1,070 words 
The wifejak meme has been the source of some controversy recently. Wifejak is a spin on the wojak meme. She’s a relatable character who says “woman things” that anyone who has been around a woman knows well. Essentially, the meme (which has existed for months but is apparently only now generating controversy after husbandjak, daughterjak, and sonjak have entered the stage) is lightly poking fun at women for being predictable and archetypical.
So why has a section of the online right turned on wifejak in such an explosive manner? This is especially puzzling since, if you scratch the surface, the critics are largely not even anti-family.
As far as I can tell, the original main critique of wifejak actually came from X user @hollowearthterf who also goes by RadFemHitler, and who is apparently a woo woo feminist misandrist. Somehow, she has obtained a following on the online right. Her critique is that wifejak is portrayed as a perennial NPC sidekick to a man, which is quite funny and lacking in self-awareness. The meme is relatable for a reason after all. Most women really do possess the typical “factory settings” personality, in spite of the protests of high(ish) IQ, neurodivergent, and permanently online women. And that’s ok.
Send in the groypers. Nick Fuentes and fans have come out in force against wifejak, saying that it is “cringe” or “gay.” Some groypers went so far as to create art of wife and husbandjak being tortured, killed, raped, etc. This is just sick.
Why all this hate? The reason wifejak is a meme in the first place is because it’s relatable to men who have wives and girlfriends. Thus, it spreads. If you have never been in a relationship—as is the case with perhaps a third of young men, and, indeed, this appears to be the ratio of right-wing X users who are coming out in full force against wifejak—then of course the meme seems stupid, unrelatable, and cringe. But plenty of memes are stupid, so even this does not necessarily explain the crazed reaction.
A better critique is that wifejak posters are “simps,” meaning weak men who put mediocre women on pedestals. Maybe, but I personally haven’t seen that at all. The whole point of the meme is to gently poke fun at women. It is the sort of good-natured teasing that happens in healthy relationships. Unfortunately, many incels have made hating women their personality, so anything that is not pure vitriol is seen as “cucking” or kowtowing to the gynocentric system.
The story of young incels is tragic, but unfortunately the New Right is not a charity nor a shelter for lost boys. For every weirdo we accept, we turn away ten people who we’d actually want among our ranks.
While I have been skeptical of those who attempt to shield white women from critique, this episode has shown that white women really are being unfairly treated in the online public square.
I understand why this is the case. While white women are the most politically conservative women in the US (culturally conservative is a different story), they are also the most outspoken of the deranged libtards. This loud minority attracts flak for all white women. This may simply be because they are considered the most beautiful and thus get more attention. There is also the fact that they are the main beneficiaries of gynocentrism by gaining the most from the modern sexual marketplace. It is easy to see why men are lashing out.
The most nefarious critique is also the most intellectual one: that domestic life is a pathetic goal that detracts from political and cultural action. This is an Evolian/Nietzschean/BAPian critique to which I am sympathetic during any period other than our own.
My issue with this is that young people are simply not having children, certainly not many children. If this continues, the white race will devolve into yet another uncultured fellaheen population unworthy of its former glory, before simply going extinct. It is largely only the dedicated who are having children. But every politically aware person has the ability not only to live a fulfilling family life but also to do his part to raise the birthrate of his people. This is especially important considering the heritability of politics. In the modern West, where we are clearly going through a genetic bottleneck, I would go so far as to say that raising a large family and preserving the traditions of your people is heroic. I am skeptical that even half of young men will accomplish this. There’s nothing shameful about forcing your way through this genetic bottleneck.
“Did you hear about Destiny and Nick Fuentes?”
For 90% of politically active people, this should be their main long-term goal. Political and cultural projects can and should be pursued, but it is important to remain grounded to what actually matters most. None of this matters if there is no posterity to hand it down to, and frankly, we don’t need the entire dissident right to be full time activists. We tried that and the results were disastrous.
Besides, what does most peoples’ “activism” amount to, anyway? Livestreams? Flame wars?
We have many talented activists, researchers, and content creators who are doing what needs to be done in public life, but the fact remains that we are really slacking in private domestic life compared to what we need to be doing in order to achieve total cultural victory.
“Okay but if you had to guess, roughly when do you think you’ll be home from battle.”
I think a lot of the wifejak conflict is based on mutual misunderstandings stoked by one bad actor. The Marco Polo Bridge Incident in China in 1937 is a good illustration. The Chinese and Japanese came to multiple ceasefires, yet every time the ceasefire was inexplicably interrupted by a hidden gunner. The secret lore is that this was likely Chinese Communists getting their two enemies to duke it out. Likewise, the vast majority on both sides of the wifejak controversy are in total agreement on the issue, “Families are good, and we can agree to disagree on the meme.” So who is the hidden gunner who keeps the conflict going? Of course, it is none other than Nick Fuentes.
I wish there were a deeper explanation, but it really just comes down to one bad actor who feeds on drama, a handful of genuinely disturbed individuals who follow him, and probably a whole lot of bots to boost his signal. When will we be rid of these meddlesome subversives?
16 comments
I truly wish that Nick Fuentes fellow would just go away.
Classic ‘I-will-say-anything-for-a-reaction’ Fuentes
“Having Sex with Women Is Gay”
https://www.renegadetribune.com/nick-fuentes-having-sex-with-women-is-gay/
I can’t believe I’m replying to this. I really like this writer but I initially thought the subject is a bit silly. But maybe not. (I never knew that the meme guy was named “Wojak.” And I found out the name of the meme dog: “Cheems.” LOL.)
Nick Fuentes has been mentioned. “This is just sick. Why all the hate?” Here’s the Nick Fuentes video. His diatribe goes on for more than an hour, but for just about 8 seconds he makes an “important caveat” at 21:30 that contradicts what is being said about him (probably easy for people to miss).
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YEma2RlQMx9V
Here’s another “content creator” that I watched who is saying the same thing as Nick but in a different way. I got a little irritated with him because it seemed to take him a long time to get to the point, so again I will spare you the whole thing by telling you where he gets to the gist of the first of 3 mistakes never to make with women (5:10). The gist is that men should not be “weak” (or rather seen as weak, a very important distinction) by putting a woman on a pedestal, because a woman doesn’t want that and will not respect him for it (and will then end the relationship).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRaUoaWnhnc
I invite the women here to ask themselves if “Casey Zander” is on to something or if he is just full of it.
My son is around the same age as Nick Fuentes. Once I heard him talking the way Nick sometimes does and I was (initially) horrified (and I STILL don’t like it). It wasn’t anything about this subject – he was offering non-constructive criticism to his co-workers when I came to pick him up at work (and there were customers in the area. I had a talk with him about it). I think it is partially a generational thing.
I invite the women here to ask themselves if “Casey Zander” is on to something or if he is just full of it.
He is most definitely just full of it.
The gist is that men should not be “weak” (or rather seen as weak, a very important distinction) by putting a woman on a pedestal, because a woman doesn’t want that and will not respect him for it (and will then end the relationship).
And here’s why. The manosphere creeps are abject liars, and there is one particular lie at the root of all (or most) of the others: the idea that you can make reliable predictions about women’s behavior based on “evolutionary psychology.” These predictions are indeed so very reliable that no empirical verification is required. Moreover, when “evolutionary psychology” might reasonably give rise to competing hypotheses, the one that justifies maximum contempt for and repression of women is conclusively preferred. No examination of the evidence is required.
The argument here, as I have heard it expounded many times, is that women evolved to prefer men who are assertive to the point of selfishness because they are perceived as more capable protectors. The problem with this, of course, is that women also need men who are reliable providers. Indeed, this is one of the problems with the whole sinking ship of evolutionary theory: it fails to take account of the fact that evolutionary pressures don’t exist in a vacuum. They can and do cancel each other out. Yes, you can observe natural selection of a sort in real time by exposing bacteria to antibiotics, but the mutants are quickly replaced by organisms of the original, hardier stock once the antibiotics are withdrawn from the environment.
Moreover, the obsession with claims that women “evolved for” this and men “evolved for” that blinds them to the very possibility of human nature. That is, some behavioral tendencies have nothing to do with sex. People want what they can’t have, and the less attainable, the more desirable the object of our interest. Every woman with any significant dating experience knows that the one sure way to get rid of a guy is to promise him eternal love and devotion, or even to mention the “M word” too early in a courtship. Do these manosphere guys think that we don’t pay attention to male behavior and notice patterns?
This comment also casts doubt on these manosphere creeps’ motives. If they’re seriously looking for a relationship, as they claim, why would they care if a woman ends a relationship because a man “puts her on a pedestal”? She’s obviously immature and looking for excitement rather than commitment, and you can’t provide that unless you want to play games for years on end. If you’re ok with playing games, even after you’re married, let’s be honest, you’re not looking for a stable relationship with someone you’d like to raise children with. You’re looking for sex, but then maybe when you say “relationship,” you actually mean sex. I have long suspected as much.
If two people aren’t putting each other on a pedestal early in a relationship, that bodes very ill for the future. If a man thinks you’re “just OK” when you’re 23 and still have you’re girlish figure, what is he going to think of you when you’re 32 and your waistline is gone forever no matter how much weight you lose. If he is just pretending to think you’re nothing special, that’s almost as bad, because he is a control freak who doesn’t want to show vulnerability that might give you any power in the relationship. Run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.
Jared Taylor recently opined that the scapegoating of women in the pro-White movement is “perfectly legitimate.” That’s interesting. I’m not aware of any other ethnic advocate who encourages that sort of thing, but OK fine. If it’s “legitimate” to attack your own women, can we at least insist on proper scholarly standards? Where are all the detailed policy papers, with all the statistical information reduced to clear charts and graphs that Amren produced to justify their assertions about blacks early on in their history? It seems that even Jared Taylor cannot resist the apparently ubiquitous and insurmountable White male tendency to be more considerate of non-White interests and sensibilities than those of other Whites.
All we get from JT is facile speculation about how women “evolved to make sure that the young of the species don’t die.” (Thanks, Captain Obvious. This is another problem with evolutionary theory: the tendency to hype the trivial.) He then goes on to claim that, therefore, having women in positions of power will “change your society,” with the implication that we won’t say no to anyone who wants to come into the country.
I dunno. Didn’t he see that picture of the dead French girl with her White doll next to her in the streets following the Bastille Day Attack? If women evolved to keep children from dying, and you men didn’t because we’re polar opposites in every respect whatsoever, maybe it’s men who are the weak link. They do still dominate government and corporations alike after all, and have done so theoughout the entire history of the West’s ongoing immigration disaster.
On any given day, some manosphere creeps, and those who are unduly influenced by them, will tell you that women are so petty and vicious to that we’ll stab a friend in the back to secure our daughter’s part in The Nutcracker or our son’s spot in the lineup, and other manosphere creeps will tell you we’ll just wave in the huddled masses with no concern whatsoever about the implications for our children’s future or even their immediate safety. As ever, nothing kind is ever said about White women, because to do so would be “white knighting.”
Seriously, the mere act of invoking the terms “evolution” and “evolved” has become a near-magical thought-stopping incantation. It’s beyond embarrassing at this point. I would think even an honest Darwinist evolutionary theorist would be embarrassed by this un-called for obeisance and lack of concern for empirical rigor.
This article could be significantly improved with representative examples of the meme at issue.
Here are some:
Wifejak | Know Your Meme
If these are representative, I find the wifejak meme kind of cute. (But then, I also like Hallmark movies, so…)
You mention “simps.” The term originates with blacks, the most misogynistic culture on earth, in which women are subhuman. Blacks use terms for women that instrumentalize them purely as sex objects (see “chicken head” as one of many examples) and refer even to women they feel affection for as their bitch or hoe (which is an ebonics butchering of the word whore). You can routinely find blacks cautioning each other about the dangers posed by white women (“snow bunnies”), which they will state in so many words are that white women have expectations for how they’ll be treated. Blacks reserve some of their absolute highest veneration for pimps, unambiguously admiring the fact that they abuse women.
Black women lack negotiating power because they are by far the least desired group of women in the sexual marketplace. They are culturally expected to remain loyal even in the face of objective abuse and rampant infidelity and abandonment. And indeed they will defend black men no matter the circumstance. Seemingly the only black male behavior that bothers black women is their preference for white women. But in this black women reserve the blame for white women, who are portrayed as corrupting seducers. It’s not hard to find bizarre black conspiracy theories where white parents instruct their daughters in how to seduce black athletes or rappers so they can “steal they money” (read: expect financial help in raising a child). This is typically stated in the most inflammatory racial language, often referencing slaveowners keeping generational wealth, which blacks regard as always originating with slavery and something to which all whites have access. All of this is to say we should take nothing at all from this culture, especially not on gender dynamics. I could go on and on here, I’ve not even touched on issues like the high rate of incest in the black community.
Simp has also morphed beyond just criticizing men who overly admire women or pay for their attention into something that pathologizes any male interest in women at all. You will routinely see men called simps online if they express any attraction to a woman whatsoever. It has become essentially a slur for heterosexual men. Due to “brain rot” among extremely online young men, it really affects them and they become these weird ascetics or obsessed with “femboys” and other homosexual activity.
Simp is also almost uniquely used against men who admire white women. Many of the same people who use that term fetishize every other type of woman, going on at length about “Yellow Fever,” Latinas, “Black queens,” “Khazar milkers,” etc. I think this idea is one of the most destructive out there and it doubtless has a self-fulfilling effect in that white women worry that young white men will be like this and become hostile to them.
“The Chinese and Japanese came to multiple ceasefires, yet every time the ceasefire was inexplicably interrupted by a hidden gunner. The secret lore is that this was likely Chinese Communists…”
‘Secret lore’ is all it is: Chinese/Japanese conflict ran much deeper than any one hidden gunner (& continues to the present day in different ways); and the barrenness of our society runs deeper than any one bad actor and co.
Memes are supposed to be funny. Wifejak seems too subtle to have wide appeal. She really needs kids to add some interest & action. Guys who take the time to disparage the boring meme of a rando anon, really don’t grasp the advantages of marrying someone who is low-drama, and aren’t likely to have successful long-term relationships IRL.
I’m reminded of many battle-of-the-sexes guys who say, “Women are just NOT funny!” A-hem, we are not bred for the trait of “funny”. Even guys who are BIG fans of comedy, don’t typically prefer oddball, goofy women, over pretty, easy-going & polite ones. (If it is truly bothersome that women aren’t as funny, the complainers really need to start cranking out babies w/ the loud, cross-eyed, masculine funny ones. Chop, chop.)
It took me a while to understand what the meme was about. But now I understand why some people don’t like this type of meme. Indeed, there is a type of men who are too proud to live in a common household with a girl or to be married men. They tend to talk about their wives all the time, even though other men don’t care. Incels hate this type of “simps” because their behavior just rubs salt to their wounds. Paradoxically, these are often rather mediocre looking men who themselves feel they could be candidates of inceldom. Men in the top 10% of attractive don’t feel the need to constantly mention their wife or girlfriend. I remember my boss many years ago who was the extreme alpha. He never even mentioned his wife, even though she was a real beauty.
We wouldn’t need to tell you where to find things, if only you would use more than a cursory glance in your search! I have started using ‘rummage’ instead of ‘look’, which has helped a little…
“For every weirdo we accept, we turn away ten people who we’d actually want among our ranks.”
Quoted for emphasis.
“…the New Right is not a charity nor a shelter for lost boys. For every weirdo we accept, we turn away ten people who we’d actually want among our ranks.”
Exactly. Well said.
We cannot harbor losers. Greg Johnson discussed this in “The White Nationalist Manifesto”, and William Pierce often mentioned the problem of allowing “defectives” in and amongst us.
What does harbor mean?
Of course, it is not desirable for various weirdos and cripples to represent our movement externally somewhere on YouTube or in other visual media. The same should apply to various obnoxious psychopaths and narcissistic types. But when it comes to the base and mass support of the movement, we need to be open to all white people. Incels are often physical wrecks and are repulsive to behold, but that doesn’t mean they can’t spread white nationalism anonymously or do other tasks. If our movement prevails, I see no problem with incels not being compensated for how this regime has damaged them. Why not give every incel a 200 acre farm?
Fuentes hates wifejak because he’s a queer and hates procreation.
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.