Freelance Comment Of The Week: Liberty Filtered Through The Female Mind

Commenter Trust perceptively piths over at Alpha Game Plan,

Another way men and women’s thinking is alien to one another. They see liberty a different way. To a man, they see liberty as making their own choices and bearing both the benefits and consequences of their choices.

Women, on the other hand perceive liberation as making their own choices and enjoying any rewards, while passing the consequences to others. Which, of course isn’t liberty at all.

Hence this [Scotland independence] vote. They see the union as an opportunity to enjoy the fruits of another, failing to see the other party in the union has wants and expectations as well.

This is one of those things that will have overlap between the sexes, but in a large enough sample size one will be able to discern obvious sex differences in emotional perceptions of broad abstract principles, like liberty. And yes, it has been my experience that women do tend to underplay the role of honor and self-determination and the consequences thereof compared with how men view those topics. Women are simply more pragmatic and self-serving than men, and this kind of difference bubbles up often in surveys that ask each sex their opinions of big issues like independence or national healthcare.





Comments


  1. […] Freelance Comment Of The Week: Liberty Filtered Through The Female Mind […]

    Like


    • on September 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      llozozozolzlozloolzolzlz

      Why The Feminist Platform Wins Women: “Vote for us, and you can fuck anyone you want, druggies, x-cons, prisoners, liars, assholes, and cheaters , and we promise you that we will collect funds to feed, clothe, and school all your bastard druggie spawn. We will collect the moneys from all the betas at gunpoint and threat of incarceration. We will seize the funds from all the men working in cubicles and building all the roads, buildings, homes, schools, and churches, while inventing your iphones and keeping the internet up, dying on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan to keep the prices down for the gas for the SUV you drive to Walmart to buy diapers and food for all your bastard spawn from three different criminal assholes. Finally, women will no longer be oppressed, and freedom, justice, and liberty will reign for all. Feminism = freedom.”

      lzlzozollzzolz?

      Liked by 1 person


      • You’re on fire, GBFM! This has been the Democrapic Party’s winning strategy since LBJ and his War on Female Chastity: Vote Democrap and we’ll take stuff at gunpoint from decent white working men and give it to you. Vote early, vote often, vote Democrap!

        Like


      • Everything you say absolutely true, but YKW pulling new covert flanking maneuver by recruiting anti-White anti-Western anti-Christian very high IQ brahmin and gooks into The Cause.

        Like


      • women have no honor. It’s thoroughly wrong to put the term woman and honor in the same sentence without “have no” in between.

        Like


      • Well said, Señor GBFM.

        Like


  2. > “an opportunity to enjoy the fruits of another” In fiscal terms, no free society can withstand too much of this moral rot. On the other hand, in sexual terms, “enjoying the fruits of another” could very well apply to Alphas secretly helping themselves to the wives of Betas.

    Like


  3. I had a similar conversation with a libertarian about this recently. And my question was simple: Is it possible for a woman to NOT be a statist?

    And what we came up with was no, it’s not possible.

    Men are self-sufficient creatures who, for the most part, want as little interference in our lives as possible, including that of the government (With the exception of blue pill betas, who always need someone to hold their hand and a cause to believe in because they can never believe in themselves). Watch any documentary about a person who goes into the wilderness to live off the grid and survive. It’s always a man.

    But politics as of late have been all about trying to get the female vote, and that means pandering to women as much as possible. During Obama’s threats to Syria I said that If Obama were to declare war on Syria, but in order to do so he’d have to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, this is what would happen: Men would protest the war, women would protest the cut funding to PP. And that’s because the government is all about giving women affordable birth control so they can therefore be sexually “liberated”, and therefore be “free”. Without this government help women can’t truly be free, since their power/value lies in their sexuality.

    So long story short: Men gain freedom and liberty from themselves, women gain freedom and liberty from the government. After all, it’s hard work to do shit yourself, right?

    Like


    • What about Ayn Rand or Isabel Paterson, etc? (Not to mention all the female conservatives – Google up “The Thinking Housewife” for example.) Women can be enemies of statism although as CH said, over large sample sizes women will view politics through their basic biological directives; i.e. the desire to secure long term provisioning. This is why women vote Left to the extent they do. In our current state, you could probably save the Republic, or at least stave off catastrophe, by doing two things. One, disenfranchise women and Two, raise the voting age to 35. Neither will happen in this era of Leftist (equalist) domination.

      Like


      • on September 24, 2014 at 7:46 am The Tasteful Thickness

        None other than Ann Coulter has stated that she’d be FINE with disenfranchising women, because it’d be better for the country in the long run,

        Like


    • > “government is all about giving women affordable birth control so they can therefore be sexually “liberated”, and therefore be “free”” ||||| But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of “mutual understanding.” It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady’s who would not miss a season for anything, or the Parisienne’s who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine’s who “belongs to herself” – they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful… ||||| http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GC08Aa02.html

      Like


    • Men are self-sufficient creatures who, for the most part, want as little interference in our lives as possible, including that of the government (With the exception of blue pill betas, who always need someone to hold their hand and a cause to believe in because they can never believe in themselves). Watch any documentary about a person who goes into the wilderness to live off the grid and survive. It’s always a man.

      I like the description there of the blue pill mentality. It really may be as simple as that: the blue pill is comforting, liberalism is comforting; the alternative is difficult. And (to suffer some pop psychology) it comes down to believing in one’s self: at that point, one can take the steep path, and make the hard choices (if one so chooses). That decision is there and has to be made every day; and i think that the steep path may be harder to find within the maze of civilization. Whereas in the wilderness it is the only choice.

      One nitpick though. To say that “men are self-sufficient” is not true. In the wilderness they are in some way shape or form dependent on a support structure or a culture. Sourdoughs in Alaska get their wheat flown in, for instance. Or even more rugged types, trappers in Siberia, they got a woman in the village baking bread for them (see the flick “The Happy People”). It is more or less just about impossible to survive alone and un-abetted in the wild. Or if someone wants to prove this statement wrong, drop in there, now before the freeze, naked and alone, and get back next year. With some clothes and a knife Liet Kynes might make it.

      Like


      • With proper training and equipment most any healthy man could make it. This does beg the question, though, of where you’d get the training and the gear.
        Well, in some societies you’d have that passed on to you from your father. We don’t do that as much here anymore, particularly since working class and poor women love getting knocked up by guys who skedaddle.
        But this brings me to another point – many women vote in their husbands interests, as these align with her family’s interests.
        Skyrocketing health insurance costs, crushing taxes, onerous regulations, and other leftist idiocy do not, of course, benefit tradesmen, professionals, small business owners, or men with decent but not $500,000 a year jobs.
        They do benefit those whove already made it, don’t use public schools, can afford another $20-30k a year in taxes, and already have gigs from universities, huge banks, or government associated businesses.
        And naturally they’re tiny but convincing bribes to fat ass mudsharks and loser old ladies, many of whom have been on the dole forever.
        Women who are attractive, think themselves attractive, or who are already in solid, loving marriages tend not to vote for proxy providers like B Hussein Obama.

        Like


    • “Men are self-sufficient creatures who, for the most part, want as little interference in our lives as possible, including that of the government.”

      So I’m guessing you’ve never met a mexican man or one of Obama’s Sons.

      Like


      • LOL! Black dudes are self sufficient! Then again they don’t want gummit interference as they ply their trades on the street.”Da POlice be oppressazz!”

        Like


    • The government’s nothing to worry about, so far as it goes…

      It’s being governed that ya gotta watch out fer!

      Like


  4. As they say, men love idealistically, women love opportunistically.

    In the same vein on the subject of liberty, I wrote the following in Spearhead in a recent post about Swedish nationalists gaining votes. A commenter wrote “ethno-centric ideologies are quite misandric and goddess-cult-like.”

    My response was to define liberty as follows, with some edits here:

    That’s like saying that men’s rights ideologies are rooted in homosexuality.

    Liberty is essentially — by definition — ethno-centric. The gist is that liberty is effectively measured by (1) a man’s degree of control over his public space, and (2) his degree of control over his future, both writ large.

    No. 1 above requires a cultural consensus: a general agreement on matters of religion, sexual morality, aesthetics, and balance of order vs individual will. In multicultural (of which multiracial is a subset) societies, this becomes impossible and a man’s dominion over his public space shrinks to the footprint of his house — and even less if he lives in a multicultural area (e.g. noise).

    As to no. 2, liberty allows man’s natural dominion over his women, vessels for his reproductive aspirations — to be clinical about things. Which, in a healthy society under condition of liberty, is a harmonious and complementary relationship of mutual responsibilities.

    Like


  5. I think women want to make sure they will have resources regardless of how those resources were earned. They are concerned with meeting the needs of children above all else. But I really take issue with how the Scottish Independence vote is seen. The Yes Scotland campaign was entirely run by socialist parties that wanted to further entrench Scotland in the EU whereas England’s increasing Euroscepticism and austerity has irked them and led the Yes Scotland campaign to invent conspiracies about the elite. I would only support independence to the extent it removes a diseased limb from England. But I believe the Scottish people’s talents are best utilized without big government and so I want them to remain more free in the UK.

    Like


    • … They are concerned with meeting the needs of children above all else…

      You give them too much credit, although some women do focus on the need of children the average woman is much more concerned about herself.

      Having other tax payers pay for women’s contraceptive, or how unfair divorce court is to men has nothing to do with concerns over the welfare of children.

      they may disguise it with “it’s for the children” but with most women everything is about “me!me!me! “

      Like


      • On average, none of these “gimme mah free birth control” chicks are going to have any children. In a decade or so, they will be making the transistion to cat-lady spinsterhood, and a few decades after that, they will be gone forever.

        Like


    • Right on base with the “men are self-sufficient” and the women version of that: “I am self sufficient except when I desire or need or want assistance and then don’t expect gratitude as it is an entitlement and right”. Read “Wild” by cheryl strayed; this idiot goes into the wildness along the “mountains” close to and during the winter season, totally unprepared and could have easily died. She met men along the way who assisted her in the “finding myself” narrative (which has now been made into a movie OMFG) and she has the audacity to write a book about it. Men prepare, plan, execute, and don’t need to put themselves on a pedestal and crow about what was essentially a HIKE.

      Like


      • I’m reading a Kindle sample of it now. Lost slutty daughter of a lost slutty faux a intellectual hippie continually makes bad choices, picking iffy carpenters for step dads, roving around the fringes of what used to be rural America.
        Weirdly compelling, but you grit your teeth as these sad and helpless remnants of the working class eke a living from the margins.
        Until a divorce at 22 (my God, people can pick ’em) and then she gets enough waitress tips to finance a wilderness vacation.
        Who the fuck says Western women aren’t free? If they don’t overeat and they’re under 40 they can hit up enough men for a subsistence that is significantly better than what, most of humanity had to work themselves half to death for, historically.

        Like


    • Another docile English guy who enjoys being shafted by the government and also not lifting a finger when their children are raped on mass.

      Like


    • on September 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      “I think women want to make sure they will have resources regardless of how those resources were earned. They are concerned with meeting the needs of children above all else. ”

      lzozozozozo yes dat is why dey aborted 50,000,000+ babiesz since roe vs. wade, so as to “Serve da needsz of da tiny, little innocent babiebebsz lzllzlzzzozo.”

      martin = reaosn there is no hope left zlzlzozoolzozoz

      Like


    • England’s increasing Euroscepticism and austerity

      What austerity?! National deficit still huge, people still spending like it’s someone else’s cash.

      Like


      • It’s a question of degrees. With a forty hour work week and something that resembles a market economy, the UK and Germany have systems that somewhat resemble ours. Not Texas, more like NY or CA, but far better than southern Europe.
        This is also why there are more Frenchmen working (some do in fact work like we do, surprisingly) in London than in all of Strausberg, France. Not surprisingly, the UK and Germany have lower unemployment, higher incomes, and better living standards than France, Italy, and Spain.

        Like


  6. on September 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm The Scolds' Bridle

    As red pill truth propagates via the internet, black knights will eventually learn to effect these same habits in response.

    The feminine mindset is not always reachable through logic, but words are almost always a winner.

    Using their lexicon against them is the most powerful tool. Men should start talking about men being “empowered”, until we absolutely ruin the value of that word to them. The way to destroy an ideology is not always to fight it, which often gives it added legitimacy and a foil to play against, Instead, embrace the terminology, dilute the meaning of it and eventually steal the movement and divert it to other means.

    We should turn the definition of ‘feminism’ into a woman’s right to be submissive to men. Because the current crop of feminists are denying women the right to do so. They are disempowering women from being able to choose submission.

    Muhuhaha!!!!

    Like


    • Using their lexicon against them is the most powerful tool. Men should start talking about men being “empowered”, until we absolutely ruin the value of that word to them. The way to destroy an ideology is not always to fight it, which often gives it added legitimacy and a foil to play against, Instead, embrace the terminology, dilute the meaning of it and eventually steal the movement and divert it to other means.

      Exactly. Republicans would do well to learn this.

      Like


  7. Speaking of lack of liberty: a nigger murders a 9-year-old White child. A news video BEGINS with jabber about “forgiveness.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/video/parents-9-old-murdered-playground-150046080.html

    God damn this abortion still knows as “america”

    Like


  8. British and French women are not like American and Nordic women: they tend to vote conservatively. In fact, the majority of British women have voted Conservative from the time they were allowed to vote up to the handsome Tony Blair became Labour leader.
    British and French socialists have traditionally served the interests of blue collar men who work with their hands. The US Democrats and Nordic Social Democrats have usually served the interests of state employees, many of them female.
    I must find out about voting patterns in the rest of Europe sometime.

    Like


    • More women than men voted No to independence.

      Like


    • British and French socialists have traditionally served the interests of blue collar men who work with their hands. The US Democrats and Nordic Social Democrats have usually served the interests of state employees, many of them female.

      Oh, please. They filled Britain and France with mass immigration. It was even written down as a plan by Labour, which was revealed a few years ago. After WWII Labour froze the economy, giving tax money to prop up both private and government-owned industries so they didn’t have to change, since change would mean people got fired sometimes. The British economy was in a horrible state until Margaret Thatcher cleared away the crap and allowed the economy to recover by actually adapting to public demand and business cycles. The Labour liars demonized her as a way to win votes from the working-class idiots who were too lazy and too dumb to get an education. But her reforms were what freed the economy from lethargy and made Britain an economic powerhouse again.

      Labour socialists did jack shit for workers. Except lying to them by bribing them with tax money and perks and claiming that would make the economy better somehow. The workers of course didn’t care that it was all a lie and that the economy stagnated, since they only wanted as much money as possible for as little work as possible, no matter what the consequences would be for Britain as a whole.

      As for France. The socialist Francois Hollande is the least popular president ever. He is running the economy into the ground. The socialists in France have always been extremely aggressive, nasty pieces of shit, screeching their hatred against those who hold up the country. They love starting strikes for no reason at all, before they have even negotiated about anything, and then using the strikes to sabotage a business as much as possible.

      They will dump garbage in the city parks as part of the strike, and block traffic just to hurt ordinary people so there will be pressure on the business or city that employs them. At the universities they have blocked people from going to classes with teachers they want to demonize. They have occupied classrooms and offices, spray painted the names of teachers together with filthy insults and threats. This is French socialism.

      Like


    • Ok, remember in America there are two types of women. White women mostly voted for Romney, while non-white went overwhelmingly for Obama. In the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, Rand Paul got 51% of all women.

      Like


  9. Two movie quotes that summarize women:

    “Women have choices. Men have responsibilities.”

    “I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.”

    Like


  10. Sounds like the way blacks operate.

    Like


  11. If black people get everything from the government, why are they so poor?

    Like


    • Because if the government gave darkies enough to be wealthy, whites would hang them from the next lamppost.

      Like


    • They’re not poor. Plenty of $ for bling, wings and weed.

      Like


      • Fotay
        They’re not poor. Plenty of $ for bling, wings and weed.
        ——————————————————————————–

        Do you wanna be one?

        Like


    • on September 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm gunslingergregi

      who said they were?

      Like


      • on September 21, 2014 at 3:46 pm gunslingergregi

        they fuck shit up even though they not poor
        that’s the problem

        Like


      • on September 21, 2014 at 3:50 pm gunslingergregi

        although maybe they keeping us more free than we would be

        Like


      • on September 21, 2014 at 3:52 pm gunslingergregi

        where tons of them are white people don’t go so they really have their own countries
        they didn’t secede they just are themselves kind of interesting
        cops don’t go nothing goes where they superconcentrated

        Like


    • You know the answer Thwack, but for those who don’t, it is because blacks are less responsible, they do not spend their money as wisely as whites

      this has been studied, I have read about it, blacks tend to have less money put aside for their rainy days and tend to have more debt than whites of equal income and this is true even for blacks with high income and who are educated, it has nothing to do with being poor and uneducated.

      This is why for example blacks often lose the house they had, not because whites are mistreating them or racism or any of that, but because they are irresponsible ( on average )

      Like


      • One should also recognize that Blacks are, on the whole, innumerate.

        The President has openly admitted (to his daughter) that long division is HARD; and he couldn’t do it, either.

        Arithmetic, budgets, math, logic … that’s White culture.

        Famously, the President was able to shoot through $300,000 per year in family income — and barely keep his head above water. Hence, his need for Tony Rezko’s illicit real estate ‘assistance.’

        As for being “responsible” — I’d have to consider them entirely responsible for their predicaments.

        What they are not is prudent, nor contemplative of future consequences.

        This latter tick, I believe, is embedded in Black DNA. It’s all wrapped up in r-selected genetics. To actually contemplate risks in Africa must burden the mind — effecting a paralysis of the will that Hamlet vented upon.

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/924795/posts

        To understand that Black impulses spring from co-evolution — and can’t be hectored out of existence — is to come to understand why “Black dysfunction” can’t be politically or culturally cured.

        Even getting religion won’t do it. Just ask Bill Cosby.

        K-selected races and r-selected races are just too far apart to paper over, even though Delusional White Liberals are giving the attempt endless monies.

        Hope and fantasy are improper sources for government policies.

        Like


      • backchecking
        One should also recognize that Blacks are, on the whole, innumerate.
        —————————————————————————————-

        So once we become numerate we will be able to steal as much as white people do?

        Like


      • ack…

        That would require a substantial cut-back in theft, then.

        Take a gander at any police blotter.

        Like


      • Black people don’t know how to steal cause you never taught us.

        You guys steal people souls; you are the original suck heads.

        Like


    • Anyone with a lifetime annuity gains no utility by way of an asset stash.

      Worse, under the rules of the game, ANY asset stash of any meaning ($2,000) zeroes out the ‘government annuity’ — aka EBT and Section ape, etc.

      Consequently, welfare dependents organize their financial lives very much like Federal bureaucrats — spending through their entire budget in September so that next years allocation is not reduced — but expanded, instead.

      By now, all of the above should be obvious to most American taxpayers.

      Like


      • So, given the fact that the vast majority of welfare recipients are not qualified for any job that would pay significantly more than welfare, isn’t the decision to spend rather than save in order to remain eligible for welfare an eminently rational decision? Pretty sure I would make the same call if those were my only options. And thus, the question answers itself: blacks are so poor specifically because they do get everything from the government.

        Like


    • Football players make millions and are poor within 5 years. Lack of delayed gratification. Aka muh dick syndrome

      Like


    • on September 22, 2014 at 11:22 am Never Mind the Bulzac

      “Black people don’t know how to steal”

      Comment of the decade

      Like


    • Slum’s in their hearts.

      Like


  12. It’s this way of female thinking that leads to assertions that not paying for their abortion or birth control constitutes denying them the right to it.

    Like


  13. Two thirds of Poles in Scotland voted No to independence, propping up the globalist agenda. The Blacks and Pakis were also overwhelmingly against independence. Even though the SNP is a leftist party, they knew that independence could awaken nationalist initiatives.

    With Scotland filling up with immigrants like the rest of the West, there’s a big reason for why nationalism was prevented. It’s not just the votes, it’s the presence of these invaders in classrooms and workplaces, preventing nationalist discussions among the Scots there, always ready to report those with Politically Incorrect thought.

    Like


    • Doh!

      The dependent are certain to be against independence.

      Scotland drains London for about 8.5 billion pounds Sterling each year… primarily to support Muslims, Blacks, single women and the elderly.

      Like


    • Arbiter: “It’s not just the votes, it’s the presence of these invaders in classrooms and workplaces, preventing nationalist discussions among the Scots there, always ready to report those with Politically Incorrect thought.”

      Yes, this is a very important point that not many people discuss, and has ramifications across the entire western world. It’s why the anti-whites are so fanatical in their promotion of integration. It’s not that they actually care about blacks, browns, or whoever. Blacks can slaughter one another in the streets and the anti-white doesn’t bat an eye. Whole black communities can be destroyed, and the anti-white yawns. He couldn’t care less.

      What he does care about is something different: he knows that once he’s got that black or brown in the classroom (or job, or military unit, whatever) then free discussions are effectively shut down, and more particularly, the normal lines of cultural transmission for whites are severed. The most obvious truths (crime stats, IQ differentials, etc.) cannot be discussed, and in fact must be actively denied and suppressed. Lie after lie must be taught, and dissenters punished. Tell the truth in the new normal, and you’re finished. Lie, and you get a gold star.

      Instead, an ideology of multiracialism develops, as is necessary for the integrated classroom, military unit, corporate office, etc. to function in the new environment. Change the people, and everything else must change as well. Everything else will change, from the greatest institutions to the smallest details of life.

      The liberal understands this perfectly, while the conservative is too dimwitted to grasp it. Is it any wonder that the liberal has been successfully transforming/destroying society for decades, while the conservative steadily loses?

      How do you teach the traditional values of whites, their heritage, and the value of their continuing as a people, when you’ve got a bunch of black and brown faces looking back at you? You don’t. It’s no longer reasonable or fair to do so. Eventually, as is the case today, it becomes literally impossible.

      Instead, you teach that white people don’t exist – except when it’s time to take the blame for something. This is dishonest, immoral and Orwellian, but who cares? It gives you a twofer – it demoralizes the whites, who you need to keep subdued, while also at least somewhat slaking the anti-white hatred of the blacks and browns. Both aspects are necessary for keeping the resulting cesspool under at least some degree of control. The fact that this destroys lives, often literally, matters not at all. Welcome to the new normal.

      In just a generation or so, the most iconic American has morphed from Jefferson or Washington to MLK. This is not an accident or aberration. Multiracialism requires a new narrative, with a new story about who we are, where we came from, and where we’re going. Education, culture, everything has to be altered to fit the new narrative – and is being so altered. It only makes sense, as we are in effect a different people, as blacks and browns replace us. The narrative can no longer celebrate the founding stock European Americans, but rather celebrates overcoming them. In effect, getting rid of them. We must applaud our own dispossession. Hope having that black kid in the classroom was worth it. There’s a reason the anti-whites hold the Brown decision sacred, above all others.

      Yet even to this day, conservative clowns are the first to say that “race doesn’t matter” and “it’s not about race.” The modern conservative really is just a short bus liberal.

      It shames me now, but when I was a kid, I always thought that liberals were idiots, and conservatives were smarter. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Liberals may be evil and sick, but they are successful. They set out to destroy traditional America, and indeed the entire white West, and they have succeeded. It’s over. I write only in the hope that something new and better for our people can arise from the ashes.

      Race isn’t the only issue, of course, but it is the central issue. Not *a* central issue, but THE central issue. Separation is the only solution that allows for white survival and continuity. So long as we play the multiracial/integration game, whites lose. Either we’re a people worthy of continuity or we aren’t, there is no gray area. Trying to be cute about it and have it both ways doesn’t work, as the utter and abject failure of modern conservatism over the last half century shows us.

      Decent people really should stop voting for conservative clowns, but at the very least, quit sending them money. They’ve lived quite well for decades, all while selling their own down the river. Don’t give them another dime. Spend the money to help a deserving white person instead, and let him know why you’re doing it.

      Like


      • Train, your comments are usually a mine of information and truth… but this latest collection of wisdom TRULY hits on all cylinders.

        A deep bow of respect, sir.

        Like


      • The modern conservative really is just a short bus liberal.

        … whose predominant physical effort is merely his hand continuously tapping his back pocket to make sure his wallet is still there.

        Like


      • How do you teach the traditional values of whites, their heritage, and the value of their continuing as a people, when you’ve got a bunch of black and brown faces looking back at you?
        ——————————————————————————————–

        You get a black person to do it for you. Y’all are still too fat and happy.

        Once you white people have nothing left but your mouths, you will start using them.

        Like


      • There are problems with some of Mencius Moldbug’s assertions, but give credit where it’s due: back in 2007 he said that the purpose of ‘diversity’ and integration is to plant open Stasi agents among Whites at all levels of every institution.

        The internet has become the conduit for White cultural transmission.

        Great comment Trainspotter.

        Like


      • “How do you teach the traditional values of whites, their heritage, and the value of their continuing as a people, when you’ve got a bunch of black and brown faces looking back at you? ”

        On the internet, we have plenty of black and brown faces ‘looking’ at us, not ro mention the NSA but nobody really gives a shit.

        But back circa ’07 we still kept discussions tame because of the “cool black commenters” (who weren’t in the least bit cool or friendly in retrospect) whose feelings we didn’t want to hurt.

        Like


      • Thanks Greg and PA. I appreciate it.

        PA: “But back circa ’07 we still kept discussions tame because of the “cool black commenters” (who weren’t in the least bit cool or friendly in retrospect) whose feelings we didn’t want to hurt.”

        Yes, very good point. Things have changed a great deal over the last few years. I used to hold back, at least somewhat, partially out of politeness. That generosity was misplaced. More than that, at some point I began to understand that to do so was in fact wrong, both practically and morally. In a multiracial society based on lies, where the system punishes those who are honest and gives a gold star to those who lie, it is vital for there to be people who will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

        Over the years, there were those that were honest with me, that helped me to understand the world better. I appreciate those people, and the role they played (and continue to play) in my education. I in turn owe that honesty to others, to pass it along. The stakes are so high.

        On the other hand, there were people that held back. People who didn’t tell me the truth, or knowingly left out key parts of the truth. Those who pulled punches, engaged in misdirection, and willfully obscured reality. They did me no favors, and I despise them accordingly. They played upon my youthful naivete and knowingly sent me down blind alleys, as they collected their paychecks. I’m thinking mostly of modern conservatives here, though there are others.

        It is immoral to acquiesce to lies when white genocide is the price. It is also impractical, as decades of conservative losers have amply demonstrated, the guys who tried to be cute and play footsies while our nations were destroyed.

        And as to politeness, I suppose I had an “aha” moment of sorts. I’ve known, liked and respected a variety of people from different backgrounds and cultures. I believe that they liked and respected me. But because they liked and respected me on a personal level, does that mean that they should therefore support the displacement and destruction of their own people? Because I’m a nice guy? Are you kidding me?

        It dawned on me that I would have never, ever expected such a thing from him. It would have never occurred to me to make such a demand. Even before I became a fully conscious white nationalist, if he had said to me, “Trainspotter, you’re a great guy. But I want Japan to remain Japanese,” I would have simply replied, “Of course.”

        To demand otherwise would have seemed bizarre at best, perhaps insane. Certainly malevolent.

        And yet, that’s exactly what some of these “cool” and “friendly” non-white posters have expected of us. Yeah, great friends. They don’t ask much, only that we accept and applaud our own destruction as a people. LOL! You know, just like spotting them a beer, or something. No biggie.

        My default is always to treat non-white posters with respect and courtesy. There is no reason to be gratuitously rude. But I don’t owe them my people’s genocide, and if they expect that of me, they deserve no consideration whatsoever.

        Like


      • The “him” I refer to above was a guy from Japan. I mistakenly edited out a transitional line.

        Like


      • Really insightful comments. I would add that the seeds of the destruction of traditional Western civilization must have been there from the beginning in order for it to be so vulnerable to this subversion. That’s why I think that we shouldn’t advocate for a complete return to the way things were. Christianity teaches that evolution isn’t true, and if evolution isn’t real then neither are racial or sex differences.

        Like


      • Christianity teaches that evolution isn’t true, and if evolution isn’t real then neither are racial or sex differences.

        Wrong on both counts…

        As a Christian, I have no problem seeing a form of evolution being an integral part of the majesty and awesome complexity of God’s Creation.

        Now, admittedly, whether said form of evolution which I see as rational (namely, adaptations within kind) agrees with each jot and tittle of Darwinian theory, well… I’ll let wiser heads than mine debate those points.

        Compare the ability of even the most rudimentary examples of various lifeforms to adapt to changing conditions in nature to the paltry attempts of Man to make self-sustaining and/or adaptive systems.

        And to play devil’s advocate, even if there were no evolution and every lifeform remained as it was created or directly amended by God after the fact, He nonetheless created male and female (and races) with the differences we see to this very day.

        Like


      • on September 26, 2014 at 8:02 pm haunted trilobite

        The ‘compelling’ evidence for evolution is the most hilarious joke ever played on humanity. To draw conclusions from the plethora of nonsense that has been presented to us, is like peering up the arse of a horse with a kaleidoscope and saying it’s a clear picture. There is evidence that advanced civilisations have existed on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. A great flood wiped the last bunch of hot shots out… and I wonder whose arse is going in the bacon slicer next. Could it be that our great civilisation, with its magnificent homosexuality, abortion, drug use, mass-extermination warfare, demon and technological worship, etc isn’t as durable as we’d like to think it is? Man-made global warming, Fukushima, food pesticides, chemical-laden water, etc have assured our destruction. The Vatican has completely sold out by affirming evolution, just as they did when they removed reincarnation from the Bible at the behest of a concubine. The theory of evolution is a pretty lie that has already perished, but in our foolish delusion, we couldn’t give a monky’s. Here’s the story of how other humans were created http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSPG&NW.html

        Like


  14. demorats know that women will generally go with the crotch vote nearly every time. Talk to their vaginas and they will follow you ANYWHERE. Get their behinds to percolate or imagine that part is free and they will even slaughter their own babies in the name of imagined freedom. Satan knew who/what to go to in the garden of Eden, the female part.

    Like


    • Ok, please explain why most white women voted for Romney?

      Like


      • Even worse: McCain won college edumakated whites by 1%, and then Romney widened that to an18% landslide. Our single biggest problem right now is actually ASIANS – brahmin and gooks – they’re voting 75% to 80% anti-Western and anti-Christian.

        Like


      • Actually it is 63% of white -married- women who voted for Romney

        while 66% of white -single- women voted for Obama.

        http://isteve.blogspot.ca/2012/10/obama-v-romney-demographics-draw-your.html

        And if I’m not mistaken there are more single white women than married ones in the USA, thus most white women are liberal

        and we know the damages liberalism is causing to Western Civilization ( “Rotherhaming” should be the name of this sad phenomena, I just invented the term )

        we are right to blame women ( well most of them ), they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem

        Like


      • In Australia, the cashed up, rich Chinese are buying up as much capital city, premium property as they can get their hands on. Usually by circumventing the regulations of the Foreign Investment Review Board which has conducted one prosecution in the last eight years.

        Like


      • “Our single biggest problem right now is actually ASIANS – brahmin and gooks – they’re voting 75% to 80% anti-Western and anti-Christian.”

        And anti-capitalism, undermining their own prosperity.

        Like


  15. on September 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm gunslingergregi

    course you are talking woman from certain places
    woman in other places get no free handouts only what they earn
    might as well have some loot go to actually help people though instead of all the donations going to ceo’s of non profits i’d like to see the college educated getting their welfare check from helping people go to jail if they at a certain percent of donations in their check

    Like


  16. As the expendable sex, men embrace the necessity of sacrifice. Men are willing to suffer to protect lofty ideals. This is beyond the capacity of the pampered sex.

    Like


    • No it isn’t. We’re willing to suffer to protect our children.

      Like


      • No you’re not; this is why pedophiles date single moms with daughters.

        Like


      • Yes Amy some do, yet tens of millions of women have no problem getting an abortion; the opposite of a sacrifice for a child.

        Like


      • We’re willing to suffer to protect our children.

        So long as it doesn’t hurt too much or bite too deeply into your cigarette and make-up budget.

        Heh, heh… back in the day, moms used to routinely say things like “I’d scrub floors so you could go to college” to us first-generation ‘Murrican boys… knowing full-well they’d never have to get their hands wet, nor grasp the feel of a scrub brush.

        Like


      • on September 23, 2014 at 4:42 am haunted trilobite

        Haha. Talk about CF making the blitzing argument. You see, without the ability to think 4th dimensionally (time) or abstractly, a child isn’t a child until it’s out, YOLOing, in front of them, boosting their status among other hens, giving them high-intensity cutesie hormone rushes, inflating their opinion of themselves to thinking “Wow, I’m so altruistic the way I love this child, like, even more than yourself, mostly. Nobody in the history of the world has ever had such an unselfish love for another human. This really reaffirms what I’ve thought all along – I’m not a whore, I’m a Madonna. Disney was right! Fuck that creep of a father – he doesn’t deserve to know such a bundle of joy, that only I, ME, ME, ME!, know how to raise.” And these days, every womb-dweller is crossing their barely formed fingers and toes in the hope that he’ll encounter such a bright, accessory-baby future, rather than get a date with a vacuum cleaner.

        Like


      • Amy,

        for every woman who took a bullet to protect a child there are millions of men who took a bullet/sword/spear on the battlefield to protect children and women from foreign invaders

        Men have been dying protecting children and women for thousands and thousands of years not only in wars but when a ship is sinking, a large predator is attacking or a building is on fire, it is women and children first and the men die.

        Sacrifice? men win on that one a million to one.

        and about abortion – excluding rapes which accounts for a tiny minuscule number – are men putting a gun to women’s head and forcing them to have sex without contraceptives and then once they get pregnant are men putting a gun to women’s head and forcing them to have an abortion?

        You know the answer.

        men win that one as well.

        thanks for playing.

        Like


      • on September 23, 2014 at 9:39 am haunted trilobite

        should read: even more than myself*, mostly

        Like


      • *Sigh*

        Some women won’t suffer to protect their kids, and some men are lazy cowards who won’t sacrifice to protect their ideals. Outliers gonna outlie. So what?

        Let’s take school shootings. How about the female teachers who stand in front of their little students to protect them from gunfire? That must shock some of you, but it doesn’t surprise me. I’d do the same thing and I’m not a teacher. And don’t even have kids. It’s NATURAL for women to do that, to protect children. If you don’t want to give women any credit for it, fine. Call it a biological imperative.

        Like


      • women tend to show impressive reserves of courage under very limited circumstances, like when their children are threatened. men’s courage, on average, is often in service to broader causes.

        Like


      • @CH- Agreed. That’s how I feel about the differences in intelligence, too. Men tend to have a broader intelligence and skill set than women.

        Like


      • But what if it’s the child of a beta? Hmm, let me think.

        Like


  17. The perception that the Scottish pro-indepence campaign is like the female perception of liberty is ignoring both historical and contemporary facts, and therefore is inaccurate.

    “to enjoy the fruits of another” Now, this is where most people fail to recognize why the Scottish independence is justified and moral.

    One of the fruits they wanted to keep is the strong British currency. Plus, they stated that they won’t pay “their part” of the national debt if they wont have the right to the Sterling.

    This however, is very similar to the Eastern European situation in 1989; take Poland as an example. The communist regime created national debt for Poland, which they theoretically would’ve been obliged to pay back, even after the regime fell in ’89. Instead, they stated that they never authorized the oppressive commies to create debt for their country, and therefore they won’t pay back any debt. Obviously everyone forgave their – illicitly borrowed – debt.

    Now, in my experience, most people who condemn Scottish independence is unaware of the similarity of the nature of the two unions (Britain and the Eastern Bloc) or at least the contemporary effects. It is a widely held, but false information that the union between England and Scotland was completely voluntary on Scotland’s part, and was created with mutual agreement. In fact, after failing to conquer Scotland by military force, England used a commercial blockade to force Scotland into the union. (They surrounded the country with hostile ships and cut Scottish commercial routes, which eventually would’ve led to the collapse of the Scottish economy.)

    Now think about this: just like the Russian regime in case of Poland, England was never authorized to control Scottish politics. They were never authorized to create national debt for Scotland. They were never authorized to make the Scottish economy depend on the union with England. Etc, etc, etc.

    Now, some Scots want – wanted – to live in a free country again. Obviously in the mean time, the English rule has affected Scotland’s economical independence adversely, which means they are dependant on England, at least to a certain extent (maybe they would be able to sustain themselves, but certainly with a less wealthy economy). The reason Scotland wanted to keep fruits from the union, while becoming independent again, is because those “fruits” are the base of the illegal union with England – the direct factors in England’s 300 year old illicit strategy of keeping Scotland commercially and economically dependent, and therefore chaining them to themselves. You might ask what would be England’s motivation for this: in historical times, it was their land, and their people as cannon-fodders to expand the Empire, and now the main motive is their potetial oil resources, among other things.

    Let me summarize this for you:
    1. England chained Scotland to their economy strongly, in an oppressive and illegal manner.
    2. The nature of the oppression, plus the power and influence of England has allowed them to legitimize the oppressive Union in the eyes of historical authorities (e.g. the Pope). Therefore, it is also legitim in the eyes of contemporary authorities (e.g. the UN).
    3. Since then, the economic dependacy of Scotland has grown – the centuries old English strategy is alive and well.
    4. The pro-indepence Scottish don’t tolerate this anymore. That is, they don’t want to allow England to use their despicably established economic dependancy to chain Scotland and exploit their resources – of which the (potentially) most important is oil under Scottish waters. And how do they want to get rid of the English yoke? Well, they want to “enjoy the fruits” that they weren’t authorized to be made dependant on in the first place, without those fruits being the base of the age-old but still illicit union! They are tired of being chained, and potentially exploited through dependancy. And since the “fruits” are they key strategy of England, they must resist being dependant because of those fruits. No one asked England to give and create dependancy; so now they should stop using it for chaining Scotland. And if they only way to end dependancy-based union and potential exploitation is to let Scotland keep having the “fruits” while becoming independent, than that is the only fair way! Again: no one was authorised to create the economic and commercial tie for Scotland in the first place. They are exactly like the commie regime in case of Poland, only more accepted because of their victorious history (people very often perceive other people’s actions based on the success of those people, not their righteousness) and because they started this shit ages ago.
    5. Every uninformed person points their fingers at the pro-independence Scottish, saying: “They wan’t to keep the good things from the union, yet they want to become independent! Bah! The selfish bastards!” failing to recognize that creating dependency was, and maintaining it is, illegal (legitimized in a despicable manner), oppressive, and is fueled by exploitative ambitions.

    Heartiste: you’re an awesome blogger, and someone who changes a lot of peoples lives for the better. Your political and societal views also cope with reality in most cases (even though you might be something called a “wild capitalist” outside the US 🙂 ) but your views on Scottish independence are heavily influenced by lack of information!

    Like


    • Independence of a country won’t mean shit for average joe though, as he will always get shafted by big gov and big biz.

      If there was a real feeling of unity and a plan where everybody had the best in mind for the general development of the country in a non exploitative way (only works when their is a strong racial and lingual bonding), as in Japan after WW2 (didn’t last long) it would be different, but independence or not would just be another label.

      Like


    • This is just not true. The union of the crowns occurred when the King of Scotland also became king of England and the union of the governments happened when a delegation from Scotland came to London and applied to join because the Scottish people had lost their money in failed overseas investments. The Scots wanted access to England’s American colonies for emigration and trade so they applied to join the union.

      Like


  18. Why my comment isn’t showing up? Are comments moderated?

    Like


  19. on September 21, 2014 at 4:22 pm Pijama Wearing Ninja

    It’s also that the idiots wanting liberation simply see Britain as an oppressive empire etc etc, but are pro-EU, more socialist than Britain as a whole and so on. It’s also that they’re hilariously out of touch: what currency will they use? what % of the debt the UK has will they get? how will they finance anything?

    If anything, England should kick Scotland out.

    Like


  20. Resource provisioning is an alien emotion for ‘modern’ women.

    Prior to the 20th Century women were massively occupied securing economic inputs or providing them: to wit the family farm.

    Urbanized womanhood is as detached from earnings as a lady of the court had been in the age of royalty.

    This ultimately changes their neural wiring.

    Plopping down on the TV couch becomes their number one prone activity.

    Obesity and the nulliparous life style bite deep.

    The ice cream scoop becomes a ‘sex toy’ — and oral sex takes on the character of onanism: all for one, one for one.

    Like


  21. A few Hayek quotes seem in order.

    “Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions … Liberty and responsibility are inseparable. You fucking child.”

    “It will be well to contrast at the outset the two kinds of security: the limited one, which can be achieved for all, and which is therefore no privilege but a legitimate object of desire; and the absolute security which in a free society cannot be achieved for all and which ought not to be given as a privilege … These two kinds of security are, first, security against severe physical privation … secondly, the security of a given standard of life, or of the relative
    position which one person or group enjoys compared with others….”

    “Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.”

    Like


  22. Nothing against the Scots – or the Irish – but independence in this case would have simply meant becoming another poor(ish) backwater on the edge of Europe, like Ireland, Portugal or Greece.
    Looks to me like they got the best of both worlds – increased autonomy on the way and they get to remain part of the G7.

    Like


  23. on September 21, 2014 at 8:10 pm Captain Schlamered

    When will these women learn to just let things go. If there is an offending female in the space that they intend to go, then it’s like a fucking atrocity. Just try a dose of ActRight with a DontGiveAShit chaser.

    Btw I’m kinda sick of women’s BS. I’m starting to crave being single and fucking alone again.

    Like


    • Isn’t that every whoring starlet’s current Amurrica-Gots-Talent/Glee-anthem song… “Let It Go”, from Frozen?

      Like


  24. How independence saved the Slovaks and how it may yet save England and Scotland: http://www.cato.org/blog/scottish-independence-will-kill-socialism-both-sides-border

    Like


  25. Jesus freaking titties, Fembitches at CREDO petitioning Rush Limbaugh for realtalking women’s ASD doublespeak:

    http://act.credoaction.com/sign/Rush_limbaugh_sexist

    Yeesh.

    Like


  26. Women want a man strong enough to not put up with their shit and put them in their place, then bawl to everyone they can what a bastard you are. Sucking up all the pity they can get, then come running back for another round of sex. They want a man strong enough to use them, smart enough to recognize them for the bitches they are, and strong enough to walk away when done using them allowing them to bawl what a bastard you are. I have noticed since I was a boy, (60+ years)married women can’t wait for their husbands to leave so they can nasty mouth their husbands to anyone that will listen, for them its a who has the most support, wins the battle of the sexes, they are glad to betray their husbands to get the children all on their side too. No THATS NOT ALL WOMEN, BUT IT SURE DESCRIBES THE BULK OF THEM. For the idiots that think generalizations have no exceptions, GET A DICTIONARY dummies !

    Like


  27. And the agent for off loading the consequences of their choices is the Hampster.

    Like


  28. […] Commenter Trust perceptively piths over at Alpha Game Plan, Another way men and women’s thinking is alien to one another. They see liberty a different way.  […]

    Like


  29. on September 22, 2014 at 5:26 am haunted trilobite

    Heart-rending tale of discrimination http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29211526

    Like


    • I don’t feel sorry for any of them – well, except for the fat, balding guy. He probably suffers enough the way it is.

      Figures it would be tatted chicks doing most of the bitching. I’m sure after the interview they had all their holes filled with alpha cock.

      Like


      • It’s the BBC – there isn’t an alpha male in the place…

        Like


      • on September 23, 2014 at 9:36 am haunted trilobite

        When you’re talking about those in the higher echelons of the BBC, ‘alpha’ might not be an applicable description. It’s another level completely. They might rip your still-beating heart out of your chest and eat it in front of you, if it suits them.

        Like


  30. O.T. Speaking of the comment of the week, the comment of the week for me was simply this, “Hold on a second … What’s your name?” I said this to a hot waitress and damn if she didn’t blush. I waited for her to walk a few steps away after she took our first drink order. Waitresses don’t do the “Hi, my name is X” routine anymore I guess, so she didn’t say hers. So when she started to walk away, I said that to her. I wish I could find a video clip to demonstrate how I said it, but I said it in a way/tone that said, “How wet is your pussy, cause I’m trying to get some of it.” You can say anything to a girl “Hi” “How was your day” “nice weather, huh” and make it sound like “How wet is your pussy, cause I’m trying to get some of it.” People that read this blog will understand what I mean.

    And since I arrived early at happy hour, I was able to see six other tables of dudes sit down, and not one of them bothered to ask the hot waitresses their names. Just doing this will set you apart from the others – just don’t say it in an eager puppy dog style. Game is good!

    Like


    • when shit comes out of alpha’s mouths, that’s EXACTLY what it sounds like. The opening doesn’t matter. Project badassedness by being badass and you will notice women respond to you.

      I sometimes cold approach and girls get flabbergasted, tonguetied, sometimes blush so brightly that I feel bad for them. I am unaware of my own effect, don’t consider myself particularly goodlooking, ok that’s a lie but I’m not fuckin brad pitt and shit.

      I dunno how to deal with a girl who is too nervous to even talk back…I get that somewhat frequently and it’s annoying. Girls are supposed to be unassailable and shit; that’s how they represent. But I’ve realized that, rather than being totally cool and iron nerved, they are as nervous about an attractive guy’s approach as he probably is about approaching, maybe more so.

      Like


      • Can’t say it enough that Game is like Neo in The Matrix being able to see all the zeroes and ones. Girls that may have made me nervous in my blue-pill days have no effect on me now. So many dudes at the bar lose so many opportunities to approach and chat with women around them because they don’t know game (don’t even know such a word/concept exists). It’s almost sickening how bad one night at a bar observing all this is.

        Like


  31. on September 22, 2014 at 5:57 am thwack

    Black people don’t know how to steal cause you never taught us.

    You guys steal people souls; you are the original suck heads.
    ———————–

    Hysterical. Makes no sense, but hysterical.

    Like


    • That’s one of thwack’s shticks, here at the chateau… you’ll come to the point where, like most of us, you just smirk and move on.

      The lash-out comments of women, children, and negroes all evince this sort of trait… though they throw their stones in earnest, we targets find great sport in the errant casts.

      Like


    • I love how:

      Whites are individually and collectively responsible for white behavior
      Blacks are NOT individually nor collectively responsible for black behavior
      Whites are individually and collectively responsible for black behavior

      What a clown race

      Like


    • White people:

      want to live forever — check

      Allergic to sunlight — check

      Live off the blood of other people — check

      Did I miss anything?

      Like


      • Y’all been watchin’ too many of them thar vampire movies, boy.

        Like


      • I stopped after Blade because thats when they started making the vampires gay fashion models like True Blood. Suck heads should be foul and nasty, not cute and faggoty.

        Like


      • Suck heads should be foul and nasty, not cute and faggoty.

        Odd, I always found the two sides synonymous…

        Then again, I’m wont to look past the outward and peer directly into souls.

        Like


  32. So Hermione Grainger told the UN some pabulum about men should all be feminists. Removealltesticulus! And lo, the 150 or so representatives of countries where chicks can’t drive, get their clits removed, are raped in war, or otherwise treated less well than in the North American-European affluence bubble all stood to applaud Harry’s little helper.
    They’ll do fuck all of course, but their FB page could yet become the densest online territory of beta whining since World of Warcraft.

    Like


  33. Hurrah to Scottish women for keeping the Union. Women may be childish and frivolous but their judgement is much more sober; they were never so drunk on the independence dream of a social democratic fantasy up the arse of the EU. A dream that would have soon turned into a libertarian nightmare as the remnants of productive life dry up into low-tax safe zones surrounded by concrete for the likes of Murdoch.

    Cooperation is not always a bad thing between peoples of the same blood. We have much in common on both sides of the border and we formed a Union that worked. A Union that built greatest empire the world has ever known. I am pleased that Britain was not torn in two by pettiness, naivety, lonerism, divorce and aspergers which so many of today’s people are inclined towards.

    Like


  34. And to set the record it was the welfare crowd who voted ‘yes’ to independence believing they could take more for themselves.

    And the English who supported independence were mostly Lefty sandal-wearing geeks who think that we need to raise borders with Scotland – because the Scots are so, soo different to the English – and yet lower the borders with the third world – because we’re practically blood-brothers with the simians.

    Like