Pornocracy, he warned us

In the 19th, he wrote:

To support than the woman can express in the people’s assembly her disagreement with her husband; it is to imply their latent disagreement and prepare them for divorce. To suppose that the reason from the first can balance the one of the second is to go against the wish of nature, and to degrade virility. To admit, finally, to public functions a person that nature and the conjugal law have, to say, dedicated naturally to solely domestic functions, is to alter the family chastity, to make a woman a public figure, to proclaim the confusion of genders, the community of loves, the abolition of family, the absolutism of the State, the servitude of the people and the infeodation of properties.

Change, modify, or intervene, in any manner, this rapport between sexes, and you destroy marriage in its essence; from a society predominated by justice you create a society predominated by love; you fall back to concubines and flutters; you can still have fathers and mothers, as you have lovers, but you won’t have families; and without family, your political constitution, of families and free cities, will become a communistic theocracy or pornocracy, the worse of tyranny.

Mystics say that, one day, there won’t be males nor females; which nowadays seems to be, even for a crowd of educated people, the unique manner for destroying the antagonism, and therefore for extinguishing crime and misery. But would such a society survive? I would argue that this society would function a 100 times worse than ours; and, if you allow me to clarify, I support the fact that it would radically be impossible.

Society subsists by the subordination of all forces and human faculties, individual and collective, to justice.

Every woman who dreams of emancipation already lost, ipso facto, the health of her soul, the lucidity of her spirit, and the virginity of her heart: she is already on the course of sins.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Pornocracy or the modern woman, ed1875

And this is what happened.

Feminists admit to condemn reality based on fiction

The website “wearyourvoicemag” published a feminist article on the basis of the TV show “the handmaid tale”. The first time I saw this TV show, I couldn’t think about anything else but the impact it would have on the women I know. I already feared the consequences on me for things I don’t do nor ever done, nor support. So, I switched it off. And I was right.

Fiction is now a solid basis for protesting against a fictive oppressor in the real word. If you are guilty in a TV show, that is apparently enough for some people to condemn you very concretely – for things that you could do in a less likely hypothetical future. Indeed, let’s remind the world that feminism and the end of slavery were brought by white Christian males.

Reproductive rights is a subject that is central to the politics of white feminism because it is the second most prominent fight that it has historically engaged with, the first being voting rights for white women. It has always been understood as advocacy for the right to birth control and access to safe, legal abortion options as part of one’s ability to plan pregnancies and families on one’s own terms. In short, for able-bodied and able-minded white people, it has been primarily about the right to not be pregnant.

Considering the historical context of eugenics, scientific racism, and certain state-sanctioned violences, reproductive justice for non-whites would largely be quite the opposite. For many, it would instead be the ability to bear and nurture one’s own children without government interference or barriers created through white supremacy and systemic oppression

Until here, even if I totally disagree with this intellectual ground which is a total fallacy and a denial of individual responsibility in life, we were still at the exit door of rationality, still building logical foundation for the next discourse on the basis of virtue signaling. Now comes the fantasy:

Distinguished by their red robes and white bonnets, Handmaids are forced into slavery, repeatedly violated, impregnated, and made to give birth to children that are immediately taken to serve the interests of others. Essentially, The Handmaid’s Taledepicts cis white women stripped of the ability to bear and nurture one’s own children without government interference or barriers created through white supremacy and systemic oppression. This is a position that they have never seen themselves depicted in, and it terrifies them.

White feminists identify so strongly with The Handmaid’s Tale because it is a show about white women in slavery. They see clear connections between its horrors and the current state of U.S. politics. They see it as an omen. As a call to action.

So, as they state clearly, a TV show is solid ground for a call action – which means violence. Today’s feminists are so mentally sick, that in order to nourish their privileges, their quest now crosses the gates of fantasy to justify violence on white males.

Put it in other words, you take a camera and pay a white woman to slap a white man and write a scene. You film it and publish it on youtube. Then, a couple of days after, the government would use your video as a “solid ground” for punishing all white women in the real world.

Besides, what worries me is the impact of fiction on people – here women. It seems here that many aren’t now capable of distinguishing reality from fiction. This means that whatever they watch on TV, Facebook, etc. is very real for them. Because let’s be clear, white women are not oppressed by white extremists, who most of the time are just traditional Christian men who want a good peaceful family ostracized by a very real totalitarian “liberal” society. Haven’t we gone too far with TV and media? Maybe reducing it and reading the bible instead would prevent much violence.

When you can start punishing people on the basis of fiction, you certainly reached some kind of dogmatic idiocratic limit. Feminism has become a religion.

Condemned for sexism… In Belgium… Goes viral: Why?

Not a long time ago, they condemned a belgian for sexism. He is sentenced for 3000euro fine with potentially 1 month of jail.

The reason? He made a remark to a woman officer on her gender. I won’t judge him for what he said nor what happens. Maybe she is right, but that’s not the point ; we ain’t saying here that men should insult women, we only praise mutual respects.

What is interesting is how all media are relaying this very little situation across the world. Seriously, why a 3000euro fine would become so famous? After all, insults to officers happen every day. Even officers killed happens everyday.

I let you think why precisely this “sexism” story (propaganda?) comes up and goes viral around the women’s day. I let you think if there wouldn’t be some kind of agenda behind saying something like:

Well they did a good job in Belgium. We should be proud of this progress. Let’s implement sexism laws everywhere, and most importantly let’s enforce them.

I already predict some western leaders proposing concrete measures. But that’s just me.

You know what is the funniest thing out of this? They claim that sexism in Belgium came out of the box after a video from Sophie Peeters showed harassment on the streets of brussels in a hidden camera. Yet, no-one seems to see that these harassment came ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY from non-Whites. Don’t believe me? Watch for yourself:

Talking about sexism, this particular story didn’t go as viral, why?

So, equality for all, or some people more equal than others? It seems that sexism is not a battle against everyone, but just against white straight men. SJW, left agenda ?

Anyway, let’s ask also the question: is sexism just right?

French language is sexist!

French, the great language of Molière, who brought to this world so many things is under sexist attack. In France and Belgium, the new battle for the feminists and the cultural-marxists SJWs is the so called “inclusive writing”. What the fuck?!

In French, there are 2 genders in the grammar (masculine and feminine), and the masculine is always the default one. Therefore, if you talk about a profession in general, such as “teachers”, you will say in French “les enseignants”. On the contrary, the feminine gender would be “les enseignantes”. And apparently that is sexist!

The real question asked in the Belgian newspaper is “is French sexist by nature?” (and therefore of course its roots should be dismantled). In France, the debate is more divided. The basic new way to write French would be “enseignant-e-s” instead of “enseignants”, just not to disturb angry feminist and SJW.

Some schools already started adopting the new standard, even if still not legalised. But that is just a formality in a sick world.

The real funny question will be when they will address two facts: Jew rabbies (aka newly rabbin-e-s) and Muslim Imams (aka newly Imam-e-s).

How will they say it? My guess is that there will be an exception for them. Wanna bet?

Dearcatcallers, that’s stupid

Sad, very sad. “Dearcatcallers” spends her life taking selfies with poor guys (so-called beta males).

This is what stupid women do when they are set free without any goal in life. They become feminists who do not even understand what they fight for. Anyway, I shouldn’t even bother because she doesn’t look too white to me.

Seriously, what’s the goal of taking selfies with poor guys but getting attention?! What is her achievement?! Nothing but stupidity.

At least she tells something: white men, man up and take back what is yours.

 

 

The truth about modern economics

Western white population is declining, in all the meanings. Let’s dig into why a normal man can’t anymore handle a family.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "broke student"

In the Red Pill world, most men are facing the same issue: the more you are conservative, the more you face the entire post-modernist society and its economical challenges. 

As a child, you have been raised to believe in a sunshine and lollipop world where getting a university degree will get you high paying job to start a family, buy a house, buy a nice car and have an early retirement. But as you finally  grow up, you realize :

  1. The studies you took did not even lead you to an average paying job that can sustain your way of life, nor your family… nor anything else.
  2.  There is no one older than 50 years old in your company; your career will most likely stop at 50.average age by tech company
  3. Your wife studied at university (maybe made an Erasmus in case of Europe), and is now having an average job. It is likely that she had quiet few sexual partners ; increase in the chance to ruin your marriage by a factor of 3 (at least).
  4. Inflation is out of control, no matter what are the official statistics. Healthcare costs are rising… and so is education, houses…

So, facing these realities, you struggle to choose between a house wife which is conservative, young and uneducated that will bring little if no money at all or that crazy feminist bitch that will suck out your masculinity, time and energy. And that latter won’t probably bring much to your life than blathering about her modern class warfare against patriarchy.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "feminist employeed"

Analyzing the history of the purchasing power of the average man can gives us answer on where the problem lies. We know live in a modernized world with advanced automation. Productivity has skyrocketed. Women’s life got so much easier that they can now undertake studies and work as well for the family. Our purchasing power should, theoretically have increased significantly. Did it?

About a hundred years ago, a worker was earning 100$ a month in USA, while an engineer had around 400$. The cost of living was approximately the same as today adjusting to gold. The USA was on a gold standard and the gold was at 20$ an once. An average house cost around 80 ounce of gold, depending where you bought it. In other words, the median worker was earning around 5000$ / month (in today’s money, 5 ounce of Gold), and needed to work 3-6 years to buy a house on his saving. He didn’t need a credit.

Today, a young man having an average university degree will earn about 1.5 ounce of gold/ month, and a house costs about 200 ounce of gold. An average university degree holder in a top firm can save about 20% of his revenues if he makes some compromises on his life. In France for example, a house costs 400.000€ with an average salary of 1500€ a month. This means that a normal bachelor or master degree holder will need about 100 years of savings to buy a house, or 50 years for a flat. In eastern countries, with an average salary of 800 euro a month and a house for 100000€, the problem is the same. 

In other words, a quick calculation demonstrates that a conservative man can not sustain a descent size family. So, if he wants to have a traditional family, he will have to make a lot of compromises or be very lucky: get a big heritage, some help from the parents or find a very high paying job in the alt-right… and if you see one, please just let me know.

Hence it is essential that conservatives join forces economically. Even if some of our views might differ, the development of the community should be a core issue. If we (on the right) do not start building a new world, a new community then nothing is going to change. At the moment, the left has all the resources  (Soros, Zuckerberg, Musk…), and the only way to start taking them is by uniting the right and fighting under the same flag. As much as we have to stop playing by their rules, we must also find a way to create some true solidarity. If you can give a job to someone sharing the same values as you do: DO IT. Give discount to people you know. Be generous.  Undertake projects together. There is so much to be done. The entire web,  entire villages, houses, infrastructure etc. have to be rebuilt.

Our duty is to help each others as brothers to create the families of tomorrow.

Remember, the only way for our ideas to become reality is to fight; surviving together as a community rather than dying as individuals.

Is being sexist just right?

Before starting reading this, note this is probably the most sexist and misogynist post you have ever read.

Image result for dont be sexist

Women have always been a subject of fascination. Through poetry, philosophy, literature, and more recently women psychology has been tried to be understood. Right or wrong, their diversity and inability to describe, rationalize or assume their nature jeopardizes any grasp to understand them.

In this post, I want to highlight a personal yet logical point of view. After reading multiple authors, one can simply agree that a woman is not a man. Proudhon describes the woman as 2/3 of a man. Weininger says that men can only hate women if they understand them, whilst still being prisoner of their love and beauty. Strange paradox.

On my side, I prefer being more pragmatic. Women are born like Image result for 8 intelligencesmen but with diminished attributes in almost every fields. Some say that women have higher emotional intelligence, but framing it in the scope of “self-awareness” and “empathy” quickly shows that women actually have a gynocentric (egoistic) intelligence.

I do not say that women are all stupid and that no woman can be smarter than some men. But history clearly demonstrates that there are more talented men and more successes to be attributed to men than women. And if we count those from the so-called “liberation” of women, we can still see a huge gap (if not a greater gap).

Officially, women have slightly lower IQ, and tighter distribution. Let’s not forget there are also 110 men for 100 women, and that next to the IQ still remain 7 distinct intelligences! Also, tests can be trained and performed under normal conditions. In average, what would happen in case of “new problem” and “life risk event”? What about the combination of the multiple intelligences all together? I guess we just reach what a normal world is… and we all know what it means.

Related imageImage result for IQ men and women

Therefore, what can we attribute to them? How can we grasp their nature and explain their behavior?

Actually, their biological limits are clear: lack of logical thinking, poor management of emotions, lack of empathy, lack of physical strength, lack of environmental awareness, lack of sense of orientation etc. Women do not have a goal to make humanity better. They do not want to build, but consume. And we can explain this easily.

Their lack in multiple domains combined with a natural child caring nature leads to such nature. They need protection and they need someone to provide for them. When you can’t give to others, what can you do? You take. This is why women seek for protection: physical, emotional, financial, social, etc. Their inability to see clearly, pick a direction, to know what to do and to be disciplined enough to do it repeatedly leads them to using others. Why are they pretty? Because this is the only way they can  have a better man, and also distinguish their status to other women. All woman know that pretty women do not have much to do to be safe in life.

Actually, what they do is not important for them. The morality is not important for them, just like race, nations or whatever. In the morning, they only think about what they will wear and which make-up is necessary. During the day, they just compare themselves with other women and seek for the attention of men… or simply wait for the end of the day at work – because they do not give a shit about building, but only about the money (resources) they get. The attention from men feeds their ego and makes them feel secure in society with such subconscious message “men are still caring for me more than others in case of needs, so that’s ok – I am safe”. Constant competition, frustration and ego-centrism. “When can I make the world a better place”? Never. Even their own children can eventually become tools to provide for them – especially in case of divorce. Love you said? No. Jealousy? Just another word for their subconscious insecurity and their self-perceived low female status for the male they are with (in other subconscious level words: “he could get better than me, I have to be bitchy to keep him”).

Eventually, women manipulate men and other women to obtain what they need. Of course, they are instinctively conscious about it, and hence hate each others for that matter. They do not trust each others, and call other women “sluts” or “bitches” when they see them as  a (sexual) threat. Women are actually naturally all about beauty and sex. – and what’s wrong with that? We, men, love that and attribute a lot of value to that.

So, now you may know why women are always right. They always win because they go naturally on the side of the winner. They hate losers deeply and feel no pity for them. So, it is not about being morally right or wrong, but more about having the last – winning – word. And on this, they will always have it. If necessary, they will sleep with your best friend just to destroy you and show you how “right” they are. In the end, it is not a question of morality but of survival.

Should we hate women for this? No, rather we should strive for being better men and framing them better. We all have a biological role and theirs is the selection of the strongest, the filtration of society and the constant equilibrium (challenging) of male energy. Of course, the current Western society is sick and their natural selection is biased. But this is also a good opportunity to grasp our nature and change society for a strong and lasting homogeneous prosperity.

Should you discuss this with a woman? You can, but she won’t understand it. She could admit it is true, or simply get mad at you. Just know the truth and deal with it in silence. That is the hardest part. That is the manly part.