 |
| Voting with her breasts? |
by Colin Liddell
You are what you are, the apple falls close to the tree, etc., so there's no point LARPing too hard to be that which you can't be.
In the case of Europeans, we tend to be a chivalrous and gallant people, disposed to treat woman with every consideration and courtesy. We feel bad when we see them deprived of opportunities or pushed down in any way. Good, bad, or suicidal – this is just how we roll. The possible explanations are fascinating, but this is not the article for that, except to say these characteristics are pretty much ingrained and unlikely to change anytime soon.
This means that a lot of the more LARPy Alt-Right "solutions" for our current demographic death-spiral are unrealistic. We are not about to convert en masse to medieval Catholicism, Mormonism, or Islam, and boost our birth rates accordingly. Nor will we re-institute Third Reich style breeding strategies, with gongs for Stakhanovite child bearers.
Nevertheless, doing what we're doing is a clear path to demographic doom, so we need to come up with something beside the idea that the we all live in a big invisible death camp contrived by a certain ethnicity and shitpost about it on the internet.
This leads us to a central myth of the Alt-Right, namely the idea that we are not represented by our politicians. It is easy to see how this idea got a grip, after all, we have ended up with a lot of things we didn't directly vote for, the main ones being mass immigration, the Islamification of Europe, and pointless wars in the Middle East.
But, then, we didn't actually do much to show our displeasure when these things started to happen. In Europe, there have been anti-immigrant nationalist parties on the ballot for decades, while the million people who marched through London in 2003 protesting the forthcoming attack on Iraq, jointly spearheaded by Tony Blair, went straight back to voting Labour at the next election.
Yes, I know, it's the media!
It's true that it has had a lot of influence, especially in the past, and a great many people have been told what they supposedly want, but ultimately being told what you want is your choice. The truth is that the media can't influence people much unless it follows the grain of their own desires, and European and American voters have felt much more strongly about other issues than mass immigration, which many of them have accepted as a "good thing," both for the economy and as an enhancement to their late-night, fast-food and minicab choices – not to mention the wonderful moral signalling opportunities it provides.
Such talk, however, is simply an argument against too wide a franchise, a perennial problem of any democracy.
More importantly, women voters have also got what they wanted – a society where they can choose to have kids or not, with most of then opting for zero (cat optional), or a token one or two, as a boost to the ego or a way of escaping from careers that have become onerous.
This again is ascribed by many in our camp to the malevolent "Jewish" media. Yes, there is some truth in that – I don't deny it – but, according to this theory the media still has to get the mass of White people walking around effectively punching themselves in the face. Pretty hard to do if they don't want to do it themselves.
The fact is that democratic societies tend to be dysgenic not because they don't give people what they want, but because they do. If you want to mix a Jewish narrative into that, feel free, but it works pretty good without it too.
However you slice it, women are clearly at the heart of this problem, but more specifically it is a problem of the male attitude to women, as any society is intrinsically defined by the nature of its dominant group – men – and here we have a problem.
The real problem is our tendency to venerate women and how this has become disassociated from our need to oppress them.
This is a dual problem, one with a paradoxical nature, and no amount of LARPing with pictures of Aryan princesses in wheat fields on our Facebook pages is going to fix it.
In dealing with any problem, it is important to keep things as close to reality as possible and deal with facts and workable outcomes, but the Alt-Right, because of its internet-based origins and growth, has a strong tendency towards unreality, especially in our danker and more autistic corners where much or our dark energy comes from. Here you encounter the 2D waifu/ 3D pig women phenomenon, represented by an unhealthy interest in "Chinese cartoons."
Quaint as this may seem to "normies," this 2D-3D dichotomy is a actually reflection of the two-sided nature of the greater problem of European man's need to both venerate and oppress his womenfolk.
In parts of the Alt-Right the urge to venerate becomes a form of disembodied idealism (and unacknowledged masturbation), while the need to "oppress" women and view them in strict reproductive terms – as they are viewed in other cultures – finds expression (and rejection) in the idea of the "3D pig woman."
Those Alt-Righters susceptible to this form of bifurcated modality vis-à-vis the fairer sex, need to reunite these aspects in a re-engagement with reality. The Old Right burned Communist books. The New Right must burn (or delete) anime porn and waifu pillows.
This bifurcation of modality, epitomized by the likes of Chateau Autiste, represents the very real paradox of the European male's attitude to the female. We don't want to turn them into Third World breeding stock, with hennaed hands and ululating tongues as they slither around in a black-sacked biomorphic mass in the background of a male dominated patriarchy, where men spend their time hanging around street corners, waiting for the next opportunity to engage in a collective act of taharrush gamea.
No, we want our women to be an integral part of our society – to feel loved and respected, and, most importantly, safe. But to allow women full freedom and equality with men – in short the Feminist agenda – has proved to be suicidal. Nothing destroys feminism faster than unmitigated feminism. This is the real meaning of Germaine Greer's infamous feminist screed, The Female Eunuch, as feminists are effectively female eunuchs, as unable to reproduce as the male variety.
For these reasons, it is vital to find a way of putting limits on the damage done by feminism. But what is to be done?
Rather than advocating the abolition of feminism as an aspect of society – and thereby creating a political goal that could only be achieved under conditions of extreme duress and intense mass suffering – I recommend that we instead advocate for making Feminism conditional upon women achieving and fulfilling their biological function. They can have full equality, but only upon the basis of a birth rate in excess of replacement rate, which is around 2.1. This could even be spun as a way to protect feminism from its self-destructive aspects.
How would this work? Quite simply. Women would only be allowed to vote or run for office if they have individually borne at least two children and the collective birth rate is over 2.1.
At anything under these figures, they would lose not only the vote and a role in politics, but also certain other rights and benefits, yet to be determined.
One effect of this would be to end the dilemma of intelligent women having to choose a career, a family, or both, as they would only be able to have certain careers if they had a family and the society had healthy demographics. Such measures would end the social parasitism implicit in so-called "feminine empowerment."
Think of the impact this would have on the present political scene. The childless Angela Merkel would have to resign and crawl off to die with her cats, allowing more sensible male or female politicians to deal with the mess that she has created in Germany. In America one-childer Hillary Clinton, instead of making a desperate attempt to become America's first female president, would first have to make a desperate attempt to "get with child" by Bill so that she could qualify for the campaign. I wouldn't put it past her to actually try.
With all major Western countries now having birthrates below replacement level, voter demographics would also radically change. In this year's Presidential election women are expected to comprise between 52 percent and 54 percent of the electorate, mainly because they live longer (due to their much easier lives since betraying their biological duty). This could be a problem for Trump who scores much worse with female voters than with male – 30% to 46% in one national poll. It is thanks to the <2.1 children women voting bloc that we also ended up with Obama, who won 55% of the female vote in 2012, compared with Romney's 44%.
Our problems are complex and multifaceted, but sometimes the fix can be remarkably simple. Campaigning for a rational and self-evidently fair-minded amendment to our society's feminist tendencies could potentially work wonders and open a lot of eyes to our other narratives.
In the case of Europeans, we tend to be a chivalrous and gallant people, disposed to treat woman with every consideration and courtesy. We feel bad when we see them deprived of opportunities or pushed down in any way. Good, bad, or suicidal – this is just how we roll. The possible explanations are fascinating, but this is not the article for that, except to say these characteristics are pretty much ingrained and unlikely to change anytime soon.
This means that a lot of the more LARPy Alt-Right "solutions" for our current demographic death-spiral are unrealistic. We are not about to convert en masse to medieval Catholicism, Mormonism, or Islam, and boost our birth rates accordingly. Nor will we re-institute Third Reich style breeding strategies, with gongs for Stakhanovite child bearers.
Nevertheless, doing what we're doing is a clear path to demographic doom, so we need to come up with something beside the idea that the we all live in a big invisible death camp contrived by a certain ethnicity and shitpost about it on the internet.
This leads us to a central myth of the Alt-Right, namely the idea that we are not represented by our politicians. It is easy to see how this idea got a grip, after all, we have ended up with a lot of things we didn't directly vote for, the main ones being mass immigration, the Islamification of Europe, and pointless wars in the Middle East.
But, then, we didn't actually do much to show our displeasure when these things started to happen. In Europe, there have been anti-immigrant nationalist parties on the ballot for decades, while the million people who marched through London in 2003 protesting the forthcoming attack on Iraq, jointly spearheaded by Tony Blair, went straight back to voting Labour at the next election.
Yes, I know, it's the media!
It's true that it has had a lot of influence, especially in the past, and a great many people have been told what they supposedly want, but ultimately being told what you want is your choice. The truth is that the media can't influence people much unless it follows the grain of their own desires, and European and American voters have felt much more strongly about other issues than mass immigration, which many of them have accepted as a "good thing," both for the economy and as an enhancement to their late-night, fast-food and minicab choices – not to mention the wonderful moral signalling opportunities it provides.
Such talk, however, is simply an argument against too wide a franchise, a perennial problem of any democracy.
 |
| Carer or career? |
The fact is that democratic societies tend to be dysgenic not because they don't give people what they want, but because they do. If you want to mix a Jewish narrative into that, feel free, but it works pretty good without it too.
However you slice it, women are clearly at the heart of this problem, but more specifically it is a problem of the male attitude to women, as any society is intrinsically defined by the nature of its dominant group – men – and here we have a problem.
The real problem is our tendency to venerate women and how this has become disassociated from our need to oppress them.
- Venerate because we are Europeans and this is our nature
- Oppress because we need them to reproduce, which involves limiting their dysgenic freedom
This is a dual problem, one with a paradoxical nature, and no amount of LARPing with pictures of Aryan princesses in wheat fields on our Facebook pages is going to fix it.
In dealing with any problem, it is important to keep things as close to reality as possible and deal with facts and workable outcomes, but the Alt-Right, because of its internet-based origins and growth, has a strong tendency towards unreality, especially in our danker and more autistic corners where much or our dark energy comes from. Here you encounter the 2D waifu/ 3D pig women phenomenon, represented by an unhealthy interest in "Chinese cartoons."
 |
| 2d or not 2d? That is the question. |
In parts of the Alt-Right the urge to venerate becomes a form of disembodied idealism (and unacknowledged masturbation), while the need to "oppress" women and view them in strict reproductive terms – as they are viewed in other cultures – finds expression (and rejection) in the idea of the "3D pig woman."
Those Alt-Righters susceptible to this form of bifurcated modality vis-à-vis the fairer sex, need to reunite these aspects in a re-engagement with reality. The Old Right burned Communist books. The New Right must burn (or delete) anime porn and waifu pillows.
No, we want our women to be an integral part of our society – to feel loved and respected, and, most importantly, safe. But to allow women full freedom and equality with men – in short the Feminist agenda – has proved to be suicidal. Nothing destroys feminism faster than unmitigated feminism. This is the real meaning of Germaine Greer's infamous feminist screed, The Female Eunuch, as feminists are effectively female eunuchs, as unable to reproduce as the male variety.
For these reasons, it is vital to find a way of putting limits on the damage done by feminism. But what is to be done?
A Realistic Solution
Rather than advocating the abolition of feminism as an aspect of society – and thereby creating a political goal that could only be achieved under conditions of extreme duress and intense mass suffering – I recommend that we instead advocate for making Feminism conditional upon women achieving and fulfilling their biological function. They can have full equality, but only upon the basis of a birth rate in excess of replacement rate, which is around 2.1. This could even be spun as a way to protect feminism from its self-destructive aspects.
 |
| How women will look if we fail. |
At anything under these figures, they would lose not only the vote and a role in politics, but also certain other rights and benefits, yet to be determined.
One effect of this would be to end the dilemma of intelligent women having to choose a career, a family, or both, as they would only be able to have certain careers if they had a family and the society had healthy demographics. Such measures would end the social parasitism implicit in so-called "feminine empowerment."
Think of the impact this would have on the present political scene. The childless Angela Merkel would have to resign and crawl off to die with her cats, allowing more sensible male or female politicians to deal with the mess that she has created in Germany. In America one-childer Hillary Clinton, instead of making a desperate attempt to become America's first female president, would first have to make a desperate attempt to "get with child" by Bill so that she could qualify for the campaign. I wouldn't put it past her to actually try.
With all major Western countries now having birthrates below replacement level, voter demographics would also radically change. In this year's Presidential election women are expected to comprise between 52 percent and 54 percent of the electorate, mainly because they live longer (due to their much easier lives since betraying their biological duty). This could be a problem for Trump who scores much worse with female voters than with male – 30% to 46% in one national poll. It is thanks to the <2.1 children women voting bloc that we also ended up with Obama, who won 55% of the female vote in 2012, compared with Romney's 44%.
Our problems are complex and multifaceted, but sometimes the fix can be remarkably simple. Campaigning for a rational and self-evidently fair-minded amendment to our society's feminist tendencies could potentially work wonders and open a lot of eyes to our other narratives.
___________________________________
Colin Liddell was the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here.
