On Feminism - By Dasho


By Dasho

Every single stage of feminism has been bad. Every single idea that it pushes is bad. Every single goal it has is bad. Thanks mostly to second wave feminism, which covered an enormously broad range of topics, it is beyond the scope of one article to address all of these concepts. This article will address only two central points relating to feminism.

Women Should Have The Right To Vote!

No, they should not. I can give you three excellent reasons women should not have the right to vote.

One: It allows politicians to drive a wedge between men and women and pit husband and wife against one another. Politicians can use gender identity politics to attempt to appeal to men or women exclusively, pitting half of the nation against the other half while giving them an excuse to avoid addressing the real issues. It gives politicians in Washington the power to get between a husband and a wife emotionally and intellectually, which is outrageous and should not be allowed.

Two: Feminism is the most destructive thing to the family. Before feminism, only men had the right to vote, and almost all men got married. In practice, this meant that there was generally one vote per family, not one vote per person. If we assume the lowest possible trust in politicians, then we assume that their political rhetoric will always reflect the bare minimum of what they can get away with. When 95% of American voters were men casting votes for their families, politicians had no choice but to pitch policies and laws that were conducive to family values. But when all adults have a vote, politicians no longer have to care about family values. The level of discourse can be lowered to simply being individual-friendly instead of being family-friendly. We can see the transformation this has on political rhetoric in action by simply looking at how talking points were changed. “Homosexual marriage is bad for the family” stopped working as an issue. Why? Because of the individual-friendly rebuttal: What somebody does with their own body, or what they do behind closed doors, is no business of yours. The family gave way as an issue to the individual. This counter to anti-homosexual sentiment did not exist until women were given the right to vote.

Three: This point is related to the first two, but merits further explanation. Conservatives and Liberals have a very fundamental split on how they view the world. The molecule is defined as the smallest possible unit of a substance that still retains all of the traits of that substance. A water molecule is the smallest possible amount of water that still behaves chemically and physically like water. If you break it down any further, it stops being water.

One of the most fundamental splits between conservative and liberal viewpoints comes from differing views on the components of society. The liberal views the individual as being the smallest possible unit of society. Thus, all of their policies and issues stem from this fountainhead. To the liberal, it makes perfect sense that all rights, freedoms, and powers should belong to every single individual. Even their more radical stance, which is the communist reconfiguration of wealth and social structure, is nothing more than a relatively basic and logical extrapolation on this theory of the primacy of the individual. Communism takes ‘all individuals should have the same powers, freedoms, and rights,” and extrapolates this into “all individuals being totally equal in all things is the only true form of fairness and justice, because any difference between individuals must be injustice”. Thus, we have the creation of things like social justice and cultural Marxism, and we come to understand why communism, in spite of being referred to as a “radical” politic, is in actuality only a single step away from modern liberal talking points.

This is how you can tell, rhetorically, that neoconservatives are just liberals with red hat on. This is also how we can accurately identify libertarianism as being inherently and fundamentally left wing. Both neocons and libertarians accept and agree with the core liberal framing that the individual is prime.

The conservative, however, disagrees. To the conservative, the molecule of society, the smallest possible unit of civilization that still retains at of the qualities and traits of civilization, is the family, not the individual. A family is a group of people who share blood ties, live in the same space, speak the same language, have the same culture, and share the same experiences. To the conservative, a family is a microcosm of the nation itself, because it shares the same traits and general definition that a nation does. However, if you were to break the family apart into individuals, they no longer exhibit the traits of a nation; they are alone.

This, in a nutshell, is the fundamental disagreement between conservatives and liberals over the identity of a nation, and it is why the liberals have lost the argument. An individual is a lump of experiences and traits without context or frame. To base a nation on individuals is to base a nation on nothing, because individuals have next to nothing in common with one another. This is the reason why liberalism, having fully incubated into its final rhetorical form, is agitating for the dissolution of all borders and the inclusion into any nation all who wish to be a part of it. To a non-liberal, it seems like madness, but to the liberal, it is simple logic totally in line with their core assumption that individualism is prime.

Conservatives, by contrast, have an infinitely more authentic depiction of a nation. A nation is blood, soil, and the shared culture and experiences of the people who live in it. A family is also shared blood, shared soil, and the joint culture and experiences of the people who are a part of it. Conservatives define a nation not by the individuals who make it up, but rather by the bonds that hold those individuals together. A group of individuals is a family, the smallest unit of a civilization that still retains all of the traits and qualities of civilizations. A group of families is a neighborhood or locale, a group of neighborhoods or locales is a district, a group of districts forms a state, and you can either stop there with the nation-state, or take it one step further with a group of states creating a greater superstate.

This is a very long explanation for a very short statement, but was needed to justify it. The third reason women should not vote is because, simply, it distributes the vote to individuals over families, which creates a system that will always sacrifice the family and always destroy family values in the name of pushing individual values. In pure cause-and-effect, a system in which only women could vote and all women were married would be better than a system in which both men and women can both vote. The vote must go to the family; this is absolutely paramount. Prior to feminism, the vote did go to the family. Women’s voting rights destroyed this.

Women Should Have The Right to Work!

No, they should not. Fortunately, unlike the previous point, this one requires far less baggage to successfully unpack. I will make six points here, though strictly speaking, the first one alone would be enough to justify saying no.

One: Speaking in rough terms, giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while keeping the overall number of job positions available the same. This means, at a bare minimum, all wages are halved and it will be at least twice as hard for anyone looking for a job to actually secure one. What bringing women into the job market did was functionally the same as going to a foreign nation, picking out a number of foreigners equal to the total number of American women, and then bringing at of those foreigners in and dropping them off in America all at once. If somebody today proposed importing 150 million immigrants within one year, which is the modern-day equivalent of what feminism did to America in the early 20th century, they would be disgraced and ostracized, and rightfully so.

I could leave this point here, and it would be enough. The math is cold, harsh, brutal, and so simple that even a political pundit could not deny it. This is precisely the reason no one has ever actually formally examined the damage women entering the workplace did to first-world nations economically. The effects were catastrophic, and they don’t fit the narrative that giving women rights = goodthink. No one in the mainstream media or the mainstream political discourse wants to think about how much damage feminism caused economically: We are not supposed to think about that.

But I won’t leave it here, because there are five more good reasons women should not be in the workplace. They are all separate but inter-related reasons.

Two: Permitting women in the workplace is a mistake because it destroys the husband’s ability to support his family. Once upon a time, the income of a single man working full time was enough to pay all the bills, put food on the table, pay for the needs of 2.5 children, and keep a woman who is a housewife full-time comfortable and well-adorned. It was enough to keep a house in working order, pay his taxes, own and gas up two cars, and still have enough recreational spending money to splurge on holidays and vacations, as well as having a little bit extra to put away into savings for the kids and for his own retirement.

Today, this reality of yesteryear is like a vision of wealth untold from Aladdin’s Cave of Wonders. Why? Because women entering the workplace pushed salaries and wages down to the very rock bottom. Double the number of people seeking jobs means the free market dictates that labor is only worth half of what it used to be. Libertarians see no problem with this, but as we have already previously established, they are deluded into believing the same fallacies as liberals.

Three: Feminism enslaved women to the workplace. Cutting the wages of all working men in half meant that women had no choice but to enter the workplace in order to make enough money to fund their family. One of the primary reasons that feminists agitated for the right to work any job they wanted to was because they felt they did not have the freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. If that was truly their complaint, they have failed spectacularly. Indeed, they have achieved the exact opposite of that. Instead of gaining the freedom to choose, they now have no choice but to work, whether they like it or not.

The housewife of yesteryear may not have had every business world door open to her that a man would have, but she, at least, had more freedom and choice than the woman of today. She had the luxury of choosing to not work if she so pleased, and could sit pretty in the comfort that her husband’s salary would take care of her and the family she was a part of. Those days are gone. That freedom is gone. In exchange for 2% of women getting to wear pantsuits and play at being power executives, 80% of women must work as waitresses and grocery baggers whether they want to or not. Funny how much this freedom smells like slavery, isn’t it?

Four: Bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it emptied out the home. Forcing women to go to work alongside their husbands leaves an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn’t take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and raised by their own mother. Forcing women to work to sustain their family means that they will no longer be able to give their children the care that they need and deserve. This damages children mentally, emotionally, and socially at the time when they are most vulnerable. This is not fair to the children, and has produced, and will continue to produce, generations that are in many ways emotionally and society stunted.

Five: It undermines homeschooling as a means of educating your child, and increases the dependence on state and federal programs to take care of and instruct your child. Once upon a time, a child could be sent off to school, but a woman who wanted to be more hands-on could opt to not do this and instead teach their child reading, writing, and arithmetic at home themselves. With the home emptied out and the labor of women tied up in securing a second income to support the family, the family has little choice but to forego homeschool and rely upon public and private institutions to teach their children.
This is always a risk, because you do not control what is taught. In the case of public schools, it opens your child up to being influenced by whatever politics are at play on a state and local level, dictating what may and may not be taught. The outsourcing of education to strangers is inferior to the more holistic approach of home education, as all testing and aptitude rankings have shown. Head for head, children that are homeschooled systematically outperform publicly educated children in all areas, and match neck and neck with the highest achieving of the private school students. They are also happier and more content on average, and are more emotionally and mentally balanced.

With women in the workplace, this superior method of education is limited to the already wealthy, the uniquely fortunate, or the very few families that contain someone with a high-flying job who is able take up the slack for their spouse not working and bringing home a paycheck.

Six: Bringing women into the workplace was a mistake because it encouraged them to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagant luxury only slightly less costly and less unattainable than a high-class yacht. The pressure to not have children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. “I’ll have a family, but later, when I’ve saved up enough money.” “I’ll have kids, but later, right now I need to secure a future for them.” “I want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better, right now I can just party and enjoy myself. After all, it’s not like I could have one now anyway even if I wanted to.”

But the cold reality of nature is that while men continuously produce healthy sperm until the day they die, women have a finite number of eggs. And the longer a woman goes without having children, the greater the likelihood that there will be complications or congenital birth defects. The possibility of a child being born with issues such as autism, general learning disabilities, and Down syndrome become markedly increased the older the mother is, and the age of the mother has also been linked to problems such as birth defects, miscarriages, and even sudden infant death syndrome.

Studies have shown that the peak years of fertility for having healthy children begin around the ages of 19 and 20, and persist for the next six or seven years. Beyond the age of 28, a woman’s fertility begins to drop, and the possibility of health issues with her children begins to increase with each passing year. Eventually, she will enter a twilight of fertility in her late thirties, and not long after, her supply of eggs will run out, bringing about the onset of menopause and rendering her infertile.

The harsh fact of life is that not only do women have a finite number of eggs, but those eggs can and will go bad. The longer a woman puts off having a family, the less likely it is that she will ever have healthy children or a stable long-term relationship with a man. The odds are, in fact, even worse than they seem at first, because women do not live in a vacuum. They must contend with men, and those men who wish to be husbands are compelled by their own instincts to naturally seek out as young a woman as possible to settle down with, to ensure the health of his children. As a woman becomes older, even if she maintains her physical beauty, the odds of her landing a true, genuine husband go down.

All of this taken together creates a cascade of negative effects. The implementation of feminist policies undermines the economic structure of a nation, helps destroy its moral fiber by replacing family values with individual values, and robs women of their freedom and ability to self-determine. Feminism disincentivizes the responsible men and women upon whom society depends from having families, and ultimately plunges the birth-over-death ratio below replacement level even as individualist avocation drags political policy into the mud.

All of these negative effects can be traced to the two key touchstones of feminism: the right to vote and the right to work. It would be possible to spend weeks unpacking the problems caused by the ideological wanderings promoted by third, fourth, and fifth wave feminism: advocacy for social justice, peddling of alternative gender identity, and the insistence that all of society and culture be forcibly rearranged so that everyone is equal.

Instead, I choose to focus narrowly and deeply on these two core principles of the first and second wave feminism, primarily because many women (and men) will waffle when confronted with anti-feminist sentiment. They will state something to the effect of “well, I agree that all this new stuff is strange and wrong, but the original feminists, they were alright! What they wanted was completely reasonable, and I agree with them.”

The beginning of feminism is the most important part of feminism, because everything that followed after it depended upon the basic assumptions they made. Prove those assumptions wrong, refute them, and you pull the bottom out from under the house of cards. Those assumptions are the most reasonable sounding of the lot, and the most likely for your average citizen to support, even if they are a conservative. This makes it all the more important that they be thoroughly and utterly debunked.

The harsh truth is this: countless conservative women bemoan the loss of the family and family values, and those with the agency to be politically active debate and scheme about how to get it back about how to stick it to those darn liberals and their shameless hussy advocates.

Little do they know that it is the policies that they supported that caused the death of the family, not the ones they opposed.

It is the solemn duty of every conservative woman to oppose feminism on every level, and to do so vocally, publicly, and intelligently. Anti-feminist women can damage and undermine the philosophy in ways that no male attacker, however articulate and well-versed, ever could. In this, you have something we do not, you have a strength we cannot muster.

You have a duty to use it, just as you have a duty to create and rear children and to stand by your beloved. This is a war for everything you hold dear. Your future, your husband, your lives, your culture. The children you hold in your arms. You can hold nothing back. Because I promise you: your enemies won’t.



New forum section? Shhhhheeeeeeeit


GreatCoons Opening up ‘Forum’/‘Articles’ for public discourse


Spot on, as depressing as where mass culture is the in current year may be, the whole point of destroying white society is encapsulated in how dangerous the kikes see phenomenon like the Boer “bitter-enders.”


Sorry I’ve been a bit absent recently. I had to take care of some issues with the family. Thanks for posting this up there. I saw a few wince-worthy typos I had made when I originally wrote this, so if there’s a way to fix those, just let me know.


The two conclusions, “women should not have the right to vote” and “women should not have the right to work” respectively, are not supported by the evidence you adduce in support of them. All that follows from your arguments are, respectively, “one person in a family ought to vote for on behalf of that family” and “only one of the two adults/parents in a family should work”.

Those conclusions fit nicely with the conservative view that you mention, and I think that they are perfectly strong by themselves, but if you want to maintain the conclusions you began with, you’ll have to say something about why men are always better suited to vote, as well as work. It stands to reason that the person who does not work will likely be the best person to do the voting, since they can spend more time making educated decisions about political matters. So, I think you should change your conclusions to the gender neutral ones I listed above, and give arguments as to which person, either mother or father, is best suited to either voting or working, since determining one will likely determine the other.


Guest said in On Feminism - By Dasho:

you’ll have to say something about why men are always better suited to vote, as well as work.

THe work is pretty obvious. Men are supposed to work, not bear children. Men are stronger and less emotional, thus better suited to do honest labour and function in a competitive environment (office). Everywhere in any form of human society it’s the men that earn a living. Women are better suited to taking care of the family in the social sense. They can take care of the children and provide a stable basis which will enable the man to do his job.

As for voting, the woman at home will be just as busy with taking care of the children and home as the man is working. Besides people in general don’t make rational decisions,thru vote with their emotion. And this is even more true for women. Just look at how they vote today.



Even if it is true that men, on average, tend to be both physically stronger than women and less emotional, and if it is true that these traits make for a better worker, all that follows is that, in families in which the man is both less emotional and physically stronger than the woman, he ought to work and the woman ought not to work. If the situation in reversed and the woman in this case less emotional and is physically stronger, the woman would be better qualified to work. That said, what qualities are important are relative to a given career choice. You don’t need to be physically strong to be a good computer programmer, after all.

It would be much easier to be and remain educated and informed about political matters while taking care of children than when one is out conducting themselves in a demanding and important career, especially since it will be conducive to raising the children in a home in which politics and civic learning are an important part of both education and to the spirit of the household. This cannot occur if the politically active person is the one who is less often with the children, or at least it will not happen as effectively.

I agree with you that individuals tend to vote emotionally, but it is quite easy to vote emotionally when you’ve never thought deeply about political matters and all you have to go on is your gut. The person who maintains the home is the best candidate to be the political member in the household, since they will be the ones cultivated a spirit of civic nationalism in the children, and will have more time to donate to political thought and research.


Nationalist said in /404:

All of these negative effects can be traced to the two key touchstones of feminism: the right to vote and the right to work

It’s not really a right to work anymore, to many it’s a compulsion to work.

I think one of the bigger evils we’re having at the moment (well at least in the countries that have it) is the trap of student loans and women.

It hits them the hardest because it’s more difficult for a woman to pay it back, which makes them less willing to “risk a baby”.
At the same time, a trend has been emerging where men keep on opting out of the system and a subsequent (ironic) income inequality, which makes women feel weird to be in, even if they do pursue the relationship.
(They feel weird having more income than the guy, almost as if its biological, or something, hm.)

It’s just a big old mess, and difficult to fix because the crux (in this iteration of the system at least) is actually the education system.
And good luck talking that down to most normals.

It’s already awful if you tell them “women shouldn’t work”, but what really kicks it is the education and student loans…
“Women shouldn’t go to college” sounds like stone age talk to most people.

Of course there could be a fix, and we all know one or two or three of them, like they could have their student loan erased by a percentage for every child…because I think at the end it takes less time to rear a bunch of kids out of the total helpless baby/toddler phase than it takes time to pay off debts left and right.

Things like that.
Edit: Sorry for all the gratuitous spelling errors. Summer heat and me getting enough sleep is mutually exclusive.


Techpriest said in On Feminism - By Dasho:

, like they could have their student loan erased by a percentage for every child…because I think at the end it takes less time to rear a bunch of kids out of the total helpless baby/toddler phase than it takes time to pay off debts left and right.

That’s a problem in general. Men also don’t want to start a family if they haven’t started their career yet. And those that go to uni (ever more of them) won’t be starting a career before they’re 23 and most are later. For men this is already not ideal, but for women this is a disaster.


Since I am the one who wrote the article (even if I’m not the one who published or proofread it), perhaps I should be the one to defend it.

Guest said in On Feminism - By Dasho:

It stands to reason that the person who does not work will likely be the best person to do the voting

Does it? By all reckoning and evidence, the reverse is clearly the case. Even now, as our civilization is spiraling down a muddy storm drain, the women are protected, are coddled, are shielded from harm and suffering and the consequences of their own actions.

The Doom Clock is tolling five minutes till midnight on the West, and even in this late hour, the women of our folk are objectively the most priviliged group to have ever existed in all of human history. Even as the white man drowns in a sea of blood and filth, with the last of his strength, he follows his ancient instincts and lifts the white women up above his own head.

And this is precisely why no woman should ever vote, should ever have a political say in anything beyond the local level.

Because we men bleed our life’s blood to protect women from the consequences of the world.

And only those who feel most keenly the consequences of worldbreaking decisions and kingmaker questions should have the ability to convert their personal will into political capital.

Even as civilizations die, women are sheltered: they never feel the consequences of the fall until all other avenues have already closed and the barbarians are dragging them and their children out into the streets to rape and slaughter.

Men, by contrast, are the canaries in the coalmine. The white working class man has borne the brunt of every bad decision made in Europe and the Anglosphere since time immemorial. When pensions are cut, the white man bleeds first. When the gold watch retirement was abolished and old working men flinched, women carried on uncaring. When men slaved in industrial factories under inhuman conditions, women stayed at home and did nothing more than what their own mothers had done, taking care of the children, business as usual.

The reason women should not vote is because women are completely sheltered from the consequences of their own political actions. By the time they feel the heat on their heels, the whole city is already on fire and burning merrily to the ground.

Men, by contrast, suffer immediately the consequences of wise or foolish policy decisions. We have barely been letting refugees in for six hundred days now, and already men are out of work everywhere and wages are in the ditch. And yet even in these conditions, the women still not only survive, but thrive, thanks to affirmative action giving them priority employment and preferencial treatment.

Women should not vote because they do not suffer the pains of industrial and economic mismanagement nor do they give their blood upon a declaration of war.

And women should not work because every job a woman works is two families destroyed: the family of the man who’s job she took, and her own.

You could add a third caveat, that women should not go to college either, but quite frankly, I don’t feel any particular need to make or defend such a statement, because it is blatantly obvious at this point that no one should be going to college, regardless of their sex. The conditions in which a statement such as “women should not go to college” are long, long gone from our societies and nations: in a land of family centric values and high value professional white labor, yes, it is bad for women to go to college and seek a formal higher education at great time and monetary expense to their faimly.

But in a day and age where all education except a limited pool of private institutions are blatant Marxist indoctrination centers, peddling white genocide rhetoric and Communist ideas, no one anywhere should be wasting their time or money going to school.

The internet, with it’s ocean of fingertip accessable knowledge and vast information sharing capacity, has made homeschooling the definative future of education. In the future, should we win, families will not waste time and money sending their children to college. Instead, the time in a wife’s day that was freed up by labor saving devices will be reinvested into educating her children at their own pace, in their own home, while their father works his job to support the family. The father will spend his labor to acquire capital and support society at large, and the mother will spend her labor to build her family and secure the futures of her children.



Your first point as to why women ought not to be given suffrage was that politicians, using the individual-molecular view of humanity (that the individual is the basic molecule), would drive the interests of males and females, men and women, apart. They point out that men as a class of individuals, and women as a class of individuals, have differing interests, and therefore can be catered to in different ways in terms of what palatable political options are presented to them.

I cannot help but see that you are doing the exact same thing here in your post. You are singling out the political interests of men and those of women. Men have political interests as those, according to you, who bear the brunt of political and economic shifts, and women have political interests which are in some sense isolated from these shifts. If this were not the case, then they would not have different interests, and your point would be moot. However, in saying that they have differing political interests, it seems to me that you are adopting the view of the world of your opponent whom you characterized in your initial post. You are evaluating the world, and the consequences of world affairs, in terms of how they impact men and women differently as individuals, rather than in terms of how they affect families.

I worry that using this method of reasoning commits you to the same faults that you bring up in your post, namely, a misguided understanding of the world which wrongly pits individuals and their supposed interests against one another. The supposition that women do not feel the consequences of bad political decisions doesn’t tell me that they are insulated from political change, as you seem to think, but rather that families in which such changes are not noticed are not good families. Families should be acutely attuned not only to their own health as mini-nations, but also the health of the nation as a whole. A family has failed as the germ of society if it cannot do this.

That being said, in any good family, women are not insulated from their own political actions, and if that is the only qualification one needs for voting (and I don’t see an argument as to why this is the only qualification; what about intelligence, knowledge, etc.?) then they ought to be able to vote, especially if they have more political wisdom than their familial counterpart. Given that, as I said in my last post, whichever parent spends time at home has a duty to cultivate good political awareness and values in the household, and especially in the children, since this is part of maintaining a good household, they are in a good position not only to participate in politics more than the breadwinner, but also to make informed political decisions on behalf of the family.

I think that your post makes salient points, and as a conservative minded person myself, I am posting here to bring those merits to light, while attempting to show that the more radical conclusions you draw cannot be inferred from your premises without further argument, and are in fact both weaker and less evident than the conclusions which it seems to me do directly follow from your premises – the conclusions I specified in my first comment here. Thank you for taking the time to reply to me.


Good to see a respectful and healthy debate.


You are not wrong in insinuating that I am technically using hypocritical logic to make my point.

However, my defense for doing so is twofold.

The first is that I generally try to argue in a utilitarian and lowest-common-denominator manner when possible, because we live in an age and culture where even the idea of truth has been dragged through the mud. How does one construct an argument about the spiritual symbiotic relationship between man and woman to someone who does not even believe in truth, or the spirit, or any symbolism beyond an esoteric expression of their own asshole? How do you convince an audience that has not only bitten, but swallowed and passed the Communist hook of universal egalitarianism, that men and women are in fact not equal, never have been, and never will be? That they are sovereigns of different spheres and controllers of different thoughts, and even worse to the modern mind, that one is inherently subservient to the other no matter how hard they struggle against it?

I choose to fight with hypocritical arguments of brutal utility because I know that how the target audience reaches the correct conclusion is less important than the fact that they reached it. I have the unenviable task of refuting First Wave Feminism, which is to say, making them understand that women should stay at home and be mothers and community organizers while the men labor for their families and hold the reigns of the Republic. If I can use a rhetorically flawed but intellectually convincing argument to make this point, then I will, because I view that as being better than using a rhetorically consistant argument that they cannot relate with or emotionally process.

The second reason is far less noble, and sounds like a bit of a cop-out, but in the interests of full disclosure, it still bares mention. This “article” is a direct copy-paste of an old post I made on a previous forum. It was part of a broader debate on feminism, and was never intended to be seen outside of the context of that thread and the arguments being made in it. If “On Feminism by Dasho” seems a little abrupt, a little hollow, and lacking in context, that would be because it is. Nationalist needed things to put up on the main site when it was launched, so this was posted, unedited, raw, and without my knowledge. Some of the baked in typos deeply irritate me.

I will own it, because it is mine and I created it, and because I feel all of the points I made within it are valid. But had I known it would have been a publicly viewable article on a webpage, had I known it would be shoved out into the spotlight to stand on it’s own two feet so to speak, I would have cleaned it up, reformatted it, parsed it down, and maybe given it some singing lessons before fitting it with a suit and tie.

Hopefully that helps explain some things, dear Guest, and I hope you are still there to read my reply. I do appreciate your willingness to frankly call me out on percieved problems and rhetorical snafus. The tomatoes and catcalls of the audience are what keeps a thespian honest.


Nonsense about “researching who to vote for”. Women don’t make good voters in any circumstances. Women who “research” their candidates are still going to fall for the same dog whistles as those who don’t research their candidates. Take my stay at home mother for example. She sits around and reads up on politics for a good portion of her time. What does this lead her to do? Vote for the same neocohens that every boomer votes for. Women shouldn’t vote because they are women. They lack the capacity to understand far flung implications of their votes. And it shows in her capacity to do math and other abstract concepts. She’s terrible at math. Women suck at cause and effect. They think with their wombs. So if someone says “this policy will ensure the survival of your children” they automatically vote for it, without vetting the idea properly. They are impulsive. If they feel an impulse to vote a certain way, they will do it, regardless of how destructive that impulse is. Men, on the other hand, while perhaps less “educated” on who to vote for, have pack dynamics. If a guy votes against the pack, he’ll be ostracized. So only one guy in the pack has to do the research on which candidate to vote for, and the rest will just follow his recommendation. And further, I’d like to see you prove that “research” helps someone choose a better candidate. Because in my experience, people who know a lot about politics tend to make terrible voters as they always lose the forest for the trees, getting caught up in the small details of why they should vote this or that way, forgetting the larger priorities



Again, Dasho, thank you for taking the time to reply to me. I certainly understand your motivation for presenting utilitarian/pragmatic arguments in order to convince opponents who have ceased to recognize what is true and who instead recognize only what is “useful”. This mindset is all too common these days, and certainly infects a wider audience than most people recognize. No doubt this method of argumentation in itself is certainly useful or pragmatic for achieving your rhetorical ends. Yet, I must ask you as to how far this manner of reasoning extends into your own thoughts. You clearly think it justified to convince people using utilitarian/pragmatic arguments in order to convince more people to agree with you and to support your worldview (since you just admitted as much). Thus, we can say that you see utilitarian/pragmatic argumentation as a means to the end of greater acceptance of your worldview, even if that acceptance does not share a common foundation with your own personal acceptance of your considered views. I wonder, though, according to you, when is this utilitarian/pragmatic reasoning appropriate and when is it not, since you seemingly admit that your stand, in some sense or other, with one foot in the utilitarian/pragmatic camp, and with the other outside of it? I just want to know when you think that manner of reasoning is appropriate and when it is not, since if it has no principled application, it might be an instance of the very reasoning which you seem to want to reject.

If it means anything, besides the content that I cited in some of my objections to what you wrote, I found the post to be rather insightful, and that it prodded me to think more clearly about these matters – so it being a mere forum post is no knock against it. That being said, I think that the primary disagreement we have – concerning what the roles in a family ought to look like – still persists, and I was hoping to get your thoughts on those matters. Clearly, given your post, and assuming your views have not changed substantially, you think that women/females ought to be, in all or most cases, homemakers and those who bear and raise children, whereas men/males ought to be the primary breadwinners and political actors in the nation. There is more nuance to it than that, but your primary point concerned women working and women voting, and you argue that they ought not to do either. Meanwhile, I argued that men and women ought to perform the roles to which they are best suited; in each family, the most capable breadwinner ought to work, and this will largely determine who votes, since the person who is not the breadwinner will be in a position to become involved in political matters, both in terms of civic activity, and also in terms of political research, and will have the time and duty to inculcate good civic spirits in the children of the household. So, I never intended to call you out so much as to see how you might respond to an alternate way of structuring the family and the nation which, to my mind, still places the proper emphasis on the family as an institution within a nation.

P.S. Apologies for the slow response.



Runtildrop, the argument you make in your post seems to be as follows. You are arguing that women, by their very nature, are consistently deficient when it comes to the art of political decision making. You cite, by way of anecdote, evidence that women tend to think in short-sighted terms, and in terms which are solely in the interests of their children. You also assert that women are impulsive (although this seems to go against your anecdotal evidence, since if your stay at home mother spends time reading about politics before making a decision, she isn’t being impulsive, which usually means acting without reflection). You further assert that women do poorly at math, and at causal reasoning, but you don’t adduce any evidence for these claims either.

These, it seems to me, are poor grounds for concluding that “women don’t make good voters in any circumstances”, especially since you never state your position on what it takes to be a good voter. I do not think that anecdotal evidence, or even limited statistical evidence, is going to be sufficient to justify a universal and categorical claim about the very nature of the female sex. You almost seem to be claiming that you know that women are poor voters a priori. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to justify such a claim, since it does not speak to what women are by their very nature, but only about particular examples of women in your immediate experience. You need a stronger argument if you wish to substantiate the claims you are making.

Moreover, as Dasho warns, we need to make sure to distinguish between what women are like essentially, and how women, as a group in society, act in virtue of being targeted for political exploitation. How women are essentially will likely be masked by how they have been treated, and subsequently responded, to being attacked as a group. If your claims about women are true only because of this, then they do not at all respond to my earlier claims. Moreover, it is very easy, and I suspect you are running afoul of this, to mistake what women are like after being manipulated by society for what women are essentially. It is my contention that women are not substantially mentally different from men, though they are often substantially different than men in physical capabilities, and I consider this to be independent of however they tend to vote, as a demographic, in elections. The reason for this is that, if what Dasho suggested is true, then the ways that women vote as a distinct group in society has already been shaped by policies and norms which target their sex for exploitation and isolation from a family unit.

As for men being the superior voters, I don’t see what pack dynamics has to do with it, since being ostracized is no indication that someone has made a bad or a wrong political decision. Someone could believe something right and true, but unfashionable, and simply be excluded for that reason, as in cases where scientists ostracize other scientists whose theories don’t match up with currently accepted dogma. So ostacization is no indication of poor political choice. Moreover, a person who does all of their intellectual and research footwork alone is going to be at a comparative disadvantage to someone who is willing to work with and participate with others in gathering and systematizing political information. There is too much information to be easily managed by a single individual, and asking everyone else to just go along with this person is foolhardy at best.

There is a clear reason as to why having a greater amount of greater quality information, which is garnered through research, reason, and scrutiny, allows someone to be in a better position to make political decisions. Namely, in order to make good decisions, you must have some clue about which you are to decide politically, or else you can only make the correct decision by getting lucky. Consider an analogy with surgery. Surgeons cannot go into surgery without knowing the first thing about surgery. The stakes are too high, and the procedures are too nuanced and complicated to perform without adequate training and knowledge. Being a good citizen is like this, because politics are complicated and nuanced as well. If you wouldn’t feel comfortable with an average joe as your surgeon, then you shouldn’t feel comfortable with an average joe as a voter. If men are doing all of the work, women are in the best position not to be just average joes.

However, perhaps the most important aspect of all of this is the right starting principles, which are oriented towards the nation and the family. If one is solidly grounded in these principles, then they will be able to direct their political knowledge and expertise all-the-more effectively. This might be the reason that you see so many ostensibly educated people acting in such politically buffoonish ways; they don’t have the right principles, and so they make poor decisions based on poor principles. Women, if men are the only ones working, will be in the best position to cultivate and expand on these principles. Of course, my preferences is to have the best workers work, and the best citizens vote, so there is nothing special about women or men when it comes to working or voting, save what they have to contribute to a family and a nation.

P.S. Apologies for the slow response.


Guest said in On Feminism - By Dasho:

Yet, I must ask you as to how far this manner of reasoning extends into your own thoughts.

Not very. Utilitarianism is a useful tool for scientific purposes, but attempting to use it to construct a valid moral and ethical framework, or to create a legal system for a society, is akin to trying to repair a broken car engine with a halibut. It is a tool, and like all tools, it serves a specific purpose: extending it beyond the reach for which it is intended is foolish at best and dangerous or disastrous at worse.

Utilitarianism is a rhetorical weapon which I use to wage combat with people who question the very existence of an objective truth. Which is a disturbingly large number, truth be told. Little else works on them, since all higher arguments require pre-existing claims and assertions as a foundation upon which to build, and like the good little Bolshevik puppets they are, they smugly refuse to grant such a foundation to any opposition argument. You either wrestle with them in the mud or you refuse to engage with them at all. And they must be engaged, at all costs, so the average onlooker can see the flaws and contradictions for themselves.

The truth of debate is that you will never win, nor are you intended to. Precious few will ever admit to being rhetorically outmanuvered. These arguments are for the benefit of the audience, and nothing else. It is better to face them publicly with rhetorical arguments that are flawed in the abstract than to not face them at all. The war must be waged, and it must be waged on a level where the audience can grasp it. My methods are indeed flawed in the sense that they are not totally internally consistant with my own beliefs and worldview: I make no excuses and have no illusions about this. But you do not need a flawless and exquisite sword to kill a man in the street. A wooden club will do just fine.

I have chosen to be a man who takes his lessons from the failures of his predecessors and the successes of his enemies. And as insane as it may seem, what I have seen and learned watching my mortal foes is that an interally consistant message is actually one of the less important aspects of the battle. It is more important that you project power and presence and appear to occupy spaces than it is for your rhetoric to be on-point. Your average white person never thinks twice about rhetorical contradictions such as supporting both Feminism and mass Islamic immigration, or supporting the traditional American Constitution and also Neoconservatism.

If the average citizen can ignore such blatant and vast contradictions in policy and stance, then ensuring that every ‘i’ is dotted and every ‘t’ is crossed in my own esoterica is unnessary, at least in regards to the forward facing battle stance shown to my enemies and the public at large. To put it another way, the existence of a proactive and intelligent opposition participating in visible public spaces is more importance than what that opposition actually says in the abstraction. The basic message of cultural conservatism and ethno-nationalism (whites are allowed to defend white interests politcally) is more than sufficient. Everything else is an in-house matter to be resolved amongst ourselves. This is what our enemies have done historically, and this is what we too must do. We must cast aside the strategies that have historically failed and embrace what works.

We can even see examples of this working in our own memetic warfare: presence and the projection of power is more persuasive to the average man than any nuanced political rhetoric. Nigger memes and jokes about throwing Communists out of helicopters have done more to turn the tide of the culture war than all the starched suits and professional rhetorical opinions of the entire combined mass media outlet. They are spending billions looking professional and trying to maintain a consistant (albeit false) narrative, while we win on part-time donated manpower alone. Whether knowingly or not, we have taken the lessons of the previous generations of cultural and intellectual warfare and created a memetic superweapon; all the subversiveness and countercultural attraction of the far-left ever had, married to the sexual, masculine strength and iron foundation of the radical trad-right. We are winning because our gestalt has achieved a synthesis between the Truth and the strongest and most powerful means of projecting opinions and thoughts into the masses. Whether we win and push the interlopers out of our nations, or fail and are forced to regroup together and balkanize from the rest of the world, we can be proud of having completely redefined and rewritten the book on waging ideological warfare.

If you think I am too proud or too principled to use Rules for Radicals simply because it was written by a Communist for other Communists, then you are wrong. I have no intention whatsoever of Riding the Tiger. I’m going to skin the son of a bitch alive and mount it’s head on my wall. I’m going to drink it’s blood and eat it’s flesh and clothe my women and children with it’s hide. I am in this fight to win. Hitler already tried to play nice and put rhetoric ahead of practicality when he attempted to make peace with Great Britain and allowed English forces to withdraw from defeats without being harassed or crushed, and his mercy and gentlemanly conduct was rewarded with the firebombing of Dresden, a literal ‘Holocaust’ where nearly half a million German lives were offered up as a burnt offering to the New World Order.

If you learn nothing from history, learn this. Niceties exist for peacetime. We are at war. Adolf Hitler was a nice man. It is why he lost. He should have known that the winners write the history books, and the prize for second place is a wreathe of white lilies and a very nice pine box. I speak as an Anglo-Saxon man: he should have massacered the British forces during full withdrawl when he had the chance, and pressed the advantage to bomb London into a parking lot. I speak as a man whose people have been in conflict with ethnic Germans for centuries: the reason no one mourns the Dresdenite massacre because the Germans were on the losing side. It’s that simple. Nazis alledgedly butcher six million Jews, and an entire industry built around guilt money springs up to milk billions out of the West. Communists, our political allies at the time, butcher thirty million Christians, and nobody gives a damn. Why is that?

Because political opinions are set by the winners. That is all there is to it. Pushing the Jew rhetoric makes the Allies look good. Burying and ignoring Communist atrocities also makes the Allies look good, because Stalin was one of us. The point is that appearances and tones are things only the victorious can control and concern themselves with. Anyone who fails to understand this is doomed to cuck themselves to death trying to look good in the middle of a fight. You win, and you get to tell the story however you like. War doesn’t have participation trophies or silver medals.

Am I entirely internally consistant with my forward facing position to the public? Not completely, no. I am a radically traditionalist Christian man who believes in Identitarian political movements. I knowingly and willingly make disingenuous arguments that are tailored to suit the audience I am trying to appeal to. I am pitching holistic ‘return-to-roots’-ism to Transhumanists, I’m selling hierarchy and Classical Fascism to Libertarians and Neoconservativies. I am trying to convince Tea Party soccer moms that First Wave Feminism was a mistake, and that the happiest and most fulfilled place a woman can be is at the side of her husband, children in arms.

I tell the little lies to win the big victory. I collapse the tunnels under our walls with the diggers still inside, and I don’t bother to think about their families. I have already pleaded with my king for amnesty. I have already given my soul over for judgement. I have already shed my tears and committed myself to forgiveness through continued acts of community and charity with my people until the day I die.

I am a liar. What makes me unique is that I will admit to you that I am lying, and I will tell you why I do it. Because I am Christian, and I will die to defend the truth even as I lie to keep my people from drowning in an endless sea of darkness. Cast lights into the shadow, even if you must pay with your own life and pride to do so. A little ego is a petty sacrifice.

It is better to ask for forgiveness than to seek permission. God understands this. It is why He forgives us so. There is more of the spirit of the divine in the breasts of the great men of history who act and do than in the hearts of the meek sheep that march docile and sorrowful to their own slaughter. Wrath is empathy with the Cosmic Order. Our God is a God of Love, and that is why He Hates. Why we hate. Hatred is the name of the sword with which good men defend what they love from those who seek to destroy it. Hate is holy.

Because if you do not feel hatred for anything, then you love nothing.

God was the original proponent of physical removal of subversive elements. As usual, the Father teaches, we refuse to listen, and we suffer for it. And through our suffering, we learn the wisdom of His system.

I wonder, though, according to you, when is this utilitarian/pragmatic reasoning appropriate and when is it not, since you seemingly admit that your stand, in some sense or other, with one foot in the utilitarian/pragmatic camp, and with the other outside of it?

It is appropriate when pitching to an audience who is unlikely to empathize with arguments that rely on moral and ethical abstractions. Liberals, Libertarians (who are merely a different and more advanced brand of liberal), and fence-sitters are the targets, along with anyone who has bought into the basic rhetorical frames of Cultural Marxism, such as truth being relative or reality existing solely at the context of the individual observer.

I do not view myself as putting “one foot in the camp and one foot outside of it.” Rather, I view Utilitarianism as being a tool in a box that sits alongside many other rhetorical tools. And like all tools, it has a time and a place to be used, and outside of that time and place, it should be ignored in favor of other, better impliments of suggestion and persuasion.

I just want to know when you think that manner of reasoning is appropriate and when it is not, since if it has no principled application, it might be an instance of the very reasoning which you seem to want to reject.

Whether or not Utilitarianism has any principled applications depends on how you choose to view what being principled entails. If you consider ‘being principled’ as something that is inherently irrational, then that may be true, but I would play Devil’s Advocate and say this is untrue. While Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince primarily as a scathing criticism of the Borgia family dynasty and the tactics they employed to take power, his seminal work still appropriately and accurately portrays altruism as the most logical system to employ in the name of self-interested individuals. Some consider it a damning testimony of Machiavelli’s personal character. These people are historically ignorant. I perfer to think of it as preaching to the wicked in their own tongues.

The basic concept of his work, which I happen to agree with, is that a perfectly rational sociopath would, by defination, pursue altruistic acts, simply because than it is better to be beloved and revered than feared and despised. Or to put it another way, even if you tear away all higher orders of moral and ethical thought, brutal Utilitarianism, if it is sincere and truthful, will end up imitating the laws of the Godhead simply because the Cosmic Order of the universe is God’s law, and altruism, kindness, selflessness, and self-sacrifice have a firm and entirely rational defense. They are a self-contained argument that stand on their own, without the need for any outside props and trappings. Though the props do certainly help.

This is admittedly getting deep into the ideological weeds, and it isn’t really relevant to the topic at hand. I will not argue that a world of Utilitarianists is somehow holy or righteous: quite the opposite. I merely wish to suggest that God’s Law, the law to which we all are called to aspire to, is the natural order of the universe, and thus any truly rational and impartial observer can ‘stumble backwards’ into righteousness as it were, even if they are acting purely in their own interests. God is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, with all that such entails. Anyone who seeks any of the three will inevitably find Him. In the words of German scientist Werner Heisenberg, “the first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

To try and answer your question more succinctly, there is a time and a place for Utilitarianism. It is primarily a scientific tool, not a moral or ethical one, though it can be used to defend moral and ethical choices to the uninitiated. Whether it is principled or not depends on the hand that wields it, and the manner in which it is used.

In my personal opinion, I would argue that Utilitarianism is best used in the context of a drunken man leaning on a lamppost: it is more useful as a form of support than for any sort of illumination.

That being said, I think that the primary disagreement we have – concerning what the roles in a family ought to look like – still persists, and I was hoping to get your thoughts on those matters. Clearly, given your post, and assuming your views have not changed substantially, you think that women/females ought to be, in all or most cases, homemakers and those who bear and raise children, whereas men/males ought to be the primary breadwinners and political actors in the nation. There is more nuance to it than that, but your primary point concerned women working and women voting, and you argue that they ought not to do either. Meanwhile, I argued that men and women ought to perform the roles to which they are best suited; in each family, the most capable breadwinner ought to work, and this will largely determine who votes, since the person who is not the breadwinner will be in a position to become involved in political matters, both in terms of civic activity, and also in terms of political research, and will have the time and duty to inculcate good civic spirits in the children of the household. So, I never intended to call you out so much as to see how you might respond to an alternate way of structuring the family and the nation which, to my mind, still places the proper emphasis on the family as an institution within a nation.

By my reckoning, the role in which men and women are best suited are the roles of housewife and breadwinner. This is the point on which we disagree, as you seem to believe that men could be good housekeepers and women capable breadwinners. In effect, a defense of the working mother and the stay-at-home father.

To boil this down to the naked nuts and bolts, you are proposing that exceptions exist to the rule.

I agree with this, but the existence of an exception does not invalidate the rule. Rules are made as guidelines for society at large. We do not, we should not, be making societies with the exceptions in mind. If we accept the frame that exceptions in the rule should be made for exceptions in example, then we have no rhetorical rebuttal to Civic Nationalism, because there are smart Negros and intellectual Arabs and Jews who superficially appear to be upstanding citizens that behave themselves.

Historical precident has shown us that making exceptions is a slippery slope that ultimately results in the rules being destroyed, either struck down from the record or ignored by the system in favor of “common sense interpretations.”

The divergence here is twofold: Firstly, we both believe that men and women should perform the role to which they are best suited, but I see those roles as being the traditional ones, and you do not. Secondly, you believe in making exceptions to the rules because exceptions exist. I do not.

I believe that women who work for a living and do not get to spend time raising their own children are deeply unhappy individuals, and I sincerely hold the opinion that 99% of working women would have their attitudes and outlooks on life immediately improved if they were given a pregnant belly, a modest house to look after, and a husband to care for who will support them and their growing family. As a man, I also hold the firm opinion that men are most pleased and content when we provide for others. We enjoy sharing the fruits of our labors with those that we love, and it provides a deep emotional and spiritual satisfaction to do so.

Men who do not win the bread for their families are always insecure about their masculinity and feel a lingering sense of guilt in regards to their position in the household. Women, by the same token, tend to feel stress and dissatisfaction with their lives when they attempt to step into the role of breadwinner, and often end up looking down on their husbands for not working, either actively or subconsciously.

The construct of the family requires the existence of a husband and a wife to function, and men-wives and woman-husbands will always feel a deep dissatisfaction and be ill at ease when attempting to make their mirror-reversed arrangement work

Men and women each have a role to play in the arrangement, and neither can do the job of the other half as well as the intended actor. What is more, we each derive deep emotional and spiritual fulfillment from properly serving our intended roles.


Dasho You should clean that up into an article or even two or three actually given the different subjects covered.


KarlRadl said in On Feminism - By Dasho:

Dasho You should clean that up into an article or even two or three actually given the different subjects covered.

I’m not sure how well my rambling, unfiltered autism would fly as far as articles are concerned, to be honest.