It seems like a million years ago that men and women would have sex and start popping out babies without ever thinking about politics.
Nowadays, men and women hardly talk to one another because politics gets in the way.
If you’ve been unlucky enough to find yourself anywhere near a computer over the past ten years, you’ve seen headline after headline announcing that politics are cockblocking men and women from getting together and getting it on:
Politics are increasingly a dating dealbreaker — especially for women
Most Democrats who are looking for a relationship would not consider dating a Trump voter
The partisan marriage gap is bigger than ever
From Swiping to Sexting: The Enduring Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships
Political Differences Would Make 3 in 5 People Dump Their Partner
Audio version: To listen in a player, use the one below or click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
Back around 2015-2016, when I found myself in the emotionally harrowing and sexually shameful position of using dating apps to snag some tail, there were at least two instances where the fact that I didn’t raise my right hand and swear before God and man that Donald Trump was Satan incarnate meant I would be spending the night alone.
Just like most things in this savagely unequal world, the sexual-political divide doesn’t cut equally from left to right and from female to male. According to my own observations and from the polls I’ve seen, Leftists are far more adamant about refusing to share bodily fluids with the other side than those who lean Right, and women are far more likely to dry up at the prospect of coitus with a male conservative than men are prone to going limp at the thought of humping a liberal chick.
According to a recent study that combined results from two separate polls taken in May and September, the sexual-political chasm seems especially wide between the young:
This gender gap is most pronounced for 18-34 year olds [sic]. There is a 21-point gap between the percentage of women and men under 35 who consider themselves to be progressive or liberal. This gap is slightly smaller among those aged 35-49 (18 pts). However, this gap collapses among the 50-64 (9 pts) and 65+ (7 pts) age cohorts.
Are older people naturally more politically compatible? Or, heaven forfend, have hostile forces purposely started driving a political wedge between the sexes, especially those of breeding age?
To me, the most interesting takeaway from the survey is that fully 50% of women and only 29% of men would see it as a red flag if their potential date said they didn’t care about politics. Based on this poll, women these days are more histrionic and militant about politics than men are. They’ll use politics as an excuse to avoid having sex — or at least to avoid having sex with men.
It wasn’t always this way. In 2015, a survey by dating site Match “found that 78% of singles would date someone from across the aisle in its annual Singles in America survey.” Only seven years later, that quotient had nosedived down to 46%.
Believe it or not, way back in the days before people lived entirely online and social media started microwaving their brains to the point where they couldn’t handle anything more complicated than memes, people had sex because they were sexually attracted to one another. They’d meet for dinner, charm the pants off one another, and perpetuate the species.
Now they’re simply replicating talking points and barking at anyone who disagrees. In the process, the line between personal and political identity has been obliterated. There are no real people anymore, only walking, talking campaign ads.

You can buy Jim Goad’s ANSWER Me! here.
The political Blue and Red are as savagely polarized as Crips and Bloods. In a culture that only permits two cults, there is no longer any middle ground, no agreeing to disagree. In a world that mandates fanaticism and treats individuality as blasphemy, there is no difference between one’s sexual preferences and one’s politics. If you don’t want to have sex, that’s fine — but you must have politics.
If your political differences make it impossible for you to even talk to one another, the odds of you eventually stripping down and mating will plummet to zero.
Is this all a coincidence, or has it been orchestrated?
The term “natural increase” refers to births outpacing deaths in a given demographic. For white people, natural increase ended in 2016 when deaths began outpacing births. In 2016, 39,000 more white Americans died than were born. Compare this to 1999, when 393,000 more whites were born than died.
I vaguely remember 1999. It was a much sexier time. It was before smartphones existed and social media was inescapable and everything you thought and did was bogged down with political baggage. It’s when people thought of one another as . . . well . . . people rather than noble comrades or ignoble enemies. It was before political monomania poisoned everyday life, before being hyper-connected paradoxically led to mass alienation.
In 1800, the average American woman of childbearing age — who back then was statistically far likelier to be white than the average American woman is now — had seven children. In 2021, the white fertility rate was a mere 1.6, which is well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman.
For years I’ve felt that the brain-battering levels of political polarization we’re seeing is merely an organic sign of a society ready to collapse and that people instinctually pick sides because they sense a war over food and shelter is coming. But more and more I’m wondering to what degree this has all been manufactured.
When society shifted so that women were encouraged to get out of the kitchen and go to college, it encouraged them to “take control of their bodies” and lean politically leftward. As Leftism increasingly became vocally and maliciously anti-male, it forced men to flee toward the Right.
Conspiracies are real. Any honest reading of history would reveal that unless groups conspire to gain and hold onto power, another, more Machiavellian group will come along and dethrone them. To my consternation, I’ve found that people are far more likely to believe the Earth is flat or that the CIA is spiking the water supply with hormones to make frogs gay than they are willing to entertain the idea that the political “Left” and “Right” are purposely manufactured illusions designed to divide people.
What if political polarization has been a scheme all along — one designed to foment hostility between the sexes and drive down birthrates?
I have no evidence for my little hypothesis. It’s merely a sick hunch. But even if it’s purely coincidence, ideological division is leading to demographic disaster.

Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else 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. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- 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, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 624
-
Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, and Female Hypergamy: A Response to Rob Henderson’s Article “All the Single Ladies” pt 2
-
Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, and Female Hypergamy: A Response to Rob Henderson’s Article “All the Single Ladies”
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 623
-
Men Only Want One Thing And It’s Disgusting
-
Not Hooking Up
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 622: Morgoth and Millennial Woes on Britain’s Rape Gang Scandal
-
Hooking Up
36 comments
If your theory is correct then someone really did their homework. I was always told that women were lured out of the kitchen because the powers that be wanted everyone paying taxes. It could be that political polarization was just an unintended consequence.
The Depression, not feminism, killed the trust between the sexes. Mass unemployment led to many White men being forced to travel looking for work and, in many sad cases, abandoning their families altogether.
The deep logic of first wave feminism was ‘not having to rely on a man for survival’, each woman having their own income and removing that part of their survival from male decision-making.
Capitalism created the struggle between the sexes, not ‘feminism’.
‘Feminists’ merely accentuated the toxin the capitalism had already inserted into the Body of Whiteness during the Depression: The hunger and prostitution that resulted from loss of income when men walked away.
If working for 53 years and saving a portion of my earnings each year, and putting my savings into interest-bearing CD’s and even a few stocks, is considered ‘the horrors of Capitalism’, then I’m all for it! It has saved my life in my old days now. I’ve been married and divorced, (and unfortunately did not have children due to medical problems) and if I had not saved my own money, I’d be destitute and on welfare. I am definitely not a ‘feminist’, but rather a fan of Ayn Rand Capitalism.
I am very concerned that White American women are not getting married and having children, and I do blame it on the shrieking feminists in our midst which actually condemn women who desire marriage and children. A truly strong woman can indeed “have it all”: marriage, children, a career and her own money, and a great relationship with a strong man as her husband and partner earning his share of the money to keep the family together and thriving. I hope my dream on this subject comes true. Stay tuned.
I am a fan of 1950’s sci-fi movies. A recurring character is the brainy but hot female scientist or scientist’s assistant in an otherwise all-male (and wonderfully all-White field.) She and the male lead often engage in gendered repartee where the mutual sexual energy is clear. But they are more collegial than competitive. The proto-feminist tension between the sexes is present but most often it serves a romantic sub-plot where the male finally captures her affections and they are headed for marriage.
As we get closer to the 60’s, you find more shrill and hostile females in this role where repartee gives way to the complaint and accusation you find in portrayals of the original suffragettes. This stew has been cooking a long time.
The female seismologist in Tremors(a great homage to the sci-fi of the 50’s) comes to mind. She’s cute but kind of nerdy, feminine but tough, smart but not cocky and has a pleasant demeanor, unlike the bitchy girl boss types we see too often these days. The wife and I recently rewatched it and I mentioned to her that we rarely see women characters like her in movies anymore.
Sic transit gloria mundi…I hope there will be a healthy revival after what seems to be an inevitable collapse of this civilization.
I’ve found that differences in ideology don’t have to be a deal breaker. Perhaps some of that has changed in recent times.
It should be helpful for someone to get far enough into the “getting to know each other” phase, in which there’s at least a little mutual interest, before easing into political topics. Then, someone might hear you out rather than blow you off. However, doing so prematurely will label oneself, in which the penalty thereof is to be cast into the abyss. In the typical NPC, that will activate the “if ideology=x then gosub triggering” code. Even so, the situation might not be completely unrecoverable, if you can avoid getting put on the defensive and turn it into an opportunity for lighthearted teasing. Hopefully that made sense; if not, I blame sleep deprivation.
If that is the case, then it is far more sinister than dividing the sexes. The West, particularly its ruling regime, is almost in hysterics about collapsing population and the desire for unending growth of consumption through unending growth of consumers. If it is the case that they want to lower birth rates by creating irreconcilable divides between the sexes, than it is at odds with their desire to perpetuate their debt ponzi scheme through population growth.
That then leads one and only one other conclusion. Since the debt ponzi population growth hysteria is motivated by the most powerful motivator of all; more and more money, then underneath it is something so sinister and on such a scale that it has never been done before on earth. That is, the intentional mass genocide of Occidental Man across three massive continents and a smaller set of islands.
We are in uncharted depths of evil if that is the case. I remember as a child when the hysteria was constant that there were too many humans and the world was over-populated. The world was going to enter a new ice age and there were too many humans. That is not so many years after the Fatal Immigration Act.
Suffrage goes back to the 19th century. I doubt this was planned out then or even when they wanted a whole new consumer base of smokers in the 1920s. I just keeping thinking about something Wilmot Robertson said in, “The Dispossessed Majority.” He said something like, ‘We are being run by a group of people who don’t have any track record of ever successfully running a country or civilization.’
Perhaps all of this is just a massive feast of unintended consequences dished up by people of average IQ with a massive amount of hubris, a penchant for, shall we say, intense salesmanship, and at best no real concern for anyone but themselves.
In any case, this war between the sexes has got to stop. Sadly, for white people, given college attendance rate disparities between young men and women, they are increasingly no longer even on the same battlefields.
Why couldn’t the polarization of the otherwise warm relation between the sexes have been instigated by a conspiracy?
The “father of propaganda”, Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, was instrumental in convincing women to start smoking through staged public display and advertising. It was sold as a sign of independence and an act of defiance against males even if women of that time only used smoking as a sh!t test in their attempt to score a mate. Either way, the power of manipulation behind the scenes was demonstrated.
Bernay’s shenanigans are documented, not part of speculation.
Well, what should we C-C readers do about this? Dance with Mestizas, in the name of American unity and de-polarization?
Of course, these developments are to be lamented. But the solution, in my view, is not to eagerly leap into the fetid dating pool, lamenting ‘how people are all at each other’s throats, these days’. This would be the behavior of a nostalgic boomer, and not of a young revolutionary, the builder of a new society – the behavior of a conservative, who seeks to calm tensions, reducing the pace of the frog-boiling, but allowing it to continue, so long as it does not obstruct his dalliances with women.
No, we must not falter in the face of our isolation, when so many of our own people have turned against us, mixing ourselves willingly back into Israel Zangwill’s melting pot, lured by the siren-songs of White Boy Summer, or by fond memories of suburban paradise, of the halcyon days when many a koryos mounted their skate-boards, to give an outlet to their vanity and to impress ‘the babes’.
We cannot waste, in this critical hour, the flame of race-consciousness, of ancestral knowledge and culture, which we carry. We must nurture and spread it – by ‘tribing up’ – by building a parallel society – if only in our own families, with like-minded spouses.
The only way out of the problem that you have described – the erosion of White societies – is the construction of new White societies to replace them, through the self-selection of an in-group.
when so many of our own people have turned against us
Does this include the white people who’ve unwittingly been duped into turning against white “boomers” and blaming them for everything? The innately illogical and factually baseless tenets of generational astrology couldn’t possibly be an anti-white divide-and-conquer tactic, right?
I would also think that “impressing the babes” is a far more efficient mating strategy than “alienating the babes” by spending your life hanging out in squirrelly, bitter, self-righteous all-male pro-incel online circle jerks…no?
But sure, spend your life carping about white boomers and white women. Sounds like a foolproof plan for unity. Let me know how that “revolution” turns out for you, fella.
No, man, I don’t have any problems with White women, and I don’t resent old people as a group.
I recall your articles dealing with ‘generational astrology’, as you say, and the resentment of Boomers, or the desire of some people to ascribe particular traits to a generation (never mind that these generational divisions are themselves arbitrary …) – when I talk about “the behavior of an old man”, I mean the desire to return to the past as such, sometimes not recognizing that this is impossible. The behavior of Constitution-bashers, who seem not to realize that the enemies of our people and our liberty have already defeated and escaped the Constitution. I believe this is a rather timeless criticism of the old, and so I am not engaging in ‘generational astrology’.
To be clear, I do not, as you have said, mean to BLAME ‘boomers’ for the issues which we discuss at C-C.
I mean that I see your article, and the points you raise, as essentially complaining about division and polarization in society, as such – as their own problems. No, the problem is that we are losing the society, that White culture is distorted and replaced, that White people are becoming extinct. That a psychological war is also being waged against us, which has allowed our enemies not only to weaken and confuse the race, but to set it against itself. These are the causes, and polarization is the consequence. The consequence is to be lamented, but the focus must be on naming and fighting the causes.
With this clarification- I stand by my remarks
Lastly, are you calling the Counter-Currents comment section a bitter, self-righteous circle-jerk?
I mean, it can be, at times …
Whites are not ‘losing society’, at least not in America. We lost our society in the 1860s with the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression. Before the War of Northern Aggression, American Whites had rights. After the War of Northern Aggression, only money had rights.
As far as I am concerned, Whites lost their ‘society’ when ‘Christianity’ (Helleno-Judaism) began attacking indigenous White spiritual practices in Rome.
TLDR: Whites haven’t had a ‘society’ of their own for a long, long time. We’re losing very little by chucking the last 2500 years of ‘tradition’. We need to chart our own course based upon what we want. That’s the revolutionary question, not ‘How do we save our ancestor’s society?’
when I talk about “the behavior of an old man”,
Why are you putting that in quotes, as if that’s what you originally said? What you originally said was:
the behavior of a nostalgic boomer
What an odd attempt at revisionism.
‘We cannot waste, in this critical hour, the flame of race-consciousness, of ancestral knowledge and culture, which we carry. We must nurture and spread it – by ‘tribing up’ – by building a parallel society – if only in our own families, with like-minded spouses.’
Maybe not.
The way the racial enemies of Whites beat us was by infiltrating our institutions, not creating parallel ones.
The idea of ‘parallel society’ is an admission that Whites cannot undo what has been done and that the entire cultural capital of a thousand years of breeding and creating has to be abandoned because this generation cannot figure out how to win.
My suggestion is that victory starts in your heart. It starts with loving all Whites unconditionally, but loving pro-Whites more. Cultivate patience and compassion. Make it your discipline to be grateful for every White person you meet. Radiate benign racial affection for every White because they are White, and not because you think they might share some of your political beliefs or cultural inclinations.
People since your anger and disdain and will not trust you.
Without trust between Whites, we’ll be prey to our enemies forever.
The way the racial enemies of Whites beat us was by infiltrating our institutions, not creating parallel ones.
Yes, and thinking that we can do it to them is a very simplistic idea.
It also needs to be considered how come that infiltration worked at all? How come a lot of people are incapable of making up their own minds and let someone in position of power to do their thinking for them. And the answer is very simple, these people are genetic descendants of people who had the same brain structure in which you don’t do much thinking yourself, but rather let some kind of book and a priest do your thinking for you. The modern day leftist is the religious fanatic of the past.
Only way to overcome this situation is to select a partner who is by the virtue of her genes more ethnocentric and/or more resistant to brainwashing. And have the people who share those views form a parallel society. Much like what happened to the jews when they were living abroad, the less ethnocentric ones converted to christianity and bred out, the ethnocentric ones kept within their own tribe.
To summarize – the problem with anti-white whites is their genetics, not some kind of lack of brotherly love towards them. And the solution to this problem can only be a genetic one as well.
I didn’t advocate for engaging in an infiltration campaign against our racial enemies. That worked against Whites because we lacked the necessary paranoia and territoriality to prevent infiltration. So, your remark about infiltration has nothing to do with my position.
As for your ‘find a good ethnocentric woman and breed ethnocentric warriors’ solution it relies more on factors over which you have no control. And in 70+ years of advocating ‘breed more Aryan warriors’ things have only gotten worse for Whites. Basically, the success of your ‘White women’s womb’ strategy depends upon your ethnocentric progeny being able to live in a pro-White society…which means you have to solve the problem of creating a pro-White society in for your ‘White women’s womb’ strategy to work at all.
Whites need to change their way of thinking and reacting to each other.
‘[T]he problem with anti-white whites is their genetics, not some kind of lack of brotherly love towards them. And the solution to this problem can only be a genetic one as well.’
If that’s your analysis, then I understand why you came to your ‘womb strategy’.
But I don’t accept your genetic determinism. We know that ethnocentrism exists among European Whites, it just expresses to varying degrees. The excessive altruism that is so destructive is entirely due to socialization, which is something anyone can take action to change.
Genetic determinism and the ‘White women’s womb’ strategy is (a) too slow and (b) doesn’t address the realities of socialization.
In effect, ‘It’s all genetics’ isn’t politics at all. It doesn’t point toward a workable solution.
Ref. “…construction of new White societies…”, one of them is called Ozarkia; headed by Billy Roper. Lookup “Shieldwall Network”.
Read F Roger Devlins work. I don’t know that there was a conspiracy to lower birth rates, but the decadence we see now was inevitable due to the cultural revolution in the 60s and 70s. It’s all down hill from there regarding family formation.
Nonsense. The Pill is what reduced birth rates. Nothing else even comes close. I’d love to see a poll, but my guess would be that well-to-do White liberals do their part to keep the White race alive at least much as well-to-do White rightists.
The issue of birth rates has to do with capitalism, not feminism.
Most households would be happy to not be employed at all and receive a stipend merely to breed and read (or play horseshoes or freelance carpentry).
Capitalists were able to lower wages by increasing the workforce via driving women into the workforce (the same thing happened with Negros).
Capitalism created feminism, our racial enemies just figured out ways to promote their anti-White agenda by riding the horse in the direction that capitalism was already driving it.
I’d say it’s both the pill and feminism.
Fortunately, whites are not the only ones seeing a drop in birthrates.
Everywhere outside of Sub-Saharan Africa is struggling to procreate.
Fewer non-whites being born abroad means fewer who can come over to the West.
I don’t think it’s ‘unfortunate’ that there are fewer humans. I think that it’s unfortunate the Whites don’t take better care of the Whites who are alive. And, yes, virtually every demographic group is undergoing below-replacement rates. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa.
https://imperiumpress.substack.com/p/the-third-world-is-going-to-cop-it-b9e
Prior to 1960s many workplaces forbade married women from working. Since co-habitation without marriage was a scandal, pregnancy even more so and contraception was an unreliable chore, women had strong incentives to marry. In a spiritual, play and propaganda environment which lauded motherhood most were happy to let their husbands do the paid work whilst they kept house and cared for the family. Some may have even had time to read Aldous Huxley and chuckle that such a thing could never come to pass.
In other words, men extorted sex and compliance from women using existing power-relations. This is exactly the reason why ‘feminism’ took hold among ordinary White women.
One of the major problems for having White advocacy associated with ‘right wing’ or ‘conservative’ views is that the Right and Conservatism are all about taking away rights and privileges when they have no power to effect such subtractions.
In the end the future of White advocacy concerns ‘What do Whites want?’, not What does the White Right want?’
If you want to put it like that, although I’m sure almost nobody at the time would have. It was just how things were and most could see the sense of it.
I think it’s more about what’s good for Whites; and was that millieu truly more coercive than the current one? People had choices, but the incentives and zeitgeist favoured family formation and sex roles for which men and women have long evolved. The new arrangements aren’t working that well.
Hamburger Today: In the end the future of White advocacy concerns ‘What do Whites want?’, not What does the White Right want?’
Bingo! When do you ever hear Jews or blacks talking about “the Jewish right” or the “black right”? Never. They never talk about “the Jewish left” or the “black left” either. And it seems to work for them. Left-right is a divide-and-conquer tactic. I know it’s going to be a hard sell, but it’s the truth.
There has always been a battle of the sexes, but there’s never been a decisive winner because too many on each side are cavorting with the enemy [I don’t remember who I’m stealing that from]. Left vs. right has been around since at least the time of the French Revolution, so I’m not sure that explains recent shifts in dating and mating as much as feminism does. Despite the changes advanced during the feminist era, women’s happiness has declined since the 1970s. From the time they are teens they are told to expect ever more… only to have cold shower of reality eventually set upon them.
I think its best to not talk politics with neighbors, coworkers or prospective dates. When they have gotten to know you, some of your views might be easier to swallow. Times have changed but by and large women don’t highly rate a soy boy with a pierced septum. The old Shangri-Las tune still rings true with “He’s good bad, but he’s not evil”.
The old Shangri-Las tune still rings true with “He’s good bad, but he’s not evil”.
However, it would be best to avoid having his “dirty fingernails.”
Great essay. I think that in order for a pro-White movement to be genuinely pro-White and not a medium for some other political inclinations, White advocates need to interrogate every form of ‘division’ that is driving Whites apart.
What makes ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ so bad is that it’s used as a ‘wedge’ issue between Whites.
Why is ‘agree to disagree’ so impossible? Is it because Whites don’t want it or because various other non-Whites don’t want it?
I’d like to think that if Whites could actually have a conversation between Whites only, that Whites could sort out some kind of acceptable alternative form of continental organization that allows everyone to feel politically safe.
And yes, that mean asserting the bourgeois value of political ‘comfort’ (safety) before all other virtues.
Our racial enemies have turned ‘rocking the boat’ into a salvational credo that Whites can just as well do without.
What’s obscured by ‘the left’ and ‘the right’ is the fact that Whites mostly want the same thing whether they’re ‘on the left’ or ‘on the right’ and that many of the ideas of the left (like community investment and community banking) dovetail nicely with some of the more adventurous ideas on the right about usury and local currency production and control.
Overall, though, the NGO Left is far more advanced, networked and ready to operate ‘in the clear’ than the NGO Right. Which means that ‘the right’ would be the ‘junior partner’ in any coalition.
In fact, I think it’s fair to ask ‘What would the Racial Right bring to a political coalition that the other partners would want?’
I realize it will not sound great of me, but I have always felt something between pity and contempt for men who claim to be Democrats. It is inherently weak minded. They are either sort of dumb/weak or doing it to placate the women around them. Either way, gross.
This is just self-comforting.
The Democrats have successfully implemented every single one of their major policy objectives for over 100 years. They’ve never permanently lost a single struggle with ‘the Right’ or ‘conservatives’.
If ‘success’ is any measure of determination and clarity of thought, it’s the Democrats who have it, whereas ‘the Right’ and ‘conservatives’ are ‘weak minded’ losers.
I would have to respectfully disagree. Leftist success is generally a product of better organization, more determination and enthusiasm, information control, the “Long March through the Institutions”, and lawfare. The left is running circles around us with all that, and the right is barely off the ground floor in countering it. I hate to say it, but the right is as organized as a pillow fight, and this is something that needs to change.
That is to say, leftists in general may be overrepresented by not-so-impressive types such as soy boys and noodle-armed sociology professors, but as far as political struggle goes, they’re playing to win.
We don’t disagree. ‘The Left’ however, isn’t so much organized as it has developed a culture that allows it to organize on the fly, self-correct and move on. The whole ‘move fast and break things’ mentality that Silicon Valley elites think is so cool when applied to others.
The original poster wanted to talk DNC vs GOP, so I came their ‘framing’.
The White Vanguard has to walk away from all prior commitments and embrace the Is. I think we’re gradually doing this. But the Racial Right will always be about fantasy because it will never simply accept that they lost and their ‘traditions’ didn’t save them and won’t.
The Lefts street-level successes are because of a culture of dialog and ‘therapy talk’ that allows the building of trust between competing interests. The Judeo-Left exploits this – mostly White – dialogic culture.
With rare exceptions, the White Right treats politicking as a debate even while relying on the rhetoric of ‘war’ or ‘struggle’.
The real struggle for White Nationalists is rooting out all anti-Whiteness from our responses and behaviors. It’s practicing see ‘White’ before all other features of a person and feeling affection for a person’s Whiteness before one knows anything else about them.
Loving your fellow Whites no matter what is the key discipline.
It’s easy to love Whites who agree with you.
But even the most anti-White White is leaf floating in a sea of darkies.
Just like you and I.
The white fertility rate has been low for decades and in some countries it’s been low since the 1960s. In the 1990s it was low everywhere except for Utah and Amish country.
The bottom line is that women don’t like responsibility. Women have a way of rationalizing everything, even heinous crimes. They aren’t programmed to take responsibility for anything but raising small children. Men have been responsible for provisioning, leading and protecting their clans since humans appeared on earth.
Women will cry “My body, my choice” but men never think to say “My resources, my choice” because it would look like they’re shirking responsibility.
The white fertility rate is what happens when you give a group of people (women) who are averse to responsibility total power over reproduction. Women decide if and when a child is born; accidental pregnancies are a thing of the past. If a woman gets pregnant, the man who impregnated her has no say over the fate of the child. It’s totally in the woman’s hands and if the woman decides to give birth to it the father will be responsible for supporting it.
It doesn’t matter what side women are on politically because it doesn’t change their fundamental nature. The people who are alarmed about falling fertility rates are men (Musk, Putin, Orban). Women in positions of power don’t care about the fertility rate as much as they care about protecting “reproductive rights.”
The only thing that can save the white fertility rate is technology. Men of means can use artificial wombs and skin cells to create clones of themselves. Maybe they can establish a community on the fringes of society somewhere like the Amish. Otherwise, the white fertility rate will continue to decline because women control reproduction.
Gyromite wrote: “The bottom line is that women don’t like responsibility. Women have a way of rationalizing everything, even heinous crimes. They aren’t programmed to take responsibility for anything but raising small children. Men have been responsible for provisioning, leading and protecting their clans since humans appeared on earth.”
This comes across as incredibly bitter and is the type of intragroup division Jim Goad was criticizing recently. Putting the blame squarely on women for the downfall of Western civilization is itself a shirking of responsibility by the men who do it. After all, how could women have so much power if not for large numbers of men assenting to it and thirsty betas enabling this? Also, if you are going to appeal to traditionalism, then you should also address the large numbers of men regressing to playing video games (like “Gyromite”) and to porn, instead of upholding the traditional values they claim to support. It’s just not very traditional to whine online about how much power women have over you.
In my final paragraph, I said a possible way to raise white fertility is via technology that would give men the power to reproduce without a woman. Does that sound like traditionalism to you?
I didn’t talk about my feelings and how traditional my life is so there is no reason to bring them up.
Human beings didn’t start out in egalitarian democracies where men and women agreed on what policies to enact. They were ruled by men and power was vested in strength. Women did not have an equal say in leadership because they weren’t responsible for the tribe. (How could creatures that weren’t capable of protecting a tribe lead it?)
Men see women as mates and women see men as resource providers. That’s how evolution made them.
So don’t accuse me of creating division – there is no unity to speak of.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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
Lost your password?Edit your comment