Majorityrights.com Forum

I realize an explanation for the "anti-liberal" politics of the women who formed Mosley's group. That is because they were functioning from a normally enculturated ethnostate that sublimated their instinct to incite genetic competition. This also explains their increased liberalism with the breaking down of English ethnocentrism and why they already tended to be more liberal in America, where it is a propositional nation, not a normally enculturating ethnostate.

Daniel, this question presupposes that liberalism is in some way a functioning measure of human beings, as if it - liberalism - had a psychological foundation. I am not even convinced that non-reciprocal out-group altruism has a psychological foundation.

The idea that there is a base proclivity for females of any given species to incite genetic competition in order to compare and assess "fitness" of their prospective partners is something that I deploy from E.O. Wilson's sociobiology. Among human females, I believe that it would be sublimated in the more stable EGI of homogeneous ethnostates - perhaps relegated to a level of competition that cannot even be called "unconscious" but subterranean and humanly innocent, in the same way that we are humanly innocent of deciding which sperm wins the competition to penetrate the egg.

Nevertheless, I believe E.O. Wilson's hypothesis that females tend to incite genetic competition holds some water, even for humans - that is, as I see it, the deeper or lower, as it were, that you go into and perhaps adhere to motives in our mere biology .....and the more social criteria are disordered, unaccountable, and the more males are treated as bad or weak as they might attempt to create barriers to foreign males, the less distinctly human criteria are likely to be and the more these base biological tendencies in females, even human females, to incite genetic competition would surface.

Depending upon the context they might also be inclined to adopt liberal politics (openness to out-groups and foreign, non-traditional influences), not only out of "female compassion", but out of sheer self interest, vulgar competitiveness and pragmatism.

An insistence on open competition with out-groups is liberalism and it can provide short term advantages to females as it makes their judgment particularly important, beyond their merit, and it allows them to play males off of one another to drive a hard bargain for the strongest male. But particularly if they have a puerile lack of experience, of course their view of merit and value is truncated by the context when asking, who they are going to be protected by? The only unit of analysis allowed them and promoted by the anti-racist rule structure of Jewish modernity is episodic criteria. Who is the strongest and healthiest partner in that context? From her position, what does she know but the pandering of Jews, foreign males who want access to her genetics and by liberal males who are trying to prove how strong and above it all that they are by being liberal and open to foreign genetics?

Perhaps she knows the embittered males who have suffered unjustly as a result of the truncated competition. She would only be more inclined to see them as weak, controlling, jealous and ignore their better qualities that would be borne out in the more protracted criteria allowed by a system protected by boundaries. But in the reward structure of this context, she and the males she tends to empower tend to act as gatekeepers to block that kind who would facilitate systemic homeostasis.

The modernist liberal Europeans see themselves are doing something "new", "modern", "experimental", "progressive" and different by undoing traditional ethnocentric concerns. At the same time they are also doing the modern (scientistic thing) job of weeding out the non-liberal "weaklings".* Furthermore, that modernist - liberal naivete serves to blind them further to Jewish ethnocentrism, as modernity is narcissistic - it tends to think other people are acting on the same principles, universally.


* "Weaklings" also wrongly including those who would fight for their people and who have sense enough to recognize that they depend upon the post modern, hermeneutic turn for sufficient homeostasis of their long term genetic patterns, so that they as individuals may grow and develop into full expression along with their kind (i.e., every human and the more so, the more sophisticated a kind of human that they are).

You are mixing up two issues here, one being miscegenation and the other out-group altruism.

Females tend rather strongly to seek the quality of psychological strength in a mate, for which the most usual sign is high status, itself most usually signified by the male's possession of such exteriorities as power, position, wealth, or fame. In most fields intelligence attends high status, oft-times not explicitly. So as a component of psychological strength it can be overlooked, but many women find it very sexy; and probably irresistible when allied to some degree of consciousness of self, which women call charisma. Bolt on experience (confidence) and attentiveness (charm) and she's yours - assuming she is psychologically healthy herself, of course (and <em>you</em> are not a recently bankrupted, jobless, homeless, hopeless Quasimodo - though even there I have known a Quasimodo who found, married, and has lived happily for many years with a lady Quasimodo).

I cannot go with Wilson's somewhat zoological observation about female incitement. In so much as it is relevant at all, it is a corollary to the male battle for supremacy (status) and rutting rights. In other words, it is more an issue of a victorious male claim on the female, rather than a selection by the female of the male. It's big cat stuff. Rather, in humans, the sexes tend to be equal partners in selection. The real driver for the vulnerability of females towards miscegenation is this: it is far more complex for the female to filter for the fitness of the inner man than it is for males to run their eyes over the female form for approximately 0.15 of a second. Female physical traits are pretty much everything for men, and for that reason alone males are more restricted ethnically and racially in their selection pool. Females select from a pool which is much more loosely defined; and therein lies the bulk of the miscegenative problem.

So to what are we to ascribe liberal feeling in the female? Well, if by liberal feeling we mean an overwhelming care for the Other at the expense of one's own, it is obvious, isn't it? After mate selection comes motherhood.

GW, I will have a look at your response in a moment. I want to first call attention to the fact that the gender issue - who is more liberal and so on - has begun to be roughly addressed on other sites and in our own comment section:


Posted by Judenfrei critique of women by Millennial Woes, AA on Sun, 06 Mar 2016 06:27 | #
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comme ... 16#c149135

Millennial Woes gets four-square behind the Black Pigeon video “Why Women Destroy Nations.”



... including in what it does not say, viz. nothing about the J.Q. Despite that, Anglin gives a thorough endorsement and offers nothing about Jewish, let alone neo-liberal influences. In fact, he claims himself a forerunner to this judenfrei criticism:

http://www.dailystormer.com/women-and-t ... -invasion/

Note that Millennial Woes identifies himself clearly as “Alternative Right” and a part of its “reactosphere” - confirming his position in, and the characterization of, what we (I, anyway) have taken to referring to as “the tentosphere.”


Women thought Enoch Powell was wrong? on Sun, 06 Mar 2016 12:27 | # https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comme ... 16#c149138

Among claims that Millennial Woes makes in the clip of his that is under question, Kumiko Oumae might find it interesting that Millennial Woes claims that Enoch Powell never would have had support from women:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g_Z4gLgFEI

The discussion of which gender is more liberal in fact and whatever the case may be, what to do about it, is being subject to refined discussion now on this forum thread. Join us if you will...

Still, Daniel, the use of the term "liberal" is loose and inappropriate. Ontologically, we should understand liberalism as belonging to the world of the "they" or to the human personality ... the sum in us of that which we acquired ... which does not belong to us, but in ordinary waking consciousness we inevitable become immersed into or identified with. It is an overlay, behavourially speaking, but one that, like anything else in the personality, takes us away into absence and mechanicity.

The greater part of the female propensity for out-group altruism is biological, and cannot be altered except in evolutionary time, should such selection come to pass (and it is, in so much as miscegenating females are removing their genes from our gene pool).

GW, I haven't yet read your comments beyond a cursory glance to see a contention over the word liberal.

Before I do read your comments, I view the word liberal very simply and it holds up as criteria every time -

Here is a social group: Those who want to maintain, i.e., conserve, its form are taking a conservative position. Those who want to open its form to those who had formerly been outside of that form or who want to go outside of that form themselves are liberal.

I understand that there are different and sometimes very complicated varieties of what has been called "liberal."

The definition that I am using makes consistent sense for me in terms of what I am trying to say, even if some people may understand it in different ways. If the objective is to be parsimonious and simple, so that one can be understood across broad swathes of population, I like the chances for my definition to hold up. I shouldn't be cavalier about it, however. This argument over the definition of "liberal" provided occasion for a rare case when a person whose input I valued - Wandrin - was never to be seen again at MR.

As I recall, I conceded that you, et al. might be saying something very incisive in that liberalism does not only operate at the border, but can operate within to loosen up ways and traditions and thus can have, in effect, a corrosive effect within, that would ultimately lead to the system being susceptible at the borders.

Even so, that does not mean that the way that I'm using liberalism is wrong, not useful, nor even in contradiction to yours, it would only mean that yours is more elaborate.

With regard to a rigorous but rather universalist definition of biological conservatism it can be said that women are more conservative - they will prefer and be conservative in selecting what is the more stable, tried and true in basic biological form and function; but that is not conservative on the racial unit of analysis, it is conservative on a biological basis that goes (liberally) beyond race.

I cannot and should not comment further until I read your comments. Give me a moment and I will do that...

Ok, I have read your comments.

At this point, I can stand by what I've said in my comment just above to asset that what you say here isn't true of me:

You are mixing up two issues here, one being miscegenation and the other out-group altruism.

I'm not mixing these things up. They sort out quite easily in fact. I've done it in the comment above.

I want to add that what you prescribe in terms of what it takes to make a woman yours, doesn't take into account context - choosing a mate in a bad context that's bound to lead to interbreeding with blacks is NOT the goal for one who really cares about his legacy.

Furthermore, a man who proceeds with sheer confidence in that context is either a fool, a black, an Arab, or a Jew.

Our concern is more relative, i.e., for racial defense rather than the universal mechanisms of P.U.A.

If we take 'liberalism' in the way that you are using it to mean 'automatically trusting in the outgroup', then women are not biologically predisposed to do that. Race bias tracks to the menstrual cycle:

Race Bias Tracks Conception Risk Across the Menstrual Cycle (PDF) wrote:
ABSTRACT—Although a considerable body of research explores alterations in women’s mating-relevant preferences across the menstrual cycle, investigators have yet to examine the potential for the menstrual cycle to influence intergroup attitudes. We examined the effects of changes in conception risk across the menstrual cycle on intergroup bias and found that increased conception risk was positively associated with several measures of race bias. This association was particularly strong when perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion was high. Our findings highlight the potential for hypotheses informed by an evolutionary perspective to generate new knowledge about current social problems—an avenue that may lead to new predictions in the study of intergroup relations.

My summary of the PDF is basically: women are averse to groups that are marked as outsiders, and that aversion-level varies over the cycle, reaching its peak at the most fertile days in the cycle. In other words, it's mestizaje-avoidance on the most basic level. And that avoidance is especially high if the outgroup is viewed as sexually coercive and if the women happen to hold a view that their own vulnerability to sexual coercion is high.

The writers themselves in the discussion of course cannot resist themselves and begin explaining how they think that this tendency could be undermined, but the methods that they suggest for undermining it are not different from what the proponents of mestizaje do all the time when they are trying to lower people's guard against an aggressive outgroup. Basically presenting narratives of 'anti-racism' and making the outgroup appear to either not really be an outgroup, or making their presence appear as though it is normal.

If we take 'liberalism' to mean the ideology which emerged as a system of property relations which we are all living under today, then that's also not women, since women were never asked or consulted when liberalism was being drafted up and compiled. Liberalism is the ideology of property-owning males, and women -- who form most of the working class and who are a majority in 7 out of 10 of the lowest-paying fields -- have just been living in it.

Also, this is anecdotal but bears mentioning as well, in my experience, the most impassioned promoters of mass mestizaje that I've come across have almost always been liberal men (who always treat me with scepticism or contempt once they realise what's inside my brain). I almost have come to expect that it is liberal men above all who have the gall to get into heated arguments with people of any ethnic background and call for them to be destroyed in that way. Most women don't try to literally get into your space and tell you to dissolve your entire country and its culture.

If we take 'liberalism' to mean the ideology which emerged as a system of property relations which we are all living under today, then that's also not women, since women were never asked or consulted when liberalism was being drafted up and compiled. Liberalism is the ideology of property-owning males, and women -- who form most of the working class and who are a majority in 7 out of 10 of the lowest-paying fields -- have just been living in it.

Property ownership could be liberalism in terms of what it prescribes to out-groups - i.e., that they should be liberal with regard to their borders and boundaries. Out-groups would not only include people of other nations, but out-groups to the property owning class.

I don't think property ownership would define liberalism. What it can do, rather, is provide a basis of liberalism. It can also provide a basis for conservatism - perhaps too secure a basis in some cases (even so, don't confuse me for one trying to take away private property please). If you have private property, you have made it private because you want to conserve it as yours, and you tend to want to continue to conserve it and its inhabitants interests. That is a conservative motive.

Now then, what I suppose may happen, is that some private property owners might become secure in their property ownership (their basic needs satisfied, so to speak) and become more acquisitive, looking to go outward, ultimately even beyond their people's and national borders in order to acquire more - using the abstract laws of property ownership as a liberal, right wing tool to transcend and transgress the bounds of other's peoplehood.

But property ownership, of itself, is not necessarily liberal. It is basically conservative of the owner's interests, of his/her boundaries. It depends upon the law and who can own property or not whether it goes on to be implemented in a way that is liberal to others.

However, as land owners become more rich and parasitic on rent, they might just wish to do the things that Marxists would accuse them of - subvert labor unions which would allow the non-owners to acquire capital and property; invite in outsiders to undercut unions and wages; increasing a waiting pool of labor; and finally, seek property and industrial manufacturing abroad in order to keep the poorer local folks down and unable to challenge the liberal oligarch property owner.

Bowery's discussion of Henry George and land tax reform could provide one way to counter these liberalizing tendencies in land owners: Since large land owners are dependent upon the state to secure and protect their properties, the state should tax any land beyond what the owner needs to live and subsist; and redirect monies to the rest of the population as a tax for their service to not harm the property if not defend it.

But even in the example of The English lord who acquires land at the expense of Irish peasants, the definition of conservative and liberalism that I am using would hold up. He is conserving his interests at home. He is then trying to impose a one way rule of "liberalism" upon the Irish peasants whose boundaries and interests he pushes aside by investing in and acquiring from Ireland.

DanielS wrote:Now then, what I suppose may happen, is that some private property owners might become secure in their property ownership (their basic needs satisfied, so to speak) and become more acquisitive, looking to go outward, ultimately even beyond their people's and national borders in order to acquire more - using the abstract laws of property ownership as a liberal, right wing tool to transcend and transgress the bounds of other's peoplehood.

Well that's precisely what I mean. When I say that liberalism was 'created by' property-owning males, I mean that all of those decisions were made by the men who crafted the ideology. This does not mean that liberalism is the only ideology that has a conception of private property, but it does mean that historically it has been overwhelmingly men who made all of these decisions on how the ideology was going to work.

That's why I've always found it strange that among ethno-nationalists there has been so much talk of women as some kind of sexual instigators. Even if women had wanted to take a leap into societal uncertainty (and they didn't), there was no mechanism through which women could even express a preference electorally until 1911 in the UK, and when that ability to vote was awarded, women immediately voted mostly for the Conservative Party and kept doing that until 1997, mostly because British women perceived (perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly) that this was the 'safest' way to use their votes.

This is what makes the statements by Millennial Woes in his most recent video so stunningly bizarre. Women have only had the vote in the UK for 114 years, 81 of which were spent giving electoral victories to the Conservative Party. It was obviously a job both thankless and futile, but that's how it went.

Optimally, a whole different party should have been created, but they could not have reasonably known that at the time, I think. Plus, the establishment had dealt harshly with women when they created the British Union of Fascists with Oswald Mosley, so the chilling effect against 'becoming too radical' had been established with jail as precedent.