Anna Bey

Equality was a trick to get women to do all of the work while men sit back, relax, and eat some grapes like some kind of Roman emperor.

Some women are starting to wake up to that fact.

Daily Mail:

Billionaire matchmaker Anna Bey teaches women how to date rich men and create sophisticated impressions in upscale social circles.

The London-based etiquette expert, 33, explained why she never pays for a man on a date under any circumstance, saying that women already shoulder the burden of raising children and running the household.

The Swedish-born founder of the School of Affluence also pointed out that women spend significant sums on maintaining their appearance, and expressed a wish for society to return to traditional gender roles.

Viewers flocked to the comment section in support of Ms Bey’s controversial views, with the vast majority echoing her criticism of modern feminism.

Ms Bey began by explaining her stance on feminism and her belief that it no longer serves the needs of women.

‘I am a traditional feminist who believes that the man has a role, and is not currently fulfilling his role in society,’ she in her latest YouTube tutorial.

We agree on that. The men of today are not really doing men’s stuff.

‘I believe that feminism has started to take a direction that is no longer beneficial for women.

‘Society is spoiling men – so what’s happening now is instead of men [taking weight off] the shoulders of women, women are now offloading men.’

The data shows that the opposite is true.

Source

Men are literally paying women to exist.

Ms Bey listed the many roles women are expected to fulfill in modern life, including raising children, managing the household, looking desirable and being financially independent.

‘Don’t forget women have a lot of duties, much more duties than men have,’ she said.

‘What’s happening is that women are taking 50 percent of the financial load in the household or relationship, although women have much more expenses than men, much more responsibility than men and many more hats to carry than men.

Yes, Ms. Bey, all women — everywhere — contribute half of the household income, with no exceptions. We have achieved Equality Utopia.

‘Ladies, you know that we are responsible for many more things for biological reasons.

‘Our brain is wired in a more complex way in terms of things that we intuitively think about – it has to do with children, with nurturing and building relationships and so on.

‘Men don’t have the same capacity to think along those lines the way women do.’

Ms Bey rubbished claims that men now participate equally in child rearing and household management, glibly declaring: ‘We all know that isn’t true.’

She said it’s a matter of biology that women are hardwired to multitask while men struggle with juggling priorities.

‘We all know that even though a man is trying his hardest to pull as much load as a woman does, they are still very simple-minded and very “what’s happening right here right now”, but a woman doesn’t have that,’ she said.

‘She is built differently and this is what’s so unfair, that she has to carry so many different burdens, so many different hats.

‘She has to have many roles now in society, at home, at work, in the relationship and so on, while the man is very comfortable, he’s sorted! He is just doing one thing at a time.

‘The man only has one role and that is going to work.’

Yeah, men should feel bad about letting women fight all the wars and build all the tech and create civilization and stuff.

We get to enjoy all of it without ever having lifted a finger.

‘And then after work, he eats his food that his woman has cooked for him, or he goes and does things while the woman is doing everything that she’s obliged to do.

‘So for this reason, ladies, society is very unfair towards women. I do not call this fair feminism at all.

‘That’s why I’m a traditional feminist, because I know that back in the day, although there was a lot of things that were not in favour of women, the man was the provider and the woman didn’t have to stress about working or not.’

Viewers overwhelmingly agreed with Ms Bey, with one woman declaring that too many men are spoiled by modern society.

‘This is so true, men are so spoiled thinking that a woman is going to do everything for them, and pay half, while still carrying a lot on her shoulders,’ one woman wrote.

‘If you want to be equal with me then you better be ready to do half the chores, if not than you either provide and I take care, or this relationship is not working out.’

This woman is a genius.

Women are averse to responsibility, so if they wanted to go back to how things were before the empowerment insanity, they wouldn’t say “hey we messed up, forgive us.”

This is how they’d do it.

They’d literally blame men and demand a return to previous gender dynamics because men are just too dumb and not up for the challenge.

I applaud this initiative. It is a good sign. All women should be told that the current deal is a very bad deal because men are not doing what they’re supposed to do.

After all, if women stayed home, men wouldn’t be able to hide that they’re not really doing anything productive because they’d be the only ones at the workplace.

Takes notes, LARPers – this is how you do proper satanism.

Not biting a chicken’s head off then hopping around a pentagram in your underwear chanting klaatu barada nikto, that only makes the devil cringe.

Evil and degeneracy masked as “love” and “tolerance” and “equality” and other bullshit is what the Prince of Darkness favors.

Breitbart:

A female bishop has told the Church of England to stop referring to God solely as male, equating gendering the deity to websites only showing white people.

“Gendering the deity.”

After a YouGov poll found that half of young Christians see God — referred to in the Bible as ‘father’, including in Jesus Christ’s ‘Lord’s Prayer’ — as male, the first female bishop Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, bishop of Gloucester, said that she was concerned that the Church was not being “mindful of language”.

“I don’t want young girls or young boys to hear us constantly refer to God as he,” she said, according to The Telegraph.

Adding that she was worried that patriarchal language might put off non-Christians, she added: “For me particularly in a bigger context, in all things, whether it’s that you go to a website and you see pictures of all white people, or whether you go to a website and see the use of ‘he’ when we could use ‘God’, all of those things are giving subconscious messages to people, so I am very hot about saying can we always look at what we are communicating.”

Starting to see why women aren’t allowed to be priests in the first place?

Just look at the retarded shit this bitch is spewing.

Nothing here has anything to do with the Bible, and caring about what people who aren’t even Christian think is utterly moronic.

That’s why almost nobody is going to these insane asylums anymore.

Most people are dumb, but they’re not this dumb.

Another female bishop, Rt Revd Dr Jo Bailey Wells, Bishop of Dorking, claimed that the use of male language was a “growing problem” which she gets around during preaching by “using both male and female imagery, and also by avoiding the need to say ‘his’ or ‘him’ too often”.

Something that the institution you’ve infiltrated has been doing for literally its entire existence is a “growing problem” to you?

How retarded can you be?

Brunel University’s Anglican chaplain Revd Sally Hitchener said there is a movement across the official state church to “emphasise the feminine nature of God”.

“No academic theologian in the UK would objectively say that God is male, and yet that is the common parlance in a lot of the church and definitely the message that is coming across in lots of the media communications that we’re sending out there,” Revd Sally added.

I have no idea what theologians in Britain would say – considering what Britain as a whole looks like, I can imagine it’s just a bunch of gibberish, same as this bitch.

But let’s use our heads a little – In the Bible, that book that these people are supposed to follow, there is only one creature that is made in the image of God, and that’s MAN – Not mankind or people in general, but MAN, one specific guy named Adam, with the woman being made out of Adam’s rib.

I’m not religious, but just reading the actual book and using some common sense should probably tell you that calling God “He” is the right way to do it.

But hey, what do I know?

If the campaign is successful, the Church of England could go the way of the Church of Sweden, which in November 2017 voted to drop masculine references to God including “Lord” and “He” in order to make the church more “inclusive”, stating that the need for it “is based on an awareness of different types of discrimination and inequality in our society”.

Ah yes, Sweden, another guiding light of modernity.

You still come in second tho, Sweden.

Your Moslems just aren’t raping enough girls to take Britain’s position as the world’s most cucked country.

Against the backdrop of a more liberalising church, including permitting a “reaffirmation” baptism for transgenders and advising their schools let children “explore” their gender identity, a September 2017 survey revealed that the Church of England found itself having just 15 percent of the population consider themselves a member.

And believe it or not, this isn’t even the worst church out there.

There are far worse ones, especially in America, where basically anyone can just set up a church over night.

This one actually has a straight White guy in it

Dunno about you guys, but I’m ready for real Christianity to make a comeback – regardless of my own lack of religiosity.

Just say when, I’ll be ready.

Nothing says “I heart Jesus” more than editing the Bible in order to appear more “respectable” to the (((people))) who killed Him.

Slate:

Fifteen years ago, the country’s largest Protestant denomination issued a stinging rebuke to a new Bible translation. The Southern Baptist Convention accused an update to the popular New International Version of “erasing gender-specific details” by changing some references to “man” to “mortals” and “father” to “parent,” among others. It was not the first time the SBC condemned “gender-neutral” translations of Scripture, and it would not be the last. Soon afterward, the SBC issued its own “gender-accurate” Bible, the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

This spring, the SBC’s publishing arm issued a refreshed translation of that Bible that some observers are now calling “gender-inclusive.” Religion writer Jonathan Merritt, the son of a former SBC president, and Garet Robinson, a pastor with a Ph.D. in theology, compared the new version, now called the Christian Standard Bible, with the original. Writing in the Atlantic, they conclude that it has “significant deviations from rigidly literal interpretation methods” and catalog the changes in detail:

The CSB now translates the term anthropos, a Greek word for “man,” in a gender-neutral form 151 times, rendering it “human,” “people,” and “ones.” The previous edition had done this on occasion; the new revision adds almost 100 more instances. “Men of Israel” becomes “fellow Israelites;” when discussing Jesus’s incarnation the “likeness of men” becomes “likeness of humanity.” The CSB translates the term adelphoi, a Greek word for “brother” in a gender-neutral form 106 times, often adding “sister.” “Brotherly love” is translated “love as brothers and sisters.”

“Okay so, we know what these words mean, but we’re just gonna write something else just because.”

Even if you don’t care about Christianity, the sheer brazenness with which these “people” alter reality should be enough to make you wanna drag them to the nearest tree and hang them from it. These imbeciles are neither Christians nor translators, just cucks.

So how big of a deal is this? The Christian Standard Bible translation team says it hasn’t made a point of being gender-inclusive but simply tried to capture the meaning of the original text.

You wrote “brother” instead of “sister,” even though the word translates to “brother.” That’s the meaning – WORDS MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN, NOT WHAT YOU DECIDE THEY SHOULD MEAN!

The new version uses masculine terms such as father and king and masculine pronouns to refer to God and in passages referring to specific men. But with more generic references, it often opts for neutral terms such as mortal or person. The translators used an approach called optimal equivalence, which prioritizes word-for-word renderings when the meaning is understandable to contemporary readers but shifts to a “thought-for-thought” translation when literalism would obscure that meaning.

This problem has been solved a long time ago using something called annotations.

So instead of replacing “brotherly love” with “love as brothers and sisters,” you write “brotherly love*” and at the bottom of the page you put something like

*This means girls too lol

That’s how you do if you’re neither retarded nor signaling.

Debates over Bible translation are debates about theology and linguistics, and they can be dustier than the valley of dry bones. But scholarly nit-picking can obscure what’s really at stake here: interpretations relating to gender roles, marriage, sexuality, the character of God, and how readers see themselves—or not—in the Bible’s story. Christian blogger Rachael Starke wrote that the Christian Standard Bible’s new language “moved [her] to worshipful tears of thanks.”The translation, she wrote, “reveals with beautiful clarity the way Jesus’ redemptive work has always been for, and on behalf of women, as much as it has been for men.”

Of course dumb bitches would be excited about this. The supreme being of the universe is giving you instructions on how to get an eternal, happy life after death, and you care about what words he uses. That’s why God wants women to shut up in church.

I’ve been an atheist my whole life, and I’m more likely to go to heaven than most people who call themselves “Christians.”

What the fuck happened?

Overall, the issue of feminism seems to cause alarm and confusion when addressed by me. I am shocked by the outrage, which on the whole is based on either purposeful or accidental misunderstanding of what I’m saying. Endless clarifications are necessary, apparently.

Firstly, we should note that feminism is a sociological problem, whereas not getting chicks is a personal problem. It is unhelpful to confuse these two issues, even though they are obviously connected to whatever extent. Notably, society is made up of persons.

My goal in addressing feminism, as you have perhaps ascertained (or perhaps not), is to encourage male readers to develop a masculine identity. In my view, the biggest reason why an individual would fail to develop a masculine identity would be that he has been socially-engineered by the sociological problem of Jew feminism. As such, that is the primary concern which needs addressed.

Once one develops a masculine identity, he then has power, personally, which he can use however he wishes. Ideally, he will use it for getting married and having kids, serving as a pillar of the community. Instead of just getting a bunch of chicks.

A Brief History of Men and Women

As I have often said, my view on women is exactly the same as everyone in history before the various cultural revolutions in the West.

Throughout history, up until the Jew-driven feminist revolution, male-female relations followed a very clear pattern. Women were generally given over in marriage to a man by their fathers. In White society, the woman’s opinion on these matters was of course considered. It does not appear to have been normal for a father to force his daughter into an unwanted marriage. Because why would he do that to his own daughter.

There was nothing nasty or mean about any of this.

Once married, the girl would then be a wife and mother. Nothing more or less, generally.

Typically, women were very happy with this arrangement, as were men. Certainly, both were a lot more happy than they are now, though studies in general happiness show that female happiness has dropped more than male happiness over the last decades when this Jewing seriously intensified.

Then, as the Jews are fond of doing, they created a problem where no problem actually existed, claiming that women were unhappy being wives and mothers and wanted to work. They then invented a Holocaust-type conspiracy theory claiming that women had been oppressed for thousands of years by men for no reason.

In order for females to play male roles in society, they had to take on a type of bitter nastiness. This is because the hierarchy which exists in a male world causes women to have emotional breakdowns; being incapable of directly confronting it, they build a psychological wall against it.

In such an environment where men and women are told they are equals, the social structure will be reduced to the lowest common denominator, which is the feminine bitch-mode social structure.

Men, being forced to deal with nasty-acting women as equals in society quickly began to take on feminine character traits in order to balance the social imbalance. Perhaps more deadly than that psychological blackhole was a system of schooling designed to punish boys, to force them to conform to a female-dominated society.

Baby-boomers were also an especially soft generation, where the men deferred to women. Much of this was due to an blind acceptance of Jew gibberish produced in the sixties. The millennial generation grew up, largely, lacking proper male authority figures, as most of their elders could not even control their own wives.

Beyond this, changes in lifestyle and diet resulted in lowering of testosterone levels in men, which in turn caused them to be more feminine.

The bottom line is that in 2015, in Western European and especially Anglo countries (also especially France), the sex roles have become incredibly confused. Women are aggressive and belligerent, while men are often non-assertive and flabby.

This is a very serious problem which won’t simply go away because you don’t like thinking about it, dear reader.

In fact, I would argue that it is the root cause of our troubles.

And yes, of course, it was caused by the eternal root cause of our troubles, which is the Jew. Nonetheless, I would absolutely argue that the establishment of feminism, and the subsequent weakening of the White male identity, was ultimately the deathblow that brought society to the place it is now.

Mass Cuckolding

I wrote an article claiming that White women crave Black dick, which is why they are so aggressively endorsing the invasion. Obviously, this language was slightly satirical and intended to incite a response. But there is a core truth in this, which can be phrased crudely or kindly, and still exist as a truth either way.

Right now, the women are deeply dissatisfied with the present state of matters, mostly on a subconscious level, and crave a return to the natural balance. That natural balance involves a society which is wholly dominated by men, as it always was at every point in history, and where they are allowed to be protected, to be innocent of worldly matters, and to bear and raise children unmolested.

Obviously, Islam offers this. And that is why they support this invasion. Whether you want to frame it as sexual is up to you, but it is most certainly reproductive. Right now women have been put in a situation wherein reproducing in peace is nigh impossible, given that they are forced to deal with the male world directly.

And everything is about reproduction. Everything. The whole of the being of any living thing is geared toward this act.

Feminism gets more and more extreme, and what this is women, collectively, pushing men further and further, trying to get them to act like men and put them in their place. Women engage in provocations of men to force men to prove themselves, constantly. Men are supposed to be able to recognize this, and respond accordingly.

Yet men continue to pander to them, on the whole.

So they are opting for plan b, which is Islamification.

The proof of this is simple: feminists refuse to address abuses by Islamic men in Western societies, while continuing to claim White men are involved in a conspiracy against them. Even still, they are calling for a mass invasion by these men who are the exact opposite of the docile and cuckolded man-children they claim to view as the ideal male.

They are lying to you, bro.

Women are known for this.

Maybe it’s time to act like an adult and take responsibility for what’s happening around you?

In an Unnatural State

The issue is not that brown men are somehow naturally more masculine than White men. The issue is that we have been socially engineered, whereas brown people are generally too primitive to be responsive to this kind of social engineering, and so are left in a feral state, which women instinctively perceive as superior masculinity.

One of the girls who was “raped” in Rotherham gave this testimony on her time with the Pakis:

The Asian men felt they ran Oxford. That was exciting. People were afraid of them. I felt protected. People respected them.

Women are siding with what they perceive as the conquerors. This will begin to happen more and more, as Europe is forced into Islam.

What is happening is that White men are standing down, as the invasion force rolls in, and this signals to women that these men are in fact the conquerors, the ones capable of protecting them, and so deserve their wombs.

This Outrage

Covering your eyes and saying this isn’t happening doesn’t stop it from happening. Claiming that this all has something to do with me, maybe I can’t get laid, or was raised by a single mother, or whatever, doesn’t somehow change the content of what I am saying.

I am shocked at the outrage that I see when I state things which appear to be simply obvious facts. Of course, I could have used different phrasing, but the core points should be immediately recognized as true by anyone with a functioning brain. Unless they are overly emotional cowards, of course.

The purpose of this website is not to coddle you. We have very serious problems. These problems need dealt with. In order to deal with them, we have to recognize that they exist.

Man-Up!

The solution then is to act like men again. And this, again, is my purpose in addressing these issues: to encourage men to act like men.

The first step is to simply realize that other men are not acting like men, on average, at least in the 35 and under demographic in Western countries. They are out of shape, they are emotionally unhinged, they obsess over fashion and other frivolousness, they bow before women.

The good news is if you’re not like that, you automatically have a massive advantage over other men as far as women go. The other good news is, you’ll be able to save civilization by stopping these kikes.

Men should be in good shape, they should be assertive, they shouldn’t show emotion (including anger). This type of an identity has been taken away. Naturally, you would have gotten it from your father, but most young men didn’t get that opportunity.

It is something that needs developed and worked on. I’m sure a lot of readers don’t need this advice, but basically anyone who has disagreed with any of my anti-feminist articles is suffering from some form of emasculation. At least anyone who disagreed with core ideas – details are details.

I have written on this topic before, pretty extensively, and have gotten a lot of feedback from men who are feeling better, doing better with women, having more control over their lives.

This is something you have personal control over. Very little that we talk about on this site we have personal control over. But your life is your own, and you can shape who you are.

The Future, Brother

We are a rising subculture, this new nationalist movement. And I don’t really care about having an image or being some type of respected ideological leader. I could honestly not give less of a shit what a bunch of internet jerkoffs think about me.

My goal is to inject concepts which I think are important, to make sure they are integrated into this rising movement by making it obvious that they are correct to the point where it would be ridiculous for anyone to deny it. And anti-feminism, and a masculine identity, must necessarily be a part of this movement, or it will fail. If you try to involve women, and play this game with them, you will become destroyed.

Women must be looked at as they are, and the masculine archetype must be accepted as central to civilization itself.

This doesn’t mean that everyone has to be a rock-hard muscleman, but it does mean that all men need to be real men, who don’t flinch at conflict and who don’t whine and white knight for women, claiming that they should have some type of influence on our narrative.

Our goal is to form a cohesive subculture which eventually succeeds at overthrowing the dominant culture.

It’s core ideas need to be correct.

Hail Victory.

From the NYT:

Boys and Girls, Constrained by Toys and Costumes

OCT. 30, 2015

Claire Cain Miller @clairecm

Indeed, toys are more strictly gendered today than they were 50 years ago, when adult gender roles were much more separate, according to research by Elizabeth Sweet, a sociologist at the University of California, Davis.

Until the 1960s, girls’ toys focused on homemaking and boys’ on work in the industrial economy, she found. That changed significantly with the rise of the feminist movement of the 1970s. But in the 1990s, gendered toys returned with a vengeance, resulting in the action heroes and princesses available today.

In the Sears catalog ads of 1975, according to Ms. Sweet, just 2 percent of toys were marked as girls’ or boys’; on the Disney Store website in 2012, according to a study in which Ms. Auster was a co-author, all toys were labeled that way.

Children’s clothing has also become more gendered. Before World War I, babies and toddlers all wore white, loosefitting dresses and long hair, according to a history by Jo B. Paoletti, a professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, and pink was considered a masculine color and blue a feminine one until the mid-20th century. During the feminist movement of the 1970s, clothes became more gender-neutral.

You might take from that history the conclusion that feminist dogma has been tried and failed, largely due to children’s tears. But it’s impossible for feminism to be wrong, so the only allowable conclusion is that it just hasn’t been tried hard enough.

The big difference over the decades, however, is the growth of Slutty Halloween as a national holiday.

I don’t recollect it being a big grown-up party day when I was a child. The first time I noticed the New Halloween was in Monterey, CA on Halloween 1986. I was having breakfast on my way to play 18 holes at Spyglass Hill, and the entire wait staff at the restaurant was dressed in Halloween costumes at dawn. That was new to me. I attributed it to the gay influence of San Francisco.

Googling, I see a 2010 Slate article:

When Did Halloween Get So Tawdry? In the 1970s.

By Juliet Lapidos

… When did sexy costumes become the norm?

In the 1970s. Costuming has been a part of Halloween since at least the 19th century, when Scottish and Irish children went “guising” house-to-house in exchange for coins. The Victorians enjoyed a good costume ball on Halloween, and some daring getups, like Gypsy outfits, were popular. But risqué costumes were not pervasive until right around Gerald Ford’s presidency, when gay communities in the United States adopted Halloween as an occasion for revealing, over-the-top attire.

The Halloween parade in New York City’s Greenwich Village began in 1973 as a family-and-friends promenade from house-to-house organized by a local puppeteer and mask-maker. It quickly became a neighborhoodwide party, however, and since the Village was New York’s de facto gay district, the gay community cottoned to it. The event, with its drag outfits and otherwise rebellious costuming, became famous in New York and across the country, as did similarly bawdy Halloween parties in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood and in West Hollywood.

Gay communities planted the seed, then retailers did the rest of the work, capitalizing on the spirit of these parades with readymade sexy outfits that got skimpier from year to year. A 2006 New York Times article quotes the purchasing director for BuyCostumes.com as saying that “ultra sexy” costumes emerged in the early aughts, with products like the Little Bo “Peep Show” outfit.

So, I guess I was right back in 1986: it was a gay thing that was spreading to straight people.

Anyway, it’s extremely reasonable for parents to want to discourage their young daughters away from dressing like a stripper on Halloween. But these days we lack a vocabulary of moral restraint. (For some individuals, the word “inappropriate” works well enough.)

We do have a vocabulary of oppression, however. Somebody must be blamed, but it’s unthinkable to mention that females like to dress up like hookers and they need to restrain themselves. In our current mindset, anything bad that females do can’t be blamed on them, so it must be blamed on white male patriarchy.

But how often do these triple bankshots work?

Yesterday, I wrote an article examining the demographics problems in White countries, arguing that the real problem is immigration and the non-White birthrate, not our own birthrate,

The Jews are using the excuse of our own low birthrate to excuse non-White immigration, when in actual fact, a smaller population is not a problem, especially due to automation and other technological developments.

What I did not include was graphs for projected White population numbers, because these don’t exist (at least not that I can find). The only data which exists is projected national population numbers, and these include the non-Whites which are already here and breeding, as well as sometimes factoring in immigration, and as such were not useful for my purposes.

However, here’s a graph that is useful for my purposes.

Japan is easy enough to look at, as it is nearly 100% Japanese presently, and has no plans to bring in thousands or millions of non-Japanese.

This data from the Japanese government shows the 2095 population being equal to that of 1935 (68 million). Granted, the population will be older, on average, than it was in 1935, but it will still be double what it was in 1875.

One of Germany’s core excuses for the invasion of “migrants” is that they need more people due to the birthrate. This is even while 5 million German nationals are unemployed.

CBS News:

The German government has argued that the migrants will provide a much needed work force to offset the needs of an aging population, but not all Germans are buying it.

“That’s what they’re selling us these people for, that they will pay our pensions in the future,” an upset German named Gregor said. “We have 5 million unemployed Germans! They can’t even put their own people into jobs.”

With more migrants arriving daily, Germany’s generosity is being stretched to the limits.

It is pure nonsense that our countries are going to stop dropping because of the population drop. We still have, on the whole, bigger White populations than at any time in history. The fact that the people are getting older is inconsequential.

Are the millions of unemployed people in our countries refusing to work at hospitals and nursing homes? What does there being a lot of old people have to do with anything at all?

They then try and claim that we need to pay the pensions of the old people, but assuming the birthrate has plateaued, which it seemingly has, only one generation would have to work to pay these pensions, and the money currently being expended on “migrants” could be used for that purpose. This is aside from the now constantly talked about fact that automation is putting people out of work – for the obvious reason that it is bringing a greater output of production for a lower level of human work input. This, in turn, means that less work input is needed to provide for the material needs of the aging.

The only economic consequence of a smaller population is a smaller GDP, and that is in no way correlated to individual wellbeing or even individual wealth. It is solely correlated to the zeros on the bank account of some Jew banker.

This is all aside from the fact that brown people aren’t generally known for their work ethnic, and tend to suck resources from White countries, rather than create them.

A Separate Issue

As I said in yesterday’s article, this issue should not be confused with the general human value of family. Family is what makes human beings truly happy, and repairing the family unit should remain a goal of those fighting against Jewish social imperialism.

Related: Please Inform All Brown Women of These Facts, Make Certain White Women Don’t Know

But that is a side issue from actual numbers, and the idea that our countries cannot function with 20th or even 19th century population levels. Our countries were fully functioning in both the 20th and 19th centuries.

Another Separate Issue

This then gets tied up with the group in White Nationalist circles which claims the most important thing White people must do is have families. This is some strange neo-Maoist ideology, apparently, which I am failing to grasp. The thing which is most important for the White race is to stop the invasion.

Of course, for individual human happiness, a family is the way to go, and that should be encouraged. But I often see a scolding of young men for not having families, when the reality is that it is very difficult to build a family at this point in time, due both to economic pressures and feminism.

I fear that many of these people are not simply missing the math, but are engaging in normal boomber lecturing that all boomers engage in against the generation they created.

A meme image posted in the comments section of yesterday’s article read:

Boomers:

Deplete all of the resources of most of the countries on the planet in a single generation, leaving absolutely nothing for future generations, pollute the planet to the point where some areas will become unable to support life and leave the clanup to future generations.

Support radical feminism and multiculturalism to the point where your sons and daughters will be unable to find wives and keep families, and your entire race may be in danger of extinction.

Export all of the industry and farming work overseas for short-term profit, destroying future generations’ chances of finding work and having a stable economy.

Destroy the educational and academic institutions in innumerable social and political experiments that cripple at least two generations.

Promote the kind of banking and economics that have put the most powerful country on Earth into the most debt ever seen in human history and cause massive economic recessions that affect the entire world.

Finally, create a social institution that redistributes wealth to your generation from your own children in outrageous retirement and pension funds designed to allow you to live in luxury and comfort while the world you have ruined melts down around you.

“Kids these days are lazy, they don’t want jobs and families, they just sit at home!”

Not even saying here that every boomer is bad or guilty, or that Jews weren’t ultimately responsible. Just that they aren’t in a position to lecture.

Most of the site’s readers are millennials (born between 1982 and the early 2000s).

We are probably all hearing, or have heard (or for those still under 18, will hear), similar things from our parents, and we don’t need to hear it on White nationalist websites.

Because we’ve heard it already. Probably, we’ve heard it a lot.

I am 31, and would love to have a family and so on. But I don’t have any money (part of that is having chosen to run this site instead of start a business, but it is nonetheless a common problem – nearly universal, in fact), and I certainly would be very wary to marry an American (or otherwise Western) woman, seeing the way other men are getting completely screwed by the Jew-feminist system which has actually incentivized “no-fault” divorce (first legalized in 1969 in California by boomer favorite Ronald Regan) for women.

I would also not be interested in a girl who was fat/unattractive or over the age of 25 (honestly, I wouldn’t really be interested in girls over the age of 20, for the mere reason that after that they are so psychologically damaged that they don’t really have much use; they are also going to be less fertile, energetic and physically attractive than a younger woman), and most girls in that age range are brainwashed by the feminist “go to college and get a career” concepts, and most attractive women generally are obsessed with the idea of unlimited male attention and not interested in serious relationships.

The natural hypergonamous nature of women has been released, and they desire, while they are still attractive, to seek unlimited partners in the quest for the perfect partner.

As F. Roger Devlin writes in Sexual Utopia in Power: The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization (emphasis mine):

Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

The situation then, given the free sex culture, is that a woman will entertain as many men as she desires, searching for “the one” who can meet her fantasy standards of being the perfect Alpha Male.

Of course, the free sex culture also gives men the ability to be one of the entertained, but that ultimately ends up being a rather small consolation, and not something I would want to watch recurring forever.

The infinite loop of casual partners gets old, boring and depressing by your mid-twenties, for those who aren’t old enough to have experienced that part yet.

And now, even casual sex is being stripped of most men, as Tinder (linked that for our boomer readers who are confused as to how badly they have screwed us over) and other electronic methods allow women to easily select the very most attractive available men from a much wider pool – being the best she can find in class or at the bar or in her social circle is no longer good enough.

She is now not choosing from a social circle, but from a circular radius of miles for her casual partners (one of which will inevitably turn out to be the greatest man who ever existed who also wants to suspend sex with all other women just for her – even though as the perfect man he is able to choose from all women on earth, he will of course choose her because she is the princess – seriously you guys, you need to wake up and realize women think like children in a lot of pretty important areas, especially before they are 28 or so and their biological clock begins ticking rapidly).

Seriously

Realistically, young men in the West should focus on money and their own personal goals first, as well as the goals of our movement, before thinking seriously about women or kids. Or move to a country such as Russia or some other Eastern European (or even South American) country where you can probably get an English-teaching job pretty easily (and will have lower economic pressure generally), and marry there (your wife can still be a dumb bitch and leave you, of course, but she can’t take all your money with her which makes her much less likely to do so). Though that has a whole other load of cultural problems with it.

We’re all dealing with these issues, and it isn’t our fault. It isn’t even technically our parents fault, but the fault of ratlike parasite Jews (but our parents, not us, are the ones who sold us down this filthy brown-water river of kikery).

I will note here that I’ve really been liking the stuff Return of Kings has been publishing lately on these issues, and recommend it to anyone dealing with them.

Bottom Line

Demographic collapse is not an issue of you having kids. It is an issue of immigration. Even by current projections (which are not based on us stopping these kikes – which we are going to do, by the way), the worst our own populations will suffer over the next century is a return to early 20th century population levels, a point at which our societies were generally stable.

So don’t let yourself get psychologically bullied by some whining boomer for not having started a family yet (whether it be your parents/elders or on a White nationalist website).

Soon enough, we are going to stop these kikes, and reinstall a patriarchy, which will ensure not only to an end to feminism, but also an end to the economic problems which are inhibiting men from building and ruling over healthy, wealthy and large families.

The core of the Jewish takeover of Western society is feminism. And when I say “feminism,” I am not referring to some hardcore group of “radical feminists.”

I am referring merely to the standard definition.

The definition that you get when you type “define:feminism” into Google.

Women should not have equality, and they should not have “rights.” Giving them things which seem reasonable, such as the right to vote, is inevitably the beginning of a death spiral.

Feminism was the first revolution. The sex revolution, the race revolution, the immigration revolution, the gay revolution and on and on forever were the result of the feminist revolution.

Of course Jews were responsible. No one debates that point, other than cuckservatives like Gavin “Have You Met My Wife, Tyrone?” McInnes.

But it is through women that the Jews have accomplished all of their goals. If women were not allowed to inject their hysterical emotional gibberish into the popular discourse, we would be able to fix these problems. Men would be able to sit down with each other, discuss the issues, and come to a consensus about logical courses of action.

Politics, economics and sociology are sciences. Or rather, they should be, and if White males and only White males were in charge of managing them, they would be.

Instead, we have women injecting their nonsense into every sector of Western life. And not only do they inject nonsense, they also become spiteful – outright hateful even – towards anyone who attempts to counter their gibberish with logic and reason.

We have then allowed them to use sex – or the lie that you are going to get sex from them – to fully manipulate males into dancing around with them on this Möbius strip of “well what if…”

There cannot be “equality among the sexes.”

There can be only male dominance over women, which is what we had all through recorded history, back into prehistory, or there can be what we have now, which is female dominance over men.

Take your pick.

My advice to men looking to fight feminism: just start telling women what to do. If they protest, look them in the eye directly, hold it until she breaks the stare contest, then shake your head and walk away.

Do not do this at work or you will be charged with harassment. Just do it everywhere else.

Also, most importantly: never, ever, ever, ever let yourself be intimidated or afraid of a woman. Always look at her as below you. Because she is below you. That is the way God and/or Nature made it.

And they want it that way! They only feel safe when they feel men are in control. They are no different in this way than children. Can you remember being a child? If you had a father, do you remember him being in control, and the feeling of safety you had by knowing he was in control?

This is no different for adult women.

Please note that I am against being mean or abusive toward women. I, of course, believe they should be respected and cared for – again, like children. Jews have managed to conflate male authority over women with abuse. But is adult authority over children abuse? Surely, it could potentially be, but as a rule it is not. Most parents have no desire to abuse their children – just so, most men have no desire to abuse their women.

Female abuse, like child abuse, is a deviancy, and it is a very rare deviancy. This is not what any anti-feminist is talking about. Just as no “racist” is talking about purposefully abusing non-Whites. It is all a gigantic scam, a Jewish distortion.

Keep your chin up, boys.

Okay, so we had a break from the feminism discussion, now it’s back.

Here is a video proving that your worst enemy is not Jews, White Man, but your own females.

This is real life.  White women announcing they will cheat on their boyfriends, then proceeding to make out with monkeys.  Video is from Panama City Beach, the same place where these monkeys are getting charged with gang-rape for a video that was filmed in front of hundreds of people – at least half of those hundreds would have been women.

You can say “these are a few bad apples,” and “#notallwomen,” but the reality is something very different.  Women respond to stimuli, and shape their own behavior based on this stimuli.  So if White men fail to control their women – and they have failed miserably – this is what will happen to all of them.  They revert almost immediately to a feral state.

Watch the video then watch it again, and then come and try to tell me that women deserve “rights.”  They should be thankful they don’t literally get locked in cages.

But just to be 100% clear, I do blame men for this behavior of these women.  It is our fault for accepting the absolutely nonsensical Jew idea that women are capable of making their own decisions.   Because if you allow for that idea, then this is what you get – a bunch of sluts making out with monkeys on a beach, while you’re at home thinking romantic thoughts about what kind of house you are going to buy for your independent-minded princess.

Grow up, White Man.

Angelo John Gage talks about feminism and how it is not just anti-men, but anti-women as well.

Both sexes are different for a reason and the reason is not just that they have different genitals.

The vastly understated power of male and female hormones are never brought up by feminists, but they must have a very strong effect on the mind, as these hormones are so powerful that they effect our very DNA and tell it to construct our bodies differently.

Nature has given us our different gender roles and rebelling against them is like trying to exist without breathing. It is just not possible. Women have been entrusted with the most important resource of all, our children and in order to devote their time to raising them right, they need to be provided for and protected, by a man. That is the way things are meant to be and that is why feminism is used by the enemy as a weapon against us. It is an inter-generational weapon that harms our descendants as much as it harms us.

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 30, 2014

The latest chapter in the never-ending saga of feminist tear-mongering is taking place in Spain, with feminists attempting to force the government to ban a teaching workshop designed to help women become better wives.

From NY Daily News:

A Spanish town council has been slammed for organizing a training course to help women become better wives by “seeing the error of their ways and changing their personalities.”

Feminist groups and opposition politicians say the 12 weekly sessions organized by Onda Town Council are “sexist” and “will lead to women being blamed for everything that goes wrong.“

Oh, those poor victims of forever and ever and ever.  Women.

What does that even mean?  How will teaching women to function well in relationships lead to them being blamed?  It seems that women are more likely to be blamed for acting like feminists, demanding things from men without ever showing proper gratitude.  In this case, when they are being blamed, they are actually responsible for the problems.

Taking this constant position of victimhood, whether you are a woman or a black, simply makes it clear you are actually as weak as you imagine people perceive you to be.  In protesting this program, feminists are saying that women are fundamentally incapable of wrong-doing, and thus do not need to learn anything.

Our society is so confused, no one has any idea how they are supposed to function in a relationship, and thus teaching women some basics of how to get along with their husbands seems like an obvious move.  The only reason feminists would oppose such a program is because they openly desire thwart any attempts to fix society.

Continuing.

Critics also claim the center-right Popular Party run council, in the eastern province of Castellon, is being degrading to women.

They are now calling on Mayor Salvador Aguilella to ban the course – which costs 11 Euros to attend and is set to begin Feb. 5.

The “educational lessons,” as they are dubbed, have been promoted in a council-created brochure, reports TeleCinco.

Called “The errors of women in loving relationships,” the lessons’ main aim is for women to “achieve a good, loving relationship.”

Women, it adds, must be “aware we are playing a role, understand the role we play and to be able to change our character if our way of being leads us to fail.”

Those putting on the program said they are also planning to offer a program for men, to teach them how to better serve their wives.  I wonder how many males are going to come out and complain that that is degrading to men?

Obviously, the natural desire of a man is to make a woman happy.  All things being equal, the natural desire of a female is to make a man happy.

Our self-centered culture, driven by such Jewish ideologies as feminism, has put us in a position where rather than giving, we are focused on what it is we are able to take.  A woman is taught that she owes a man absolutely nothing, and has no responsibility to uphold any standards of behavior whatsoever.  Thus, a man views her, for the most part objectively, as having no value beyond sex.  The man then deals with her on this level, and this reenforces the female’s belief that men are an enemy group, which must be dealt with as an enemy.

Clearly, in order for things to work again, both women and men will have to change.  However, it is the women who have the power to force the men to change – it cannot happen the other way around.  All women would have to do is withhold sex from men until they agree to a binding legal contract, by which they are submitting to the man and exchanging sex and the performance of other duties, such as the production of children and the management of the home, for material and emotional protection and nurturing.

None of this is at all complicated.  Like the male and female of any other species, men and women are are biologically driven to relate to one another in a specific way, and when that natural order is rejected, by taking on the poisonous ideology of the Jew, relationships break down and ultimately any form of male-female relationship is only sustainable for a few desperate, drunken hours.

If we cannot make families work, we are not going to make anything else in our society work.  The first step in making families work is requiring women to take responsibility for their own behavior, and recognize that as they are physically equipped with vaginae, they do in fact have the power to determine the direction of society.  They must recognize that in following propaganda which told them to provide men with sex for free, they have been tricked into sacrificing this ultimate power for nonsensical and imaginary “gains,” and thus are now trying to regain lost influence by demanding further social engineering through various oppressive authoritarian measures, and they must repent.

Please note that I am not “blaming women” here.  Everyone in society is getting abused by this system.  It just so happens that the psychological and emotional exploitation of women was the key to the collapase of the social order, and it is thus on them to make it work.

As Jean Baudrillard said, innocence is the greatest aphrodisiac.  Though I do not desire to be crude, men are much more sexually interested in virgins, on a fundamental level, than they are in women who have been with thirty different guys. It is a statistical fact that marriages are exponentially more likely to succeed when the girl was a virgin before marriage. This exclusivity of sex creates a bond which is very difficult to break.

Women who present complete sexual availability are seen to be of little or no value, beyond whatever physical desires they may be able to fulfill immediately. It is recognized instinctively by a man that if she had value beyond sex, she would not be giving away sex for free.  It is plain desperation.  And so it is, as women become increasingly alienated by the practice of sleeping with unlimited numbers of men, it is only by offering sex without attachment that they feel they are able to get any form of attention from men.

For those men who don’t know (and the women in the comments section can confirm this), women do not get any form of objective pleasure from casual sex with a stranger in the way that a man does.  The idea that men and women have the same type of sex drive is an idiotic Jewish lie, which the sciences of both psychology and biology can objectively confirm.  Just so, they do not obtain personal satisfaction or self confidence from managing a company in the way a man does – they get that from bearing and raising children.

Women who engage in promiscuity do it because they have no other way of feeling they matter.  They want to take on the roles of men, because they feel they are incapable or not allowed to produce and care for children.  These backward drives, fueled by the initially flawed logic of feminism, have driven Western society straight to hell.

Even if traditionalist National Socialists were appointed as heads of all national governments tomorrow, society would remain in shambles until women stopped giving away sex for free.  Of course, if we did have control of governments, we could distribute emotionally-charged propaganda which shamed women for behaving in this manner, and thus fix everything.  Unfortunately, we do not have that power at present, so it is up to women to take responsibility for their own behavior.