Sexism & Racism

Although I am not a racist, I sometimes read racist websites. The reasons for this are many. For one thing, as readers of this blog will have noticed, I am fascinated by genetic differences, and racists or borderline racists are about the only people who will dare to discuss the genetic differences between the races anymore. (The differences aren’t all that great, far as I can see, but interesting.) For another, some racist sites have valuable male chauvinist insights side by side with the racist drivel, such as Occidental Quarterly. And finally, the MSM routinely ignores the very real problem of black-on-white crime, so I’m stuck going to racist sites for information about nonwhite criminals. I don’t buy that their higher crime rates are caused by genes, but it’s important information anyway.

It’s for that last reason that I’ve been reading this one racist blog called latté island. The blogger is a middle-aged white Jewish spinster who lives in California. Her posts are all either “It was in the news today that a person of color committed this crime” or “today I saw some black/Mexican/Muslim people behaving badly”, which has a certain fascination, as most of us have observed this kind of bad behavior but no one talks about it. (Example: some years ago my then-housemate and I went to a different grocery store from our usual. This one was in a more heavily black area of the neighborhood. Black people kept doing stuff like standing in our way in the aisles while pretending they couldn’t see us trying to get by, or “accidentally” blocking the shelves so we couldn’t get stuff from them. When we got home, my housemate [who also was not racist] commented, “What were they thinking? ‘Hey, let’s go to the Kroger and fuck with some white people.'”)

She hasn’t been keeping the blog for very long, so I’ve read the entire thing. She never presents any kind of theory as to why people of color tend to behave so much worse than white people. I suspect she’s not really smart enough to get beyond the personal nature of her posts. She became a racist, it seems, because she was raped by a Mexican illegal. Most women form their opinions based on personal experiences; thinking in abstractions is a male practice.

Today she suddenly exposed herself as a feminist in two posts that show that the lack of reasoned argument in her blog isn’t an accident. This woman who has sufficiently broken loose from widely accepted wisdom to be a racist turns around and parrots standard feminist boilerplate when sexism comes up:

GoV has been a hotbed of women-bashing lately. Some of the guys who are so chronically angry, they can’t get dates, blame the decline of the West on women’s rights. They reason, if only we could take away their vote and make them stay home and make babies, I could get a date with one.

No matter how many facts men line up about bad female behavior or to refute any particular feminist claim, women always ignore the facts and sneer, “You’re just mad because you can’t get a date.” Of course they’re not going to respond with logic; that’s what men do. Instead they’re going to do as women do and respond emotionally. Miss Latté formed her opinions because of her bad experience, so naturally she assumes that the men who object to widespread feminine delinquency are responding to a personal bad experience of their own. It doesn’t even occur to women that some people form judgments based on facts and logic.

Miss Latté fails to understand that women, particularly feminists, are directly responsible for the brewing racial tensions. For example, it was women who allowed their heartstrings to be tugged into voting for politicians who enacted the welfare programs that deprived black and Latino children of fathers who would have cared for and disciplined them, and deprived black and Latino men of the families that would have given them a reason to work and not commit crimes. (Before welfare, black Americans had a lower illegitimacy rate than any other group of Americans.) This is partly because women are easily moved to pity by the helpless (rather than by the genuinely wronged), and partly because women usually aren’t the earners of the tax money that is being used for welfare and other programs. People who don’t themselves earn money are always readier to steal it from whoever did earn it and give it away. This is why college students supported by their parents tend to vote Democrat – i.e. vote for the government to steal their parents’ money from them – and find themselves voting Republican by the time they’re 40 just because they don’t want their own taxes raised again.

It is the feminists who took over the teaching profession who are failing to teach minority children anything, not disciplining them for bad behavior, and training white and nonwhite children to believe that white people are evil oppressors responsible for everything bad in the world and nonwhites are entitled to reparations from them.

It is women who have been largely responsible for electing the Democrats and “moderate” Republicans who have allowed the mass immigration that is destroying our country. Also, women who have elected pacifist politicians and promoted policies of appeasement.

Part of the reason for this last has been discussed on this blog before. Women can’t fight effectively against men, so cave women, female hominids, female chimps, etc., evolved to appease aggressors. Women serve on a jury (or worse, as a judge) and can’t fight the millions of years of evolution telling them to try to make nice with the violent man before them so that he won’t assault them, so they acquit him. Women hear about angry terrorists rampaging around and prepare to spread their legs for them, not fight them. This response can be seen in any elementary school teacher. If feminists can’t stand up to a roughhousing six-year-old boy – and they can’t – they certainly can’t stand up to a grown Mohammedan with an Uzi.

There’s another reason, though. I’m still trying to work it out, so bear with me as I try to find a good way to put it. The well-established custom of conquerors claiming both the women and the territory means that women developed to be willing to yield to the triumphant male. This contradicts the cultural need for loyalty to the tribe. In a nutshell, it means that for females, discrimination against foreigners or racism are maladaptive. If the invaders look different from the local men, only women who can live with this are going to survive. For men, on the other hand, people who look different are probably invaders who intend to kill you, torch your crops and ravish your women. In other words, it’s more natural for men to be insular and suspicious of foreigners or people of different races. Women need to be more flexible to survive.

This translates easily into men being the guardians of the culture – they are always the inventors of it anyway – and women, who didn’t create it, being quite ready to help it be destroyed. Perhaps women harbor some sort of hostility towards men for their superiority. Perhaps it is out of envy of the achievements of Western men that Western women are now voting for pro-immigration, pro-affirmative action politicians. It is a false generosity, giving away things they did not create.

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Sexism & Racism”

  1. humanbeast Says:

    Check this out. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/02/art1full.pdf

  2. humanbeast Says:

    Check this out. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/02/art1full.pdf

  3. humanbeast Says:

    Check this out. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/02/art1full.pdf

  4. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Humanbeast: Thank you for the link!

  5. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Humanbeast: Thank you for the link!

  6. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Humanbeast: Thank you for the link!

  7. SellCivilizationShort Says:

    I don’t think the Occidental Quarterly is racist. I think they’re just scholars doing their best to be objective. They’re not perfect, of course.

  8. SellCivilizationShort Says:

    I don’t think the Occidental Quarterly is racist. I think they’re just scholars doing their best to be objective. They’re not perfect, of course.

  9. SellCivilizationShort Says:

    I don’t think the Occidental Quarterly is racist. I think they’re just scholars doing their best to be objective. They’re not perfect, of course.

  10. SellCivilizationShort Says:

    Kevin MacDonald has a piece defending TOQ from charges of racism in the latest issue — it reads in part:
    “I like to think of The Occidental Quarterly on the model of the Partisan
    Review in the 1940s and 50s. Partisan Review was an important leftist in-
    tellectual publication that gradually became anti-communist with in-
    creasing evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. The editors,
    writers, and readers of Partisan Review saw themselves as alienated,
    marginalized figures. As Norman Podhoretz put it, “They did not feel
    that they belonged to America or that America belonged to them.”2 But
    times have changed, and now that the ideas championed by Partisan
    Review, and the left in general, predominate, it is we who don’t feel that
    we belong to America or that America belongs to us. But the good news
    is that change can happen fairly quickly—within the lifetimes of indi-
    viduals. “

  11. SellCivilizationShort Says:

    Kevin MacDonald has a piece defending TOQ from charges of racism in the latest issue — it reads in part:
    “I like to think of The Occidental Quarterly on the model of the Partisan
    Review in the 1940s and 50s. Partisan Review was an important leftist in-
    tellectual publication that gradually became anti-communist with in-
    creasing evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. The editors,
    writers, and readers of Partisan Review saw themselves as alienated,
    marginalized figures. As Norman Podhoretz put it, “They did not feel
    that they belonged to America or that America belonged to them.”2 But
    times have changed, and now that the ideas championed by Partisan
    Review, and the left in general, predominate, it is we who don’t feel that
    we belong to America or that America belongs to us. But the good news
    is that change can happen fairly quickly—within the lifetimes of indi-
    viduals. “

  12. SellCivilizationShort Says:

    Kevin MacDonald has a piece defending TOQ from charges of racism in the latest issue — it reads in part:
    “I like to think of The Occidental Quarterly on the model of the Partisan
    Review in the 1940s and 50s. Partisan Review was an important leftist in-
    tellectual publication that gradually became anti-communist with in-
    creasing evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. The editors,
    writers, and readers of Partisan Review saw themselves as alienated,
    marginalized figures. As Norman Podhoretz put it, “They did not feel
    that they belonged to America or that America belonged to them.”2 But
    times have changed, and now that the ideas championed by Partisan
    Review, and the left in general, predominate, it is we who don’t feel that
    we belong to America or that America belongs to us. But the good news
    is that change can happen fairly quickly—within the lifetimes of indi-
    viduals. “

  13. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Considering that Kevin MacDonald publishes blatantly antisemitic books, I don’t think he’s a good source.

  14. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Considering that Kevin MacDonald publishes blatantly antisemitic books, I don’t think he’s a good source.

  15. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Considering that Kevin MacDonald publishes blatantly antisemitic books, I don’t think he’s a good source.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: