Last week, I wrote a very good article once again examining the bizarre phenomenon of “right-wing male feminism.” I explained, once again, the bizarre fact that male feminists will not ever present logical arguments or explanations for their revolutionary doctrines, and instead rely purely on the claim that anyone who disagrees with them is a pathetic loser who “can’t get laid.”
In the replies section on The Gamer Uprising, I noted that I made a point in the article not to psychoanalyze male feminists, given that their entire attack strategy is based on psychoanalyzing their opposition.
However, the reality is that male feminists refuse to present any form of an argument in support of their positions, so you are left without any ability to understand what they are trying to communicate beyond the fact that they must be promoting these ideas for personal reasons.
For a period of years, I have asked my feminist critics for an explanation for their belief in the value of women’s liberation, and none of them have ever tried to give an explanation.
A reader wrote:
There really are limits to logical arguments beyond which you have to have a discussion of the Other persons biography. E. Michael Jones has talked about this lately. In his book about the degenerate moderns, he gets into the fact that you don’t go straight for a psycho analysis or biographical ad hominem at the beginning of a debate about an issue. Hear the other person out. Bear with them and give them a chance to show you if they are arguing in good faith, and if their ideas make some kind of basic sense. If so, both you and the other men can probably learn from each other. Jones Gives the example of Thomas Aquinas. As he says, the arguments of Aquinas speak for themselves. There’s nothing wacky or strange that makes you say wait a minute, was this guy some kind of drug addict or looking for a way to justify his desire to do prostitution or pedophilia? No there’s nothing like that present in the writing, so you just take them at their word.
But when you get into a character such as John Paul Sartre or Michael Foucault or some of these people who have these insane points of view that just make no sense coherently, you can argue with them for a bit and eventually you have to go and ask what has your life been like up till now. In the case of Sartre he was a drug addict, something that wasn’t well known until well after his death and which Jones deals with. In the case of Foucault his father was a surgeon who forced his son to be an eyewitness to all kinds of strange surgeries and body dissection’s or something. This massively traumatized little Michelle and goes along way to explaining his future sodomy and career of trying to justify his degeneracy with books of bizarre philosophy.
And so as it turns out ad hominem is a fallacy, and you pointed out that all of the responses to your criticism of feminism always boils down to some form of dismissing what you’re saying with a flimsy accusation of sour grapes or being an InCell. At that point the person is doing an ad hominem fallacy and refusing to confront the argument. But on the other hand if one person in the debate is trying in good faith to dwell on the facts, but the other person keeps ignoring what’s being said or moving the goalposts, it’s absolutely necessary to stop the argument and ask what is going on in the other guys mind and what might’ve happened to him to make him so infantile. This is a perfect explanation of what goes on in almost every political debate in our era if someone in the conversation is making traditional arguments. The arguments will just be dismissed on a very silly level as coming from the person’s childhood or something, and it turns out this is actually just a projection of what the liberal wishes to do with adult conversations. It’s a valid explanation of their procedure and they projected on any adult they encounter, never realizing that the other person was charitably assuming that the person had a real argument to make but was actually a child disguised in an adult body
It’s a strange thing, because they (many of my critics or ideological opponents) will always go straight for the psychoanalysis, and the instinct then is to avoid doing that, but when they literally give you nothing you are able to attach to and reply to, but just keep on going – usually it turns into a circle, as I pointed out recently with the guy who believes in the virus/vaccine and says I’m a conspiracy theorist for “thinking everyone in the government is bad” – you just don’t really have anything left but to say “this person must have some personal problem.”
In some cases of course, the person is just stupid and doesn’t understand the basic concept of argument/debate. But if a person is going on and on, and then is clearly being purposefully dishonest – usually by pretending to have forgotten your argument, and then starting over again at the beginning – you can only conclude that there is some other motive.
On the internet, we do know that the government and various Jewish groups literally pay people to go around spreading bullshit on purpose. We know that as a matter of fact, and their budgets are not getting smaller. There are also people on the internet just trolling, having fun trying to get a rise out of people. And of course you don’t know. So it’s a little bit different. But if there is a guy who is putting his name and face on articles claiming that anyone who is opposed to women’s liberation is just a beta male whose ugly and mad he can’t get laid, and outright refuses, under any circumstance, to present something other than that, then you must assume this person is trapped in an eternal mommy psychological situation.
Another reader wrote:
Any argument that rests on “all you have to do to get a decent woman is out alpha and out status Kanye West and Brad Pitt” is so breathtakingly stupid that it actually kind of leaves you not knowing what to say. Also we “already are doing women rights and liberation so we just have to make it work” is self evidently liberal. You can’t want to go back to tradition, hierarchy or any kind of stable order while simultaneously doing women’s liberation from heiarchy and tradition. You just have to pick one. You literally can’t believe in hierarchy and order and women’s liberation. At best you want feminism but without the fruits and fall out of feminisms. This just isn’t serious.
And I replied again:
It’s not serious and not honest. They start out with this small dick shit, then move to “it’s too late, we have to be practical.” It’s more than moving the goal posts, it’s changing the entire foundation of the argument. It’s like “okay well, you called my bluff, so let me tell you what I actually believe.” And it’s like bro why were you lying about your beliefs on the internet?
It’s just a fallback to another meaningless fake line of reasoning that is also just a coverup for some kind of personal thing that these people have going on. It is a mommy defense system. I don’t know if these people even know how dishonest they are being, or if it is all subconscious, where they just know that they have to defend the supremacy of women, and it doesn’t really matter how they do it. But obviously, they can’t do it with some kind of well thought-through and reasonable point-by-point apologetic. No such thing exists.
Obviously, these people have no problem borrowing leftist arguments. But the leftists don’t have any arguments for feminism either. Leftists all talk about “equality,” while refusing to acknowledge that what they are endorsing is a ridiculous power imbalance, where women control all social situations and interpersonal dynamics, across the board.
Just to go back to basics here: equality cannot exist because it doesn’t exist. Women are not physically, emotionally, or intellectually equal to men. So to create that illusion, you necessarily have to create a massive power imbalance favoring women. That then becomes a runaway train, where you have the establishment claiming that women are capable of matching men in the military, but also if a woman goes to a man’s room and he tells her he’s going to have sex with her, she is too weak to scream or even tell him “no” because of his physical superiority.
In the latter situation, they will now start talking about how she can’t scream because of thousands of years of oppression or whatever – it just devolves into complete gibberish. Somehow, 3000 years ago, a woman was able to scream when a man tried to rape her (and was relieved of guilt of illicit sex if she did scream), but now, in a system where women are favored over men in every single area of society, a woman is too oppressed to scream.
Ultimately, this is the deal: these people hate nature because they hate God. Anyone who denies nature is not going to come up with a logical explanation, and will be forced to resort to nonsense, gibberish, and lies. I would even go so far as to say that any honest argument is about getting to the core of the natural order, which is synonymous with “God” and “Truth.”
Obviously, copying comments to the front page is a way for me to post something long on the front page without having to do any extra work, because it is Sunday and I want to go relax and drink wine on my porch. However, I do think these are important ideas, which deserve further exposure on the front page here. Also, I write a lot of long stuff on The Gamer Uprising that probably needs more exposure.
Because this issue of “right-wing male feminism” appears to be making a comeback in various quarters, it is something that I will probably be discussing more in the future. This will likely involve primarily going through and repeating a bunch of stuff I already wrote years ago, but I’m feeling up to doing that, and often the rewrites are better than the originals.
Next, I think it will be necessary to establish the fact that “feminism” is always “rule by women.” As stated, women are in control of all social situations and interpersonal dynamics in this society, and toxic femininity is at the core of the Western moral order. Explaining that we are all held hostage to a matriarchy, a brutal mommy tyranny, is a prerequisite to understanding just why feminism has been so destructive to civilization, and to understanding why nothing is going to be fixed in society until the patriarchy is reestablished.
To fix the problem of modernity, all of these Jewish revolutions must be overturned. We cannot pick and choose which ones we want to keep.
We have to go back to the way things were.