Counter-Currents
1,193 words / 7:34
Audio version: To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
The internet can’t stop hating on Karens. These middle-aged white women continue to cause problems for America and are hated by both the Left and the Right. The Left claims they’re white women who weaponize their privilege to oppress minorities. The Right ignores the racial angle and says they’re just annoying tattle-tales. According to conservatives, any race can be a Karen!
The Karen meme’s popularity among dorky liberals and boomer conservatives has rendered it a dead meme. If your mom is posting about Karens on Facebook, it’s no longer funny.
It would be one thing if it was just an unfunny joke, but it’s not. The Karen meme explicitly demonizes whites for simply giving a shit.
If you demand to know why the homeless loiter around your neighborhood, you’re a Karen.
If you ask POC to turn down their music, you’re a Karen.
If you call the cops on suspicious blacks, you’re a Karen.
If you notice anything you’re supposed to ignore, you’re a Karen.
How can one not be a Karen? Just look the other way and mind your own business. Adopt the attitude that allows your community to decline and crime to run rampant. Just focus on yourself and your own business. You don’t want to become woke Twitter’s new villain and lose everything.
New York resident Amy Cooper learned that lesson this week. She got into a dispute with a black birdwatcher (they apparently exist) in Central Park. Things escalated when the black man allegedly threatened her dog. Cooper then called the cops on the black man. That act, which was caught on video, ruined Cooper’s life. Now she’s jobless and the most hated person on the internet.
Just because she called the cops on a black guy.
“Central Park Karen” is likely a liberal who believes that diversity is our strength. She may even think that white racists are a greater threat than blacks. But her hypothetical liberal views didn’t save her from the internet lynch mob.
Some on our side may say: “She got what she deserved!” They may relish the Schadenfreude of an AWFL (affluent, white, female, liberal — a different creature from Karen) tasting the bitter fruits of wokeness. But these celebrants miss the larger picture. Cooper isn’t being punished for being a goofy white liberal; she’s ruined for calling the cops on a non-white. This is considered the worst thing that a white person could ever do and merits extreme social shaming. The main takeaway from Central Park Karen isn’t an AWFL getting hoisted on her petard — it’s that whites should never call the cops on non-whites.
The Karen meme reinforces this social attitude. It’s now a popular idea to view middle-aged white women as the greatest danger in our society. New York Times affirmative action columnist Charles Blow says white women are “instruments of terror” against black men. Washington Examiner writer Hannah Cox, a supposed conservative, says Karens must face jail time for their persecution of black men. “Karens represent a long history of white women using the long arm of the law to harm innocent black men,” Cox writes.
Any person with functioning common sense would know black men are far more dangerous than pushy white women. But our opinion-makers, unfortunately, lack that basic quality. It explains why there is far greater news coverage of the Central Park Karen than that of the black man who beat an elderly white man in a Michigan nursing home. That black man is just misguided, and his crime is just part and parcel of living in a diverse society. The injustice of Karens is something we cannot tolerate in a diverse society. Whites need to know their place and not cause offense to our wonderful minorities. Whites having a problem with non-white behavior is a sign of racism, which is the worst sin imaginable. Whites must feel discomfort at the thought of calling the police on non-whites. At the same time, they need to accept that their grandfather may be beaten to a pulp in a nursing home. That’s just a fact of life.
There is a particular type of white woman that deserves criticism: AWFLs, unlike Karens, actually have power in our society and fully believe in the racial justice bullshit. They focus more on their careers and their own “empowerment” than creating a family and protecting their community. The typical Karen is a suburban housewife who’s a little too eager to make sure every lawn in the neighborhood is properly cut. The typical AWFL aspires to power so she can outlaw hate speech and welcome more immigrants. The AWFL threatens our society; the Karen is merely annoying.
Some on our side do see Karens as a problem though.
Counter-Currents contributor Winston E. Bakewell says right-wingers shouldn’t stand up for Karens.
Karen is not a last stand for a nice, white country. Karen is a last stand for the status quo she grew accustomed to in the last several decades, a world in which her entitlement went unchecked and the underclass she could boss around didn’t talk back,” Bakewell writes. “The Karen archetype doesn’t have much of an identity, if any, beyond herself. She will harass white teenagers and Mexican fast-food workers with equal zeal. A Karen is merely a blandly conservative AWFL — they differ solely in the types of people that they love to complain about to the authorities.
He then goes on to lambast Karens for caring too much for consumer goods and failing to care about the “struggle.” He says we should destroy everything Karens care about and these women are “irreparably damaged by the trappings of modernity.”
The same could be said about all women. Women are not revolutionaries, and they desire security. Karen moms want their kids to grow up in a nice area, not subject to privation. Karens are overemphasizing protective behaviors found in the ideal mom. Nearly all whites suffer from the same materialist concerns and troubles. We shouldn’t hate the Karen for wanting good customer service and a clean neighborhood. It’s also an unwise pitch to explicitly say we will significantly reduce the quality of life for whites. Why would ordinary whites join our cause if their lives will just get immeasurably worse? They would rather stick to their normie suburban ways.
Karens are not the agents that lead to mass immigration and globalization. They may benefit from some of those effects, but that doesn’t make them our enemies. Most of these women don’t know any better. It certainly doesn’t help our cause by joining with our enemies because Karens may have once hired a Hispanic lawn mower.
Karen deriders want whites to sit back and take white America’s decline. They want to excise any pro-social impulses we have. They want us to not notice possible criminals, trash on the street, or horrible customer service. They want us to not give a shit and just CONSOOOOOOM what they give us.
The Karen probably knows nothing about demographic change or the 1965 Immigration Act. But she does recognize a problem in her community and isn’t afraid to call it out. For that trait alone, she is worthy of praise.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
33 comments
I could not agree with you more, nor could I have said it better than you have here. Great article. On the article about the Arbery shooting, someone commented that they initially thought, why didn’t the McMichaels family just mind their own business? But then they realized how lucky it is that there are still those of us who give a damn about our communities. “Karen” could be my mom. In fact, if a large black man even slightly hinted at a threat, my mother would indeed call the police, as well she should. White women are the target, blacks the supremely dangerous threat. I do not care what the scenario is, this is always the case. The purpose of the Two Minutes Hate against this and other “Karens” is to eventually criminalize or ar least impose social excommunication for any white person having the gall to call the police on any black. This is so sinister that it can hardly be overstated. Whatever her politics are, she deserves our protection. Are we any different than the colored Left if we toss her to the wolves?
Karens are so Little League. If you want to go after the spoiled and entitled who have made a pig’s breakfast of western society, go after the Selmas and the Haddasahs, the daughters of Gladys Kravitz. Karens worry about neighbors who fail to pick up their dogs’ poo. Haddasahs and Selmas moan about white privilege as they advocate for the continued third-worldization of the countries in which they currently squat.
Or, maybe the MSM is focusing on the Karens to distract the public from the Selmas, Haddasahs and Gladys Kravitzes?
thank you.
It’s important to recognize that ‘Central Park Karen’ is simply liminal testing of the subliminal anti-White messaging beamed out every day. Always #SideWithWhite in any mixed-race conflict. Don’t be distracted by any other issues or identities (like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘feminist’). Racial solidarity is natural and normal. which is why our enemies have to 24/7/365 through every possible mechanism to prevent it. I would not have cared if ‘Central Park Karen’ was Hillary Rodham Clinton. I would have still sided with her. Until someone proves otherwise, there is no such thing as ‘tactical racial solidarity’.
Now, onto the thornier aspect of the ‘Central Park Karen’ from within our ranks: misogyny. Third Wave feminism has broken the natural bond between men and women in a way that is almost impossible to imagine even 20 years ago. By unbalancing the relationship between the sexes and giving women both the upper hand and free reign to break the social contract between men and women, women exercise inordinate power. This is true for our White woman as much as any other. It’s easy, really easy to find an excuse not to stand up for our women — our White women — because of this. Men in this movement need to fight this impulse because at the very least, our emotional response distorts our analysis of the situation and bad analysis leads to bad policy.
It’s at times like these that the long history of Christianity among White people provides resources to help White Nationalists — whether Christian or not — to see the right thing to do: Win with love.
Karen is our aunt, our mom, or our sister. Media outrages like this show us that ultimately, being a woman doesn’t earn you enough victim points. The White man is not alone in being vilified by the media, and hopefully our women begin to realize non-Whites simply view them with contempt.
Central Park, what is it about that place? Off the top of my head we have Karen, JFK Jr being mugged by a Puerto Rican who stole his bike, the 1989 wilding episode, Robert Chambers strangling his jewess girlfriend, the massive Puerto Rican Day parade gropings. There must be many more. Other world cities need to up their game and get their best parks some worldwide negative publicity.
I remember another one: the famous black teen crime spree after the free 1983 Diana Ross concert, a rehearsal for the even more famous 1989 wilding/jogger attack.
Even the SWPL Gothamist mentions it, greatly downplayed, of course:
https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/when-diana-ross-played-central-park-in-the-1980s
World Star Hiphop should look into having a kiosk in Central Park, where black crime gets its best worldwide exposure. It would be great for Asian tourism.
She was in “The Ramble” which in Al Pachino’s Cruising was the place where the gays hung out at night for their anonymous interludes in the brush. I think Richard Quest even got arrested there for indecency a few years back, it must have changed.
I can agree with this article. It’s a bit more nuanced than the comments section of Bakewell’s article.
His article made it seems as if this Karen type has an interest in keeping minorities around so she can lord over them:
“Karen ultimately stands for nothing other than deracinated consumerism and her own indignation. The outspoken women of the day are little more than feminists attempting to lord power over their perceived inferiors.”
Which makes it seem as if she’s a barrier to ethnic nationalism. Guess I had my stereotypes crossed.
(I have to admit some ignorance of Internet meme culture. To me, Counter Currents is the Internet. And I hope no one goes too hard on Bakewell. I like his writing style, for one. And two, this is a meme we’re arguing about here. The Cooper event wasn’t even mentioned in his article, I don’t think. It was an afterthought in the comments. Either way, it’s these kinds of dissenting opinions that sets CC apart. It’s only natural for dissidents to dissent, even among themselves.)
In the other Karen article, I tepidly took the side of the black man, and I admitted that the reason is because I have a political bias that isn’t solely white advocacy.
Someone corrected me and said that the “birdwatcher” (guys just doing guy stuff amirite) had admitted to threatening her dog. My natural instinct is to parse and filter these things through multilayered beliefs. One of my beliefs is that it’s damaging (horribly so) for women to wield state power (911-cops) against men so flippantly. Having been a victim of it, I can’t always excuse it.
This event really teeters for me, but I do confess that I favor even the most bitchy Karen when a threat is made by a strange man. (Black or white). I’ll only say that it was probably am extremely poor choice of words, knowing that he was videoing, for her to tell him prior to making the call that she was going to “tell the police that and AFRICAN AMERICAN man was threatening her.” (Vocal Emphasis on his race).
Have the cops on the phone? They ask you to describe him? Sure, tell them he’s a black man. I don’t think anyone could have convincingly accused her of anything untoward if she had confined such comments to an actual conversation with a cop.
This is kind of like the McMichaels situation in that I don’t think they were wrong to take action, that calling the cops on the “jogger” was fine. That even following him was fine. But grabbing loaded guns and forcing a physical confrontation? I’m not going to budge that I think that was foolhardy. Not over replaceable stolen *stuff.
All I’m saying is that in the context of our powerlessness, we have to be prudent. Karen wasn’t prudent here.
Ironically, she was probably trying to be politically correct. Talk to her about it now, and I’m sure she’d agree it would have been best to leave out race altogether, but in the heat of the moment, my guess is her has habit of policing her own language for PC shone through and led to her blurting out African-American rather black. There are also examples of TV news reporters calling blacks in France “African-Americans” out of PC habit.
White male indulgence of white female neurosis, lust for control and power and foolish ideas is what got us in this mess in the first place.
More tolerance for white women’s foibles is not the solution, we have been way way way too indulgent already; discipline is now required. No demographic group is more responsible for this disaster than white women. I know this site doesn’t like to acknowledge that but its true.
one for the anti Karen’s here.
No demographic group is more responsible for this disaster than white women. I know this site doesn’t like to acknowledge that but its true.
So you say.
I’m also much less willing to accept the Karen vs awfl distinction than the author is. Enormous overlap. Even conservative Karen’s are hardly particularly conservative, let alone red pilled…More the freedom fries foxnews type.
“Karens” and “joggers” are what the people with small hats are distracting us with on the path to a multi-racial, New World Order, global plantation.
If a black is bird watching he’s thinking of eating it, killing it for fun, or selling it to some sucka. Or his alibi if he gets caught stalking White women.
I am kind of at a loss to understand exactly what White Nationalist men want from this movement and how they expect that it will change their lives. I think this philosophy applies to about 70% to 90% of our ‘members’ who are men. How do they envisage our future? Where and how do they want us to live, once we have separated ourselves from the minorities? And above all, what do they want in a woman? And that leads to the question, ‘What do they think a woman wants from WN?’
As a woman about 25 years older than the ‘average Karen’ described here, I still abide by her outlook and rules. No trash in the streets, and that would eliminate most minority neighborhoods, but I would draw the line at calling the police unless there was a distinct threat to my life. And I do desire a nice home with trees and a white picket fence; or a nice condo in a neighborhood near a good art museum and libraries. This isn’t the place to get into what I would desire in a man, since I’ve tried marriage 3 times, and failed. Not their fault — mine for not having established goals and boundaries. But what would White Nationalist goals be? This essay opens up quite a few cans of worms, but it’s time to think about them. I am definitely not a shrill feminist and can barely stand to be in those women’s company. But, much as I love the countryside, I wouldn’t want to have to live there all the time. I’m happy in a suburban sprawl which I secretly despise, but it’s 25 miles out to the country and about 20 over to the museums and beaches. White Nationalism has to discuss geography and weather one of these days. Yes, I also would like to wave a magic wand and all minorities would magically fly back to their countries of origin and be thrilled to be ‘home’. Well, ain’t gonna happen without a LOT of planning. But I’ll hang in there and help with the planning as best I can. But I need to know, what are ‘the guys’ goals and dreams? And they have to know whether they are ready to marry ‘Karen’ or not.
Many people in this ‘movement’ (which is largely male) can’t see beyond their anger. They probably don’t really know what they want. Be as kind as you can to them.
Brother, the time to see past our anger is still in the future. We aren’t out of the woods yet, so we still need it.
I am kind of at a loss to understand exactly what White Nationalist men want from this movement and how they expect that it will change their lives.
I can answer for myself here at least. I want to do my part to get my country back. We need a future for ourselves and our posterity.
How do they envisage our future?
Things are pretty grim now, but I’m cautiously optimistic that it’s not too late to reverse the bad trends. If the White public had proper awareness, the long trip down the tubes would end very quickly.
Where and how do they want us to live, once we have separated ourselves from the minorities?
The cities will be a lot cleaner, for those who like urban living. The “how” is quite a big question. Generally I’d like to see a move toward sensibility, traditionalism, and an economy where small businesses play a greater role. Other than that, less Eminem and more Beethoven.
And above all, what do they want in a woman?
Some guys put a high priority on looks, but I will say that interpersonal compatibility is the number one consideration in any long-term match. A large part of that boils down to pleasantness, which is even more important than shared interests. The good news is that anyone can choose to be pleasant. It’s free too – no products to buy!
And that leads to the question, ‘What do they think a woman wants from WN?’
I would suppose that you want your country back, just like I do. Am I right?
A large part of that boils down to pleasantness, which is even more important than shared interests. The good news is that anyone can choose to be pleasant. It’s free too – no products to buy!
This is the sort of statement I would have viewed as totally benign before the manosphere took over White nationalism. Now I’m not so sure.
Be honest now. Is “pleasant” a euphemism for servile and submissive?
I can honestly say that it is not. It seems that you’re jumping to conclusions. If I may do the same, it looks like you’ve been misled, and I hope you’ll do some further research and discover what the ideological conditioning was about.
For the long answer, pleasantness is one of those traits that exists along a continuum. It’s rather like a virtue as Aristotle conceived it. (IIRC, I believe that would be Book 2 of Politics.) Too little makes someone a grouch, and you don’t like those people either. Too much makes someone seem like an apple-polisher. Going back to your question, though, the “just right” range of pleasantness is not identical with bootlicking. Asserting otherwise would be a false dichotomy.
In certain social situations, there are indeed occasions when one must be abrasive. However, if this occurs too frequently within a relationship, that probably means that there are some compatibility problems.
I can honestly say that it is not. It seems that you’re jumping to conclusions.
I didn’t want to jump to conclusions. That’s why I asked, and thank you for your sincere reply.
In certain social situations, there are indeed occasions when one must be abrasive. However, if this occurs too frequently within a relationship, that probably means that there are some compatibility problems.
It depends entirely on the circumstances. It changes from year to year, depending on financial pressures, ages of children, difficulties Dad may be having at work, etc. From a woman’s perspective, the hardest years are when you have numerous young children. I believe Mrs. Duggar has said that her hardest years were when she had three children: Josh was born in 1988, followed by a set of twins two years later. This is very consistent with my own experience (and plenty of friends) of having several children preschool aged and younger. After that, it stops getting harder. You figure out how to manage and your older children become more helpful.
One must go into a marriage understanding that there will be good times and bad (or better yet, easy times and hard), ready to forgive and ask for forgiveness as needed.
When you look back after a couple decades of marriage, you can see that there were times when either of you would have been justified in leaving, but you didn’t, and you find that you have both grown a great deal, becoming a better person by working through whatever comes up.
Angry young men and the Anarchist crowd. The anarchist types hate siding with order and those ever-controlling cops, or ” white woman betrayed us” or “she’s just a remnant of racist liberalism”
Richard Spencer’s ilk and the soveriegn citizen hicks love to dunk on innocent or naive white people. Trashy characters and bipolar ideologues. . . and Im sure many feds and shills.
They wont realize you cant divorce someone from their origin. At this point theyre just a small enclave of cruelty. Negative energy is destructive by nature and the idea that they can build anything with a tiny group of narcissists and neurotics with NO POWER is laughable.
Hitler’s “Liberal Elite” if they were elite in any way.
There are still many of us who cherish our race and women.
When I see the levels of misogyny that prevail amongst American WNs, I am so pleased to live on the other side of the Atlantic! It does seem to me that that relations between the sexes are much better here. We have fewer strident, men hating feminists and fewer resentful, woman hating men too. What has gone wrong in America that things have come to such a pass? Might it be that some WNs don’t feel that they get the female attention which they are so sure that they deserve? Mind you, perhaps I should be careful what I say . . . Gregor Strasser used to take the mickey out of Heinrich Himmler over Himmler’s difficulties in getting a girlfriend, so Himmler had him murdered on the night of the long knives. Safer to keep quiet . . .
It’s not like this in mainstream American society, and for precisely that reason, the manosphere creeps are a serious liability. They alienate the vast majority of men as well as women. To get a sense of how wildly unpopular the reactionary agenda is among American men, take a look at this survey:
https://www.kff.org/other/poll-finding/washington-post-kaiser-family-foundation-feminism-survey/
A whopping 5% of them consider themselves “antifeminist.” The near-consensus among men and women about women’s rights surprised even me when I first saw this survey. We even agree on the priority to be assigned different women’s issues by the feminist movement, with both sexes assigning top priority to combatting domestic violence and sexual assault. (Equal pay for equal work hardly matters if you’re dead!)
https://www.kff.org/other/poll-finding/washington-post-kaiser-family-foundation-feminism-survey/
Another interesting statistic here is that women are almost a likely as men to believe that women’s own choices are the cause of women’s relatively lower career achievement compared to men.
Impressively, men were slightly more likely than women to accuse feminists of looking down on SAHMs. The upshot is that American men want women to be free to make our own choices. I always try to keep this in mind when I get frustrated with WN misogyny.
So the question remains: Why is misogyny so rife in American WN?
I think there are a couple of possible answers to that question.
First of all, American men tend to be more individualistic, and more averse to socialism, than European men. White American women do not agree with this point of view, and that creates a sense of political conflict.
A related issue is that women may in fact be somewhat more “hypergamous” in America because of the lack of a social safety net. I don’t know if this is true or not, but I suspect that women in countries with a more reliable welfare system place less emphasis on wealth and status in mate selection.
Third, precisely because American men are more individualistic, it is difficult to mobilize them to defend their race, which they are very disinclined to care much about. The temptation, therefore, is to try to rope them in by appealing to male chauvinism.
For the reasons I outlined above, this strategy is doomed to fail in the long run. You can recruit enough men to create a movement, but it will never go mainstream.
Now, all of this is just speculation on my part. I don’t know if these are the real reasons or not. I’m just suggesting these factors as possible explanations.
Thanks, Lexi, what you say is very interesting. I cannot help thinking that some WNs have internalised the idea of white privilege to the same degree as the most resentful dindoo, but with the opposite perspective on its merits, to such an extent that they feel cheated if (without having to make too much effort!) they do not have a high status occupation, a big house in a good area, an expensive car and of course an attractive wife who will just dote on her husband’s every word and sweep up his empty beer bottles after him! TBH, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read some of the manosphere stuff.
@Lexi,
This is phrased poorly. White American women are probably more likely to support socialism compared to White American men, but I doubt the gap is any wider than the percentage of White men that vote GOP compared to the percentage of White women that vote GOP. In other words, I doubt there is any sort of chasm where White American men reject socialist policies whereas White American women support socialist policies. If you have studies or numbers which demonstrate otherwise, please share.
Within the WN Movement, I see equal intensity between men and women when it comes to support for socialism, at least among the Nazbol crowd. Furthermore, the two issues that most Pro-White women who publicly comment on sites like Twitter or Amren seem to be passionate about are gender and sexuality. (On Amren, this has been going on for over a decade, specifically the war over “Coal Burners vs. Yellow Fever”). I can think of two racialist women off the top of my head who spend an inordinate amount of time on Twitter shilling for socialism, and I’m pretty sure one of them isn’t even White. What I’m saying is, White men in the WN Movement are most emphatically NOT misogynist because of some perception that White women support socialism.
My theory for the misogyny in the movement is this: When you take the redpill on race, you realize that you were lied to about a topic/subject of immense social importance. So then, you end up asking yourself, “what else have I been lied to about?” This is often what leads to paranoid conspiracy theories, such as the moon landing being faked, but more commonly, it leads to a mindset that causes one to react to other socially important topics by taking the opposite position of whatever the mainstream consensus is.
This starts by rejecting the mainstream consensus within liberalism, and then the mainstream consensus within conservatism. This mindset is egged on by a mentality that the “slippery slope” is inevitable. The source of this slippery slope fallacy is all-or-nothing, black and white thinking, which is a common mentality among those with Asperger syndrome. Even among those who are neurologically normal, clinging to the slippery slope fallacy is still common among intellectually inclined people who have no tolerance for randomness and who lack proper respect for the human will to draw a line in the sand.
Simply put, WN men turn to misogyny because, logically, it is the opposite of feminism. In the same way they rejected racial egalitarianism, they feel they must also reject feminism, both for the sake of ideological consistency, and also because, in their minds, if Racial Equality and Feminism go hand in hand, then surely Racial Consciousness and Misogyny must go hand in hand to. They also justify misogyny by claiming that it is necessary for healthy communities. I will not elaborate on this, as it is obvious to you, me, and every other decent person why this justification is utterly twisted and toxic.
In reality, there is no reason why White Nationalists can’t reject racial equality and embrace the liberation of women. I say that unironically. White women should be allowed to vote, hold down a regular job, own property, marry a man of their choice, and most importantly, have sex with who they want. In any healthy society, there will be restrictions on who men and women can marry – no interracial relations, no incest, etc – and these would apply equally to both genders, but contrary to what the Manosphere wants, there will never be a return to the “good old days” where women were literally forced to stay at home and were the property of men. The White Race has moved past that, and rightfully so. That’s what feminism was all about.
In a nutshell the derogatory term Karen is anti-white. No matter how you slice it. This is about marginalizing whites and shutting them up. So she called the cops on a guy that threatened her, so what? The guy did in fact threaten her. I have called the police many times on blacks. What does that make me? So Karen’s complain and make a fuss over things – so what. All this reading into it about consumerism, blah, blah, is just nonsense.
What this is really about is creating an atmosphere where whites can’t say anything about the minorities or ANYTHING else. Witness the Jews. Can you say anything about the Jews without getting into some kind of trouble? NOPE. This is the exact same deal.
This is dispossession of your country, your culture and where you fit in it. Their plan for whites is they won’t be happy till whites are a beaten down minority everywhere. Bet on it.
All this reading into it about consumerism, blah, blah, is just nonsense.
When Trey Knickerbocker at OD reported on a racial attitudes survey by the IFS, he declared:
“On two of the three questions, women scored several points higher than men – essentially shattering the Incel/MGTOW/Manosphere assertion that women are nothing more than worthless whores that would just as quickly breed with a Negro than with a White Man.”
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2018/08/19/new-survey-what-exactly-does-a-white-nationalist-look-like/
He obviously greatly overestimated the importance of empirical fact in the discourse of the dissident right.
The Central Park Karen controversy undermines the WN misogynist narrative even as it bolsters the mainstream narrative on White racism.
A White woman was caught on camera expressing herself in a manner that reveals a degree of racial awareness. Fearing they will lose control of the debate surrounding women in the dissident right, of course they are going to try to spin this as further justification for their hatred of women.
Thank you for calling BS.
I think its more an issue of conflating and confusing SJWs with legitimate grievances.
Some ‘Karen’s are SJW’s and viciously anti-White and virtue signalling.
As is recognized in this article. Becky is calling too.
I think its more an issue of conflating and confusing SJWs with legitimate grievances.
You’re very generous.
Some ‘Karen’s are SJW’s and viciously anti-White and virtue signalling.
So why the steady stream of articles about women, some attacking and others defending? Isn’t it the same for White men? The claim (totally baseless, as far as I can tell) is that White women are particularly likely to turn on their own race for personal gain or status.
Well said. The Karen’s have been mixed up and equated with the SJW’s
But I’ve been there— seeing people flout the law, or decency, or responsibility because it can be assumed that YOU will hold up your end of the ‘social contract’.
You don’t litter, you don’t flout noise bylaws, you pay all the taxes for the social infrastructure hundreds of others exploit.
Non-Whites act implicitly like its you’re responsibility to subsidize them and not complain
Hell NO
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