682 words 
In an era where politics increasingly resembles reality television, a troubling trend has emerged: the rise of unserious female politicians who prioritize performative activism over substantive governance. While history offers examples of formidable women like Margaret Thatcher or Jeanne Kirkpatrick—figures of intellectual rigor and strategic acumen—today’s political landscape is cluttered with women who treat public office as a platform for vanity, vapid sloganeering, or outright conspiracy theories. The reluctance to critique this phenomenon stems from fear of accusations of sexism, but the greater disservice is ignoring how these figures degrade political discourse.
The Spectacle Over Substance
Women like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Jasmine Crockett, and Marjorie Taylor Greene exemplify this decline. AOC, a master of left-wing bandwagon-jumping, has built her brand on viral moments rather than legislative depth. Whether championing the Green New Deal or defunding the police, her positions shift with progressive trends, yet she offers no viable solutions for implementing these policies without economic catastrophe. Her rhetoric is laden with moral grandstanding—e.g., declaring climate change “our World War II”—but devoid of engineering, logistical, or cost analyses. Jasmine Crockett, meanwhile, garners attention for expletive-laden tirades and racial grievance-mongering, mistaking confrontation for leadership. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s embrace of conspiracy theories (e.g., Jewish space lasers, 9/11 trutherism) would disqualify any male counterpart, yet she remains a GOP darling. These women thrive because modern politics rewards outrage, not wisdom.
The Historical Exception: Women Who Earned Respect
The exception to this rule proves its existence. Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Iron Lady, dismantled socialist policies, privatized industries, and stood firm against Argentine aggression in the Falklands. She was hated, not because she was a woman, but because she was effective—and unapologetically tough. Similarly, Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a Reagan-era strategist, famously critiqued the Left’s “blame America first” mentality with scholarly precision. These women succeeded because they engaged with complexity, not caricature.
Today’s female politicians, by contrast, are celebrated for trivialities: wearing pantsuits to Congress (a non-achievement), breastfeeding in office (a private act), or “smashing the patriarchy” in vapid press releases. Their advocacy centers on identity, not ideas. Another disturbing trend among female politicians is their propensity for redistributionist policies. They are frequently praised for “bringing home funds” to their districts, as if securing pork-barrel spending is a mark of leadership. In reality, this is a negative—it demonstrates their belief in expanding government dependency rather than fostering economic growth. Male politicians are guilty of this as well, but female politicians often wear it as a badge of honor, framing it as “care” or “compassion.” But true leadership is not about how much taxpayer money you can extract for your district—it’s about creating conditions where people don’t need handouts in the first place.
The Policy Vacuum
Where are the female voices on AI governance, nuclear energy, or semiconductor supply chains? The silence is deafening. The average congresswoman’s priorities—reproductive rights, student debt forgiveness, gender quotas—are narrow and often ideologically monolithic. Even on “women’s issues,” few address the fertility crisis, male educational decline, or family policy with nuance. Male politicians are hardly universally competent, but the bar for women is paradoxically lower: they’re applauded for existing, not excelling.
Conclusion
Critiquing female politicians risks accusations of misogyny, creating a culture of immunity. Media outlets that skewer male gaffes (e.g., Ted Cruz’s Cancun trip) soften coverage of embarrassing female behaviour e.g., AOC’s “tax the rich” Met Gala stunt). The result? A generation of women entering politics learns that theatrics, not mastery of issues, wins reward.
Until we are willing to admit that gender does not equal competence—and that many of the women rising in politics today are unserious at best and dangerous at worst—the degradation of our institutions will continue. Politics should be about ideas, not identity. Yet here we are, in an era where political discourse is dominated by shallow theatrics, where intelligence is secondary to Instagram followers, and where actual statesmanship is drowned out by the noise of performative activism. Considering the behaviour of women legislators, you really can’t blame people for saying that politics would be better if women did not participate.
14 comments
“Where are the female voices on AI governance, nuclear energy, or semiconductor supply chains?” Yes, this is something written about in The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar. The tiny range of topics women are interested in, and the depth of their interest, is simply horrifying when considered in full. Women should not be in politics because the cost of a one in a million competent female politician is first a softening of society so great that the quality of her male peers in politics will have degenerated far too much to justify whatever she accomplishes during her career.
In the recent documentary Girls State, in which students create a mock election and student government, the election winner won due to her feminist screed where she calls on all the girls in the audience to be selfish. The only political topics they discussed were (of course) abortion and the unfair disparities between Boys State and Girls State.
I went to two different all-girl (Catholic) high schools. I was asked by 1 to attend the annual D.C. Model UN conference. (I declined.) I was practically begged by the other school to attend the Model UN, because they really needed someone to represent the school. Here too, I declined, because I was not sure that we should even be in the UN in the first place, and I was busy with an essay exposing corruption in the Vatican.
No true nationalists (male or female) will ever be permitted in at a state or national level. Electing women, & gays is the fastest way to accelerate societal collapse. (See Sweden.) And voting really does not matter that much these days, because lawfare will be used to take decisions made via voting, all the way up to the SCOTUS to get them overturned to favor globalists. (See California.)
I don’t disagree with you. There’s an Evola quote I really like which is relevant here: “The entrance of the woman with equal rights into practical modern life, her new freedom, her finding herself side by side with men in the streets, offices, professions, factories, sports, and now even in political and military life, is one of those dissolutive phenomena in which, in most cases, it is difficult to perceive anything positive. In essence, all this is simply the renunciation of the woman’s right to be a woman.”
However, I wonder if we couldn’t take advantage of the lower standard for female politicians that Mr. Matthews outlines here to make it just a bit easier for nationalist policies to take root. What if we launched the career of a female politician, or several, who would talk about things like AI governance, nuclear energy, supply chains (not just semi-conductors—deindustrialization has led to massive strategic risks in many industries), and the white birthrate (perhaps under the guise of addressing the competence crisis if we determined a cryptic strategy to be better than outright White Nationalism)?
Women’s voices were doctrinally preferred over men’s to read out propaganda in old-school radio-based psychological operations. Women make excellent spies, in large part because people are less likely to suspect them as a threat. A really competent and principled woman could do a lot of damage to the credibility of the so-called politicians of the sort which were profiled in this article by merely existing, doing her job, and getting our ideas out there, and it would be just a little bit harder to criticize her for the reasons outlined in the above article.
The real problem is, as you identified, getting anyone with a single principled bone in their body past the inherent roadblocks in the political system. But this could be an interesting and useful angle of attack.
To paraphrase William L. Pierce, “Women are “wet” in their thought processes when it comes to politics.” As far as white women are concerned, I think they should be denied the vote, and forced to stay home, and have as many white babies as they physically can—nonwhite women can eat shit, and die. Have you considered that Thatcher, and Kirkpatrick were anomalies, and not the norm? Nor, am I happy with the way our so-called brilliant male politicians have been running things the last two thousand years. 🙃
I don’t mind Marjorie Taylor Greene. Yes, she is combative and enjoys the spotlight, but she is willing to depart from the Republican party line by condemning intervention in the Middle East and refusing to go along with restricting speech critical of Jews. She is also one of the strongest voices on the immigration issue. Actually, I would go so far as to rank her among the five best people in Congress.
As for the conspiracies she believes, they may be a bit odd, but they are certainly no stranger (and are much less damaging!) than the delusion that all races and ethnicities are equally intelligent and have an equal propensity for criminality, and that all disparities between groups must therefore be caused entirely by White misdeeds. Then there is the delusion that America somehow possesses a kind of “Magic Dirt” or that our Constitution (for which there is no consensus on how it should be interpreted) or belief in some nebulous conception of “freedom” or “democracy” will enable people from divergent races, cultures, and religious traditions to live in peace and harmony.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dave. MTG is a little rough around the edges and shoots from the hip a bit much. But she is one of the few elected officials who still represent the true spirit of MAGA instead of taking the AIPAC money and representing MIGA.
And as for all the wild conspiracies, they are the natural result of the main institutions–government, media, education, religion–feeding us manure and demanding that we call it “pate.” Trump can’t even release unredacted Kennedy files 62 years after the fact, despite promising that he would. Of course people come up with speculative theories, plots, and reasons; they’re grasping in the dark to make sense of institutions whose actions grow increasingly irrational or manipulative.
MTG gained greatly in my esteem when she regularly visited the Jan 7 protesters in prison.
“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
Lee Kuan Yew
There was a very frightening photo from the British House of Commons a few days ago. Starmer was hiding out at some meaningless conference, and so was absent from Prime Minister’s Question Time. All six of the politicians at the dispatch box were women.
Negro essayist Lipton Matthews says, with a twist: …Until we are willing to admit that gender [or being non-White] does not equal competence,,, [c]onsidering the behaviour of women legislators, you really can’t blame people for saying that politics would be better if women [and non-Whites] did not participate.
The female European leaders who are building the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a weapon for a war of annihilation against Russia are engaged in a project that is not trivial. Opinions may vary on whether it is good for our race, but the project is not trivial.
Christian Identity must be dead. I am surprised that no one has thrown in Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way.
Further confirmation of this trend can be found with an image search for “defense ministers meme”.
Negro Lipman Matthews tells us: Politics should be about ideas, not identity.
—
Ideas are important, yes, but should this Negro be telling White racial nationalists what politics to believe? Seriously.
I’ll risk being known as a maverick dissident for saying we do not need to be provided counsel from Negroes about identity politics. I prefer wisdom from our own about the primacy of race, thanks.
WikiJews define identity politics for us as: politics based on a particular identity, such as ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, political affiliation, caste, age, education, disability, opinion, intelligence, and social class.
Nothing about ideas in WikiJews’ 16 categories of identty politics, Lipman. Race is but 1/16th.
I prefer the brilliant White racial nationalist Wolf Stoner’s latest essay, published last month at nationalvanguard.org “Identity, Loyalty, Determination”
An individual cannot exist by himself… He has an identity. Identity is the first and the most important factor in life… Identity matters. More than this; it determines everything else. Identity encompasses all other aspects of individual and social life. It is the primary law that must define all social sciences, if they are to be sciences instead of nonsense concocted to justify the power of a particular tribe or… [or of their “ideas”].
In describing any event, any community, any individual, we must begin by correctly defining its identity. The term “identity” encompasses many aspects. Biological identity is the first. It is the set of inborn immutable qualities that create a framework for everything else. In the case of humans, the term biological identity is interchangeable with the term racial identity.
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.