course, we could just as easily have seen a campaign calling for the full abolition of prisons using these tactics. And why not? Literally any time anyone ever commits a crime, it separates them from their children. So why aren’t we blasting audio of children crying, since daddy went to jail for armed robbery, in order to manipulate women into supporting the full dissolution of all police forces, prisons, and jails?
“But children aren’t held in facilities when their parents commit crimes,” you might say. That’s only because there’s usually another parent at home who can continue taking care of them. But what do you think happens when a single mother commits a violent crime, or both parents go to jail together? They most certainly are kept in holding facilities. But unless it’s part of a discussion about how throwing blacks in jail for marijuana use separates families, you will never see the mainstream media raise a peep about it.
Actually, you know what? These critics just might be right after all. Usually what we do in these cases isn’t to send the children to foster care; usually what we try to do first is send these children to their next of kin. So . . . sure. Let’s do that with migrant children! Let’s send them back to their next of kin.
In Mexico.
14 comments
I don’t care about the circumstances that brought the 3rd worlder to the USA border. I don’t care if the 3rd worlder is under age. If the under age 3rd worlder is with/without an adult. I don’t care if it is a 3rd world adult, with/without underage child. I don’t care if it is an American who went outside the USA, married 3rd worlder and is now trying to bring 3rd world spouse back into the USA. I don’t care if the American citizen, bringing 3rd world spouse into the USA, is or is not a 3rd worlder.
My entry (note I said entry, not immigration) policy is NO 3RD WORLDERS allowed into the USA.
If a US citizen is a White and goes outside the USA, marries a non-White, and tries to bring that non-White into the USA, the policy would be that the White US citizen can come (back) into the USA but not that 3rd worlder. If the White US citizen does not like this, they can go to hell, or to the 3rd world country in which they married the third worlder (hell, 3rd world country …. same thing).
If a White US citizen marries a White from outside the USA, both will be allowed entry into the USA and the non-American White fast tracked to US citizenship.
If I were President, I would publicly declare that I could care less about the physical material needs of life or emotional well being of 3rd worlders. That is someone else’s business/concern, not the USA’s. Only the needs of US citizens is my (as Prez).
This would put an end to all this moral agonizing and hand wringing about all the permutations concerning 3rd world pre-adults.
You seem to conflate the categories “country of origin” and “race”. A fully white person from, let’s say, Southern Brazil (of which there exist millions), would not be admissible according to your policy, while a black citizen from the UK would. The water gets even muddier if you consider that many Europeans , especially of the left, do not consider the US a fully 1st world country in the first place (muh healthcare, muh gun violence, muh Drumpf etc).
You are correct, in that I did not make clear who I would/wouldn’t let into the USA. For the most part 3rd worlder would mean non-White. I wasn’t thinking of Brazil and other like countries, that have both White 1st world enclaves and other 3rd world parts.
I had thought my statement …. “If a White US citizen marries a White from outside the USA, both will be allowed entry into the USA and the non-American White fast tracked to US citizenship.” …. showed that a White from whatever country could come in. I didn’t allow for those who are White, unmarried and from a (largely) 3rd world country asking for entry.
I would let any White, of whatever marital status, from whatever country into the USA for residence and then citizenship (if they so desired).
As far as Europe looking upon the USA as not a fully 1st world country: that is largely snobbery. I could realistically say that their draconian speech laws (prison time for simple politically incorrect thoughts) are as 3rd world as one can get. And as far as gov’t providing health care and criminalizing firearms ownership/possession, those require an authoritarian gov’t and that reeks more of 3rd world than 1st.
It is an even better argument against freedom of the press. Truth is more important than freedom and thus he press should lose its freedom when it becomes purely partisan instead of reasonably neutral. Let them compete with ordinary citizens for access to press conferences, interviews etc. and hold them to the same legal standard regarding libel and defamation.
John Haase:
I like your comment and suggestion. The press has caused so much harm through its manipulation, half-truth to full-lie telling and intentionally kindling destructive impulses and emotions that the damage caused cannot be ignored. There should be a way of holding the press and its perpetrators responsible.
Perhaps because women are not stupid, and your premise is wrong?
In 2015 during the migrant crisis Hungarian women were subjected to a barrage of media images of crying children, but somehow they managed to overrule their mammalian hindbrains and went on voting for Orbán.
In Poland women have the right to vote and there’s not a single leftist party in parliament.
American white women voted for Trump (the left knows this).
Germany. (Remember Merkel was the conservative candidate. The left is even worse.) France. Italy. Britain.
But even if you think women are just cute cows, not capable of rational thought, driven by their hindbrains and lactating glands, wouldn’t it be just smart not to write and publish derogatory articles about them? How does this article contribute to saving the white race?
Clearly, many women are able to override the mammalian impulses that kick in when exposed to the kind of stimuli used in the propaganda around this case—just as many men are able to override the mammalian impulses that tell them to have sex with everything in sight in order to maximize the spread of their genes when they defend a culture of monogamy.
Men and women both simply have different mammalian impulses. Neither is better or worse than the other, but they are evolved and optimized to operate in different domains. So the fact that some individuals can override these impulses doesn’t mean they aren’t a heavily dominating factor in large-scale human trends.
Strip clubs full of dancing women exist because of an excess of mens’ mammalian impulses—but no matter what you do to change men and womens’ circumstances, strip clubs full of men dancing for women will never become as common a thing. Strip clubs are a thing that basically only exist because of the particular impulses experienced by men.
And in just the same way, audio recording of crying children is a propaganda technique that only exists because of the particular mammalian impulses experienced by women. In a world in which there were no female voters to exploit with this kind of thing, the technique would simply never even be tried.
As regarding women voting for Trump, it is of course known that married women tend to vote Republican, whereas single women are overwhelmingly a force for the Left. The evidence makes it quite clear that the effect is causal: women become more conservative after being married; it isn’t just that conservative women are more likely to marry (though they may be). These trends likely apply elsewhere as well.
While it is most certainly encouraging to see cases where women have resisted the leftist propaganda, I think you’d be hard pressed to find examples of policies which either you or I would say women have been on the right side of, that men have not. But this is obviously what would be required to argue that extending the vote to women has had a positive effect on the political process as a whole.
In any case, the point I was making was obviously just rhetorical. If we were anywhere near the point where we could credibly discuss repealing the 19th Amendment in the United States, then we’d already be at the point where we could just solve all the surrounding issues in the first place.
From Reuters.
Thinking about the elections in 2018, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your district where you live?
Filters: Whites only. June 18th, 2018. Overall.
Male / Single, never married
Republican: 35,1
Democrat: 33,5
Male / Married
Republican: 51,4
Democrat: 29,9
Female / Single, never married
Republican: 22,5
Democrat: 40,7
Female / Married
Republican: 41,9
Democrat: 27,5
This is consistent across all polls and elections and continents: the white gender gap is around 10-15%.* This is what is whipped up by the Right into the “women’s suffrage brings down Western civilizaton because hindbrains, lactating glands” narrative.
European data also shows that white females who vote left tend to vote green, not red. (The organic food, cruelty free nail polish subculture.)
The left thinks white women are a problem. One would expect the Right thinks there’s an opportunity here to exploit – but no, the Right also thinks white women are a problem. (Or even, the problem.) One of these parties lacks sound judgement and has a lose grip on reality. People who don’t have a firm grip on reality tend to lose the evolutionary game and disappear from the gene pool.
* Exception: Hungary. Males for Fidesz: 40%. Females for Fidesz: 46%. If we include cuckservative Jobbik in the Right – males: 29%, females: 16% – then the gender gap is 7%.
I’d be interested to read a more detailed breakdown of that data. Do you have any primary sources on hand? Would you consider even writing something on it?
the white gender gap is around 10-15%.
Even a two percent gender gap within the white population can have serious electoral consequences. Clearly, the current white gender gap can be more dangerous electorally.
But culturally, as opposed to electorally, the gender gap among whites is closer to a statistical curiosity than a severe problem, as M’s figures indicate.
Increasingly whites, both men and women, are voting Right, even hard Right. That’s why the system/establishment throughout much of the West is so desperate to import more black and brown voters. They want to create a new electorate, and they’re happy to let their native-born populations pay the cost. They’re not counting on white women to save their globalist project.
Most white women voted for Trump despite a Democrat campaign that specifically targeted them with emotion-laden talk of glass ceilings and alleged wage gaps. Hillary needed them to win, and she crafted much of her message for that purpose, and they refused to hand her the victory she expected. That was impressive.
I’m sexist (aka sensible) enough to believe that on average white men respond better to reasoned messages than white women. But these are small average differences, not the massive differences that many alt-rightists assume exist. Both men and women respond to rational arguments, and both men and women respond to emotional appeals. Obviously.
Peter Fonda and John Cusack are men, it’s perhaps worth pointing out, and there is no shortage of other white men who are antiracist morons.
The Right also thinks white women are a problem.
If we don’t attract women, we lose, and insulting women is unlikely to attract them. That should be non-controversial, though unfortunately it isn’t.
cuckservative Jobbik
I thought they were the good guys.
Depending on who we listen to, they’re either neo-nazis or right-wing populists, both of which sound good.
Jobbik WAS a good party, once upon a time. Over the past three years they reinvented themselves as a liberal conservative party, whose only real cause has been condemning the Orbán “dictatorship,” in a very cynical and blatant attempt to try to get more votes by appealing to the Budapest liberals – which failed in the last election. Since the election in April, they’ve been sending their representatives to march in public protests alongside all the Leftist parties and Soros-supported NGOs, calling for “more democracy.” So no, they can no longer be considered a Rightist party of any sort, which is why László Toroczkai and the last vestiges of anything genuinely Right-wing recently left the party, and are soon to be launching one of their own. See the two articles I wrote on the Hungarian election here if you want to know more.
“And in just the same way, audio recording of crying children is a propaganda technique that only exists because of the particular mammalian impulses experienced by women. In a world in which there were no female voters to exploit with this kind of thing, the technique would simply never even be tried.”
If you have a media elite that is trying to manipulate women into supporting aliens rushing the border, you’re already in trouble. You can’t get rid of women voters until you get rid of the hostile media that is trying to manipulate them for political gain. Once you’ve gotten rid of the hostile media, you don’t need to get rid of women voters, unless you’re planning on surrendering control of your culture again.
Moreover, I’m not sure that men aren’t just as vulnerable to manipulation as women. It appears that men have been more supportive of these destructive wars for Israel than women.
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/01/19/men-and-womens-support-for-war-accounting-for-the-gender-gap-in-public-opinion/
We now have a situation where our perfectly natural and healthy instincts as men and women are being hijacked in the interests of others.
I’m not sure that men aren’t just as vulnerable to manipulation as women.
His argument is that women are more vulnerable to a particular kind of manipulation. I’m sure that’s correct.
On the other hand, many alt-rightists do exaggerate sex differences.
Both sexes arrive at political conclusions based on some combination of rational thought and emotions, and both sexes can be stirred by emotional appeals. American men could be emotionally manipulated into supporting an unnecessary war before women could vote, witness the Spanish-American war, which was preceded by highly emotional propaganda, much of it fictional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judge-2-6-1897.jpg
This image and the crying infant cover on _Time_ are similar. But no female voters were being targeted by the former.
It’s worth noting that the meme at the top of the page is an appeal to emotion. We don’t immediately think of it as such, because we agree with its emotional message.
I would guess that both the men and women reading this essay had more or less the same response to the image of Kate Steinle. It gets us angry and frustrated that the deaths of our own people at the hands of illegal immigrants don’t get the attention they deserve. A picture of a well-known victim of open-borders immigration triggers that feeling. She looks like someone we might know. That’s a feeling that can be rationally defended, but it is nevertheless a feeling triggered by a single face.
There’s nothing _wrong_ with that. It’s normal. All of us often think emotionally.
Once you’ve gotten rid of the hostile media, you don’t need to get rid of women voters…
Exactly right.
Our mass media is in the hands of people who want to destroy us. The real fault lies with the people putting out the hostile propaganda, not the white voters affected by it.
“His argument is that women are more vulnerable to a particular kind of manipulation. I’m sure that’s correct.”
I don’t disagree with this at all. That said, I do think the author was arguing that women are more susceptible to manipulation than men, at least implicitly. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense to suggest that women (but not men) should not be allowed to vote.
In any event, I am not terribly offended by the idea that women suffrage was a mistake. I don’t agree, but I don’t think the idea is beyond the pale, provided that the “anti-suffragist” bases his argument on a more or less positive (or at least neutral) view of our nature, as Mr. Haverstock attempts to do here. It’s one thing to be told you shouldn’t vote because you’re compassionate to a fault, and quite another to be told you shouldn’t vote because you are a sadist who enjoys watching men kill each other for entertainment or sexual titillation or something.
My concern is primarily on how this will appear to curious White women who may be amenable to our views. How many of these exist is anyone’s guess.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment