Counter-Currents
Sign seen at the Equality March in Wrocław, Poland on June 11, 2022.
2,062 words
On December 5, a group of lesbian and feminist activists held a silent protest outside the county courthouse in Oakland, California. They wore sashes identifying themselves as “Woman Adult Human Female” and carried a large banner which read “No Men in Women’s Prisons.” They were protesting the possible transfer of convicted murderer Dana Rivers — a man who identifies as a woman — into a women’s prison. Things were going swimmingly until masked transsexual activists (“trantifa,” if you will) attacked them from out of the blue. They stole their banner, pelted them with eggs and pies, and slammed into them with a bicycle before running off.
Watch a woman peak in real time
She begins by using ‘she’ for murderer #DanaRivers “Do you think it’s justice if she’s put in a violent prison with other men?”
Seconds later “What the hell? I don’t get that! They took your sign! OMG freedom of expression Who are these people? pic.twitter.com/YjB4xG7aig
— mazeks (@JeanMazeks) December 7, 2022
It was four obviously-male trantifa versus about nine women, and the fight wasn’t fair. It lasted several seconds and left the women in disarray. All they could do afterwards was complain about “violent men” and explain to a passerby that this sort of thing happens all the time.
By now, many of us should be aware of the ongoing civil war on the Left, which is both internecine and noteworthy. On one side, we have feminists and lesbians who identify as women and who draw the line at transsexual men becoming women in a legal sense. They are not opposed to transsexualism per se; they just wish to protect spaces traditionally reserved for biological women and girls, such as public bathrooms, prisons, and sports. Such people are known derogatively as “TERFs,” which stands for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist,” and they may not be a match for the forces they are up against.
Opposing them are violent trantifa thugs who are busy claiming status on the Left by projecting their power into mainstream Western life. They do this by forcing normal, “cis-gendered” people to kowtow to their gender prerogatives — which often change with the wind — while claiming to be oppressed along the Civil Rights model of the 1960s. Such people are supported legally and financially by anti-white, globalist villains such as the Anti-Defamation League and George Soros. They also ghoulishly bolster their numbers by promoting gender transitioning among children, and are quick to use violence to get their way. And since the TERF movement consists mostly of women, violence is proving to be an effective tactic.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s novel Charity’s Blade here.
For excellent rundowns of this Left-wing unpleasantness, see Meghan Murphy’s 2017 essay “‘TERF’ Isn’t Just a Slur, It’s Hate Speech” and Tobias Langdon’s Counter-Currents review of Helen Joyce’s 2021 book Trans. Murphy also appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast in 2021 to discuss her permanent ban on Twitter, and how she holds common ground with feminism critic Jordan Peterson. (She has been reinstated on Twitter in the Musk era, apparently.)
I have a conflicted take on this issue. One on hand, my instinct is to revel in schadenfreude as these ladies are forced to reap what they themselves have sown. You want to ignore gender realism, break down the so-called patriarchy, and install women as equals or betters to men? You want to browbeat and feminize men into submission? You want to ensure that men have no place that they can exclusively call their own? Terrific. Trantifa wants to do the same thing with women. And they’re starting with you.
How does it feel?
On the other hand, watching the video of those women being assaulted, I felt an archaic kinship with them. I wanted to leap through my screen and start throwing punches against their cowardly oppressors. I wanted to protect them. Feminism may be misguided on so many counts, but at least what the feminists are defending in this instance is natural. Cultural gender distinctions have a basis in biology, and are indeed ancient and just. Women do need their spaces away from men — and not just for safety concerns. Transsexuals attempting to invade these spaces — in a swift, Bolshevik-style power grab, no less — upends what it means to be a woman. It opens the door for abuse from criminals and degenerates who use transsexualism as an outlet for their predatory behavior. Factor in that no amount of surgery or hormones can make a man less physically imposing and that many of these transsexuals are psychologically unstable to begin with, and you have a genuine threat to women’s safety and identity.
And any threat to women is a threat to men as well, since we are all in this together, right?
Of course, that the feminists are the only ones behaving in a civically responsible manner — which is their God-given, First Amendment right — is another reason to want to take their side in this regrettable dispute.
And the violence trantifa wishes against these so-called TERFs is vicious. Observe:
So what can be done? What should be done?
As sympathetic and courageous as Meghan Murphy, Helen Joyce, and other feminists are in combating this evil, I don’t think the Dissident Right should lift a finger to assist them unless they undergo a long-overdue attitude adjustment regarding gender realism. (And I say this because I want to assist them; they have truth on their side, after all, and their antagonists are loathsome.)
Here is a list of feminist principles excerpted and paraphrased from Murphy’s article above, followed by my Dissident Right responses. Murphy claims these principles are “at the root of feminism.” So, if the issues I raise with them can be overcome (or at least discussed in a productive manner), then perhaps one day some kind of Fem-Right alliance can be forged against this Leftist scourge. Am I being optimistic? You be the judge:
- MM: Feminists believe that women are members of an oppressed class. SJQ: Yeah, no. And certainly not by white men. Gender roles had been assigned out of necessity and honed over thousands of years. Further, differences in outcome between men and women can be chalked up to proven cognitive differences between the sexes rather than oppression. We can talk about anti-female abuse, which, unfortunately, happens. Moving forward, I’m even willing to mete out extra punishment to male criminals in some circumstances if their victims are female. Call it female privilege, if you wish. But this privilege ends there. If women care to compete in male-dominated spheres, they will have to meet male standards. How many women would survive in the military or in physics labs if they had to do that? Further, they will have to put up with men as they are and not insist they censor themselves for being in mixed company. You can’t have it both ways: wanting to be treated like an equal when it suits you, and wanting to be treated like a lady when it suits you. Further, what class of men ever shared as much influence and power with women more than white men? And who gets precious little credit from feminists? You guessed it: white men. White men need to start getting props for allowing feminism to take hold in the first place. Oh, and whenever you throw around the word “patriarchy,” that is an anti-male slur. Awful rich coming from people who decry sexism.
- MM: Feminists challenge the notion of innate or internal gender. SJQ: Yeah, we do, too.
- MM: Feminists have conversations about “gender identity.” SJQ: Whatever.
- MM: Feminists question whether or not children should begin the process of transitioning. SJQ: We on the Right forbid that sort of thing and would impose maximum penalties upon any therapist, counselor, or medical professional who dares even to start transitioning a minor.
- MM: Feminists associate with and defend women who have been labelled “TERF.” SJQ: Give us a reason, and we will, too. First, accept the biological basis of gender realism. Next, accept the biological basis of race realism. I’ve written a lot about Richard Haier’s The Neuroscience of Intelligence regarding the neural reality of IQ (hence the reality of race), but he also discusses sex differences in brain function (going beyond the well-known brain size and structure differences between men and women). After observing brain activity in 44 college students (22 male and 22 female) as they solved math problems, he found that the men showed increased activity in their temporal lobes. Not so with the women:
In the 22 women, we found no systematic statistical relationship between mathematical reasoning ability and brain activity. How the brains in the high SAT-math women were working could not be determined, even though they were solving the same problems as the men equally well.
He concludes that “men and women may process information and problem-solve with different brain networks” and whose brains apparently show “different patterns of activity.” Because of this difference, he argues for always performing separate neuroscientific analyses for males and females.
Then, once we’re on the same page with biology, you can join us on the Jewish Question. Tobias Langdon reveals that many of the most influential pro-trans villains in Helen Joyce’s book are indeed Jews (for example, Judith Butler, Magnus Hirschfeld, Jacques Derrida, Jennifer Pritzker, George Soros, and Jonathan Yaniv). In fact, Jews are grossly disproportionate throughout much of the transgender movement. Yet, Joyce doesn’t connect the dots. It’s almost as if she really doesn’t want to win the existential war feminists are fighting against the totalitarian Left. Remember the oft-quoted Sun Tzu line? “If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear a hundred battles.” If you’re too afraid to even name your enemy, what chance in Hell do you think you have?
- MM: Feminists understand that the root of women’s oppression and male supremacy is in biological sex. SJQ: Yes and no. The root of traditional gender roles and gender differences in ability and temperament is in biological sex. That’s more like it.
- MM: Feminists understand that gender is imposed, and is oppressive/exists to create a hierarchy between men and women. SJQ: Yeah, walk into the teeth of Jewish power and you’ll see what an oppressive hierarchy really looks like.
- MM: Feminists question dogma and mantras like “transwomen are women.” SJQ: We don’t question it. We reject it. And so do you.
- MM: Feminists support woman-only space. SJQ: We do, too. But on the flip side, that means feminists should also support men-only spaces. We can start with the Augusta Country Club and the Boy Scouts of America. Still waiting on the quid pro quo.
- MM: Feminists dispute an ideology that claims “male” and “female” are not a material reality. SJQ: Yeah, except that the Dissident Right takes this a step further and disputes ideologies claiming that race is not a material reality as well. Care to be a rebel and join us?
Of course, if feminists disagree with any of this, they are welcome to a debate. We on the Dissident Right promise to smash only their ideas, unlike trantifa and the Left.
The problem here stems from the lie that feminist icon Gloria Steinem once told about women needing men like a fish needing a bicycle — which was cribbed from something written by male philosopher. (Natch.) If the fish analogy were true, then the victims of the trantifa episode in Oakland would have repelled that puny assault rather than simply get punked and complain about it afterwards. But, you see, the fish analogy isn’t true. Women really do need men. How do you think that attack would have gone if those women had had their husbands present? Less well, I would imagine.
Feminism essentially rejects or deemphasizes not only men as mates and breadwinners, but also the very gender roles that men have evolved specifically to perform. This may work well enough during peacetime, when men are polite and their gender roles are not terribly crucial for survival. But during war, when such roles do become crucial, feminists will have little room to complain when there’s no one there to protect them. This is why feminists who wish to keep their integrity during these TERF wars should consider shifting to the Right for protection — and shifting their minds rightward as well — because with all the malevolent forces they have stirred up with this transsexual business, protection is exactly what they are going to need.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
-
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
25 comments
The way I see it, the deranged gender-benders are not merely in opposition to trans-exclusionary radical feminists; they’re in opposition to womanhood itself. Unfortunately, I doubt too many feminists are going to see the light. Since the Second Wave (beginning 1950s), most of them have been part of the full-spectrum cultural Marxist assault on normal society. They did a remarkably effective job of driving a wedge in society, down to the heart. Then after a long track record of getting almost all of their demands fulfilled, they suddenly find that they’ve become obsolete, overtaken by the newest front of aggressive abnormality.
Anyway, I’ll support freedom of speech for feminists as a matter of principle. However, I won’t go one bit further unless they show a scintilla of appreciation.
I agree. Feminism is a Jewish construct.
In this case, however, I support the lesbians, and I hope they win their battle against the extremists. In this case, feminist-lesbians are the moderates.
The way I see it, the deranged gender-benders are not merely in opposition to trans-exclusionary radical feminists; they’re in opposition to womanhood itself.
No one would say “You’re not a real man” and “Man up” if being a man was simply a matter of having the right anatomy. Being a man is also about carrying out a role. Thanks to feminism, Western society has abandoned the notion that women have a role associated with their maternal nature, which is the only reason transgenderism has legs. Transgenderism wouldn’t go anywhere in a culture that enforced strict gender roles for men and women, because being a woman wouldn’t just be about putting on lipstick and a skirt, but about doing something (having and raising kids) in the same way that being a man isn’t about growing a beard and wearing overalls, but about fulfilling a role (providing and sacrificing). The “doing something” part is a barrier to entry. It was feminists who attacked traditional maternal roles as “oppressive” and “out of date”; therefore it is feminists who are opposed to womanhood not trannies. Trannies are seizing the opportunities created by feminists.
In the Amish world, being a mother is inseparable from being a woman. That doesn’t mean every Amish woman will have children. It means is that motherhood is a norm for women in the Amish world. If that was still a cultural norm among whites, then a man who wanted to pass himself off as a woman would have to participate in the maternal role somehow by adopting children, or by teaching preschool classes, or by being a midwife. “Transitioning” wouldn’t mean wearing women’s clothes and doing whatever you wanted; it would mean taking care of another man’s kids. Under those circumstances, no one would transition.
Feminists have been attacking gender roles long before the movement’s “second wave”:
https://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2019/12/can-feminism-be-reformed.html
Perhaps we should come up with a snappy acronym for the anti-TERF’s. How about Trannys United Rejecting Distinctions, or TURD for short?
That’s a great video. Violence is always exciting. Those four masked Antifa are cowards for attacking nine peaceful women. It was a surprise violent attack, after which those four vermin ran away. Those pigs are typical Antifa, who get legal immunity from the US judicial system (who are also pigs and vermin).
However, some lesbians can be very tough and dangerous. Some are NCO’s in the military. It’s not wise to tangle with them. But not in this case. Those Antifa were lucky. Next time, maybe not. Then they’ll finally get what they deserve.
Zero sympathy for any of ‘em. Not my tribe.
Every single female feminist voted for the politicians who legitimize “chicks with d***s”. You voted for it (and demonized those who didn’t) so now you can choke on it. I have no innate urge or instinct whatsoever to defend any of them.
I’ll just sit here in the basket of deplorables, bitterly clinging to my guns and religion, and watch the rattlesnakes and fire ants furiously sting and bite each other.
Shouldn’t someone outside the specifically pro-White movement have to ask for our help for the pro-White movement to even consider their request?
This is why feminists who wish to keep their integrity during these TERF wars should consider shifting to the Right for protection— and shifting their minds rightward as well — because with all the malevolent forces they have stirred up with this transsexual business, protection is exactly what they are going to need.
Let’s suppose that TERFs start mouthing dissident right talking points on their social media feeds (saying “white lives matter” etc) – then what? We start showing up at their rallies to protect them from Antifa? If that happened it would be an obvious FBI trap and no one (hopefully, by this point) would be stupid enough to take the bait.
Practical matters aside, what goal is advanced by acting as meat shields for racist feminists? I don’t know what “we’re all in this together” means. Men and women have conflicting interests, so we cannot be on the same page. Whenever women promote legislation or some kind of social change, they don’t think about how it will impact men, only how it will help women. Look at the TERFs. They don’t care how tranny acceptance affects men (in some cases, it helps them e.g. in custody battles and workplace discrimination), only how it affects women. Women are biologically driven to seek resources for themselves, not for men. A “gender realist” of all people should understand this.
If TERFs held their rallies in peace, what would that accomplish that we would possibly care about? Everybody already knows what TERFs believe; they don’t need to make public appearances to remind us. The most TERFs could accomplish is getting some white knight Republican to pass laws banning trannies from public restrooms and from playing on women’s sports teams. In that case, women would retain all of their old privileges but men wouldn’t get their old privileges back. We wouldn’t get control over our families, businesses and private clubs. That would be so regardless of how much TERFs said they love the white race and oppose Jewish power.
At this point, I have to wonder how the dissident right differentiates itself philosophically from conservatism. Outside of race and the JQ, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference.
OMC,
“At this point, I have to wonder how the dissident right differentiates itself philosophically from conservatism. Outside of race and the JQ, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference.”
True. And these two distinctions are huge.
Thanks for your interesting points. No, I don’t think the dissident right should act as “meat shields” in this case. Instead I mean that a TERF, or more realistically a woman who is TERF material but is not one yet, shifts rightward enough to even speak intelligently about race or the JQ then she is no longer a TERF.
With this essay I hope to pulls TERFs away from the left and some of the braver TERFs away from TERFdom, if that makes sense.
Instead I mean that a TERF, or more realistically a woman who is TERF material but is not one yet, shifts rightward enough to even speak intelligently about race or the JQ then she is no longer a TERF.
Why is it impossible to be a “trans exclusionary radical feminist” and a race realist? That’s the position of Anne Marie Waters.
The bigger question here is why you’re seeking to convert this group instead of their adversaries. Why aren’t you open to converting trans women to white nationalism? They have more political cache than TERFs and they haven’t championed policies that have lowered the white fertility rate and put Europeans on a path to extinction. It looks like your preference for TERFs over trannies is based on sentiments. You see trannies smacking these hags and your instincts tell you to protect them. Feelings aside, which group has done more to threaten to survival prospects of whites?
Beating girls at sporting competitions and sneaking into dressing rooms is less of a threat to whites than subsidizing contraception, university education, Affirmative Action (it mostly benefits educated white women, which is probably why population IQs have been falling), sexual harassment and “rape shield” laws, to name just a few of the measures feminists have supported. They have done far more damage to our civilization than trannies could ever hope to.
FYI, I don’t like either group, but I know which one is worse. You want to extend an olive branch to that group on the condition that they embrace white nationalism. How does that make any sense? They can’t completely abandon feminism as long as their main issue is making sure men don’t claim their privileges, because most of those privileges were sponsored by feminists. It’s not merely about “feeling safe,” that’s bullshit.
If we’ll take whatever we can get, why not reach out to trannies?
This reminds me of the Kanye West debate a bit.
Support for West was not support for blacks or diversity, but for JQ awareness and to help to drive a long overdue wedge between Jews and their black bioweapons. So support for TERFS in this context isn’t support for feminism. It’s support strictly for biological reality.
I think the problem some people had with West, was mistaking our long term goals for short term ones. We have to be fluid and see what opportunities come up and take them. The path to what we want is extremely unlikely to be one principled line.
But I’m also kind of sympathetic to the position that we shouldn’t help here. And the reason for that is that some of these feminists have been extremely resistant to the idea that it’s non-whites who pose the biggest threat to women, and who are the biggest oppressors of women. Yet they have been zealous promoters of blacks, systemic racism, race hoaxes on campuses, immigration, diversity and other stuff.
I had a little contact with some hardcore militant feminists years ago. They just seemed mentally ill to me and I was surprised at how they had constructed a whole world of staggering bullshit for themselves.
I doubt most of them are able to fully grasp reality. But they see the reality on the trans issue perhaps because it threatens to demote them as a ‘special’ category. I don’t know
VR,
“This reminds me of the Kanye West debate a bit.
Support for West was not support for blacks or diversity, but for JQ awareness and to help to drive a long overdue wedge between Jews and their black bioweapons. So support for TERFS in this context isn’t support for feminism. It’s support strictly for biological reality.”
An astute point I hadn’t thought of. Yes, you are correct. Thanks.
Former feminist and academic Janice Fiamengo has an interesting perspective about feminism. She comes from the left side of the spectrum, but she pulls no punches when discussing the issues. I wish more women spoke openly against it. All of her videos are on YouTube: “The Fiamengo File 2.0” but here are a couple of links.
“Why I am still an Anti-Feminist” (5 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyRUHSsZZa4&list=PLGFFi6pRCnCdQTe1iG3Tw4Td9jvhY2w74
“Feminism: A Victim Mentality Disorder” (17 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmVjcdze8uA
Thanks for another great one, SJQ. I have mixed feelings about this (transgender rage and violence against feminists). But then again, a lot of people in our Western societies “have it coming.” The chickens are coming home to roost and maybe that’s what will have to happen before some of these people begin to see things differently.
Thank you DF for reading and commenting. After reading your comments I think you and I are on the same page with this issue. I will check out the videos you link very soon.
Another outstanding article from Spencer Quinn. There is a lot of intelligence behind his deceptively simple and straightforward prose. I have almost nothing to disagree with (and I could not have analyzed this issue nearly as well).
I would say, however, that ultimately, the true Dissident Right is at war with the comprehensive ideology of liberalism, of which feminism is merely a subset. WRT feminism, we posit that women should (and under proper social arrangements would) find fulfillment and contentment within traditional norms and roles, not in trying to attain to the same level of individual status or autonomy that men (under conditions of traditionally American liberty under law) naturally enjoy. Put another way, the essence of justice as (I seem to recall) Aristotle understood it is that likes should be treated alike, and ‘unalikes’, unalike. The Right views male and female as THE primary ‘unalikes’ in human life. Therefore, there is no reason to posit that what is best for one sex is likewise optimal for the other. And thus, the proper activity for the Right wrt the Female Question is to investigate the respective natures of modal male and modal female, and then design societal arrangements that best allow for those different natures to flourish. Clearly, there is no reason to think at the outset that such an optimization regime would be one of formal gender “equality” in legal rights, professional activities, or personal and social roles.
Feminism, as I understand it, has generally not been interested in implementing gender-specific reforms, by which I mean changes which maximize each gender’s chances for maximal flourishing in light of their different, respective natures, but rather, with attaining either formal legal and substantive professional equality with men, and/or, more grubbily, but in tandem with the “interest group pluralist” model of American politics that has been dominant since the “civil rights” revolution against traditional America of the 1960s, blatant special privilege legal favoritism for females. IOWs, feminism is a liberal sub-movement mostly following the liberal playbook. Their new battle with aggressive trannies is really no different from similar internecine battles between other constituencies of the Left, such as blacks and Latinos (eg, especially in LA).
Can this be useful to the Right? Perhaps we can occasionally play off one against the other for short term political gains. But, as Quinn of course understands, ultimately we on the white preservationist Right must focus our efforts on building up and empowering OUR community (ie, non-leftist, non-cuckish whites) – said community, after all, being not only the major repository of “One Hundred Percent Americanism” (ie, the true base of what remains of popular support for conservatism and the Old Republic), but also, just possibly, the last hope for the preservation of Europoid genes and the continuity of Western civilization. We are fighting less for better political outcomes today than for the future of our people. All political struggles must thus be assessed in light of the 14 Words, and in that light, TERF wars are an amusing footnote discussion for future historians trying to unravel and explicate the mysteries of very late liberalism’s descent into insanity, nothing more.
LS, thank you for your comments. I do hope that with enough abuse and hypocrisy from the Left at least a few TERFs or TERF wannabes will understand the likes and unlikes you describe. We need to keep our doors open to such people but never lower our standards for them one iota.
This is a great article but we must remember that the RF in TERF is Radical Feminist. They are not high on my list of dinner guests.
“Radical” means to destroy something from the roots, and that means the Patriarchy ─ or in reality to attack men. They are going to zig and to zag, but RF’s will always want things both ways, and at the fundamental expense of men.
It is in the interests of Cultural Bolshevism to destroy normal male/female relationships and especially White families. Nothing good will come from this.
But I’m just as critical of the so-called Manosphere, and find about 99 percent of it to be pure cringe, and eminently gas-able. Whoever coined the term “White Sharia” (assuming they were serious) ought at least to be gassed, LOL.
We have to be VERY careful with the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
That being said, a core feature of the Left is that they view their own literal violence as free-speech, while literally seeing the free-speech of the Right as “violence.”
As civilized peoples we need free-speech, especially our own, and we should even respect proponents of ideas that we disagree with ─ as long as they will talk with us peacefully.
We always need to be willing to have dialog with our enemies ─ but they are not our friends. Diplomacy and War are two parts of the same coin.
Much can be said for fixing problems by their roots instead of by making incremental compromises ─ which is how Democracies work, until the stable become the unstable, and the crazy train goes off the rails. Civilizations are not made nor maintained by the radicalinskis, however.
George Lincoln Rockwell understood this and it was part of his long-term strategy to legally beat the Left by understanding them better than they did themselves. The best battles are won without a bloody fight, and certainly before the train-wreck plunges into the gorge.
Ultimately, we have to learn how to teach cadres and to lead “Normies.” How the Left keeps winning is by ever-normalizing deviance and degeneracy. At some point we have to cross the Rubicon of what is acceptable and just say HALT.
This means that, yes, we do need to protest weird and maybe peripheral things like Drag Queen Story Hour at libraries and school boards ─ and even debate and discuss the Holocaust in academia.
If this attracts ground fire or scares off mountains of ZOG cash, very good indeed. Statecraft is not for the faint-hearted. The First Amendment is enshrined into the law and we have to hold them to that.
I hear a lot of edgy, anonymous podcasters saying that the GOP must be destroyed; they are controlled-opposition, and that White people should not be voting for nor supporting them. I agree.
But in eschewing the Republican Party, it absolutely must not be allowed that this benefits the Democratic Party either.
Jews and swarthy minorities are nearly always Democrats, but the GOP itself is led by the nose with Kosher corporate cash. Both Parties are unmitigated evils and it does not really matter which is the lesser.
Somehow the paradigm itself has to be changed.
To quote the space hippies with ear gauges from the original Star Trek, “I don’t know how to do it but it’s got to be done.”
https://youtu.be/-pNQYHvhnms
🙂
Very good. Yes, these “opposing” activists are just two wings of the same party. If you follow their conversations, you find them falling over themselves to insist how progressive, anti-racist, etc. they are.
I believe these catfights, like stories of Russian Collusion, January 6 “insurrection,” and other virtual hoaxes, are ginned up by the Powers That Be to distract us from serious and existential issues. Just look at how much time and space is wasted by Normie Conservatism on such pointless and absurd matters.
Great comments, Scott. I have little to add except this:
“we must remember that the RF in TERF is Radical Feminist.”
Yes, but TERF is a slur the trannies apply to feminists they cannot control. Feminists don’t call themselves TERFs unless they are being reactionary or ironic. In the eyes of many trannies, JK Rowling is a TERF. But would any of us call her radical?
Mr. Quinn, this is a well-reasoned article that deserves wide circulation. I think your advice is right on target.
Detractors need to step away from the knee-jerk and recognize that you are not suggesting we offer help on their terms (i.e., compromise our message). On the contrary!
Our guys are too used to hearing that goofy thing conservatives love to say so much: “I may not agree with you, but I will die defending your right to believe it!!” (or some variation of thereof), and seem to think that any attempt to persuade others must necessarily be, like that, tantamount to strengthening the enemy and defeating ourselves.
For me it’s simple: anyone who can be converted, should be converted.
As we try, we don’t get desperate and compromise. But no one here popped out of the womb a fully formed White Nationalist. No one, no matter what his pedigree or present credentials. Everyone here eventually “saw the light” and changed ideas.
We are all capable of having a conversation with someone not yet convinced, and doing so without abandoning our principles in the process, and to recognize when we’ve reached an impasse (at that moment anyway).
When that happens, we just move on to the next person.
For me it’s simple: anyone who can be converted, should be converted.
Then why not reach out to trannies? They have more status as a victim category than middle-aged white women, and they have done less harm to whites than the policies advanced by feminists.
Because this status you speak of exists only in the bubble of the Left where reality is inverted. Ultimately, it’s meaningless. OTOH, maybe we could never convert hardcore TERFs and maybe such women are as insidious as the trannies themselves, but they are surrounded by a larger contingent of women (their followers) who can be peeled away from the Left. If we can demonstrate to them in a classy manner that the center or the Right is viable alternative to getting bullied by Trantifa in the street, then that can result in 2 positive outcomes: either the Left simply loses supporters, or they lose supporters who ultimately join the Right. Win-Win.
That’s what conservatives have been trying to do to get white girls to vote Republican and it isn’t working. Women are passive and conformist. Most of them go to university where this gender fluid nonsense is promoted, and the majority of women aren’t threatened by trannies. (I also suspect that raising your son “trans” is a form of post-natal abortion, which feminists have also supported, so it does benefit some women.)
The only scenario I can maybe see where women would view trannies as a threat is if trannies were granted the same legal privileges as women. But they’re not going to become white nationalists for Affirmative Action. They would make like Tulsi Gabbard and join the Republican party because represent “real feminists.”
That’s why it can never be a “win” if TERFs come over to the right. They would only do so to protect privileges that ultimately damage white people.
I would not actively seek out trannies, but if circumstances made us cross paths and be able to have a discussion, I would talk to them as I talk to anyone else, candidly, about my beliefs concerning race, etc.
I would accept a tranny, as a fellow rightist even, if the person had what I perceived to be a genuine change of heart and had given up the advocacy for transexualism and degeneracy; I wouldn’t banish the person, so to speak, forever, simply because he or she had done unfortunate irreparable damage to his or her body.
Of course you would have to be careful what role you encouraged the person to play. But I have a hard time not giving white people a chance (theoretically, anyway), just because their mistakes happened to manifest in a physical, irreversible way that can’t be changed simply by changing the mind.
I greatly enjoy seeing different factions of my enemy going at each other hammer and tongs. I feel no kinship, archaic or otherwise, with any of them. None of them will ever join the Right, nor would I welcome them if they tried. This is their bed; let them lie in it.
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