One of the distinct advantages we have over our enemies is that from a casual observer’s perspective, tactically they are absolutely insane. They do not believe in a usable past or the ability of their forebears to contribute value to them ideologically; progress insists that everything that isn’t moving forward fast enough—towards greater leftism—is anathema, heresy and problematic. Hence one’s predecessors in the cult of dildolech are held to an anachronistic standard they can never meet, the current year.
Unfortunately for the old left, the guillotine is a fan of age discrimination. The revolution devours its children, or rather its mothers. Contemporary mainstream feminism, also known as ((((third-wave feminism)))), has made a name for itself by witch-hunting other feminists for not being left enough across the board on political and cultural issues. Third-wave feminists believe in what they assure us is a very important concept, called intersectionality. Like the progressive stack popularized by the wildly incoherent and unwashed masses of the Occupy movement, it prioritizes the identity and moral authority of designated oppressed groups over those considered to be oppressor groups—i.e straight White men, or cishet white males in newspeak. It is implicitly tribal but in the garb of universalism and justice.
At first glance, the tying of one’s standing in society to their identity might seem extremely reactionary—like wanting to implement an Indo-Aryan caste system—but in actuality it is just a highly elaborate vehicle for rent-seeking against Whites and men. In this context we find the amusing spectacle of feminist catladies and other leftists bickering over whether to support ((((Bernie Sanders)))) or Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, something I have witnessed firsthand as a fashy goy in college. In short, ((((Sanders)))) is the clear winner in terms of gibsmedats and is therefore more economically progressive, but since he is a man, no true feminist can support him in good faith over Clinton. He might be “better,” but he isn’t a woman. This article in Quartz explains why:
[S]peaking as someone who’s impatient to see a woman in the White House, Sanders’ easy acquisition of the “progressive alternative” tag is disheartening and a little suspect. While Sanders does have a more left-leaning economic record than Clinton, she has a record he can’t match on gender equality… While Sanders shares [Clinton’s] views on gender equality, Clinton has been a leader on the issue. Plus, there is obvious symbolic power in choosing a female candidate. In 2008, casting a vote for Barack Obama was seen as a symbolic chance to oppose racism. Clinton’s candidacy marks a similar opportunity to address sexism.
This is an interesting shift in priorities away from the materialism usually associated with leftists— i.e. voting themselves more gibsmedats and higher taxes on producers to subsidize their existence—and echoes what has truly come to define politics for many Americans: signaling. For the truly pious feminist, it doesn’t matter that ((((Sanders)))) is objectively more left-wing; what matters is electing a woman so that they can show how anti-sexist they are. It’s worth noting, however, that these are the same people who will be first to tell us that electing a black president doesn’t absolve our society of racism—I presume electing Clinton wouldn’t end sexism either. It’s extremely shallow and dishonest to encourage people to vote for Clinton to fight sexism while at the same time waiting to pounce on those same useful idiots for not being feminist or anti-sexist enough once she’s in.
But that’s just tribalism, the ancient law of relationships between groups. The fact of the matter is that third-wave feminists view gender as their tribe in identity politics. This has huge ramifications for non-female allies of the movement, i.e. good-goy beta males who think practicing feminism will get them laid or sincerely believe in the lie of equality. They are perhaps damned if they do and damned if they don’t. As we shall see, it might actually be sexist to support ((((Sanders)))) instead of Clinton and sexism that explains his growing popularity among leftists.
So why doesn’t Clinton generate the same level of emotional outpouring and fervent support as Obama in 2008 and Sanders today? One uncomfortable answer is that insidious sexism leaves even self-described progressives reluctant to champion Clinton and the fight for gender equality... It may be uncomfortable for left-wing Sanders supporters to realize that their candidate benefits from sexism. But it would be churlish to insist that the groundswell of mainstream support for Sanders has nothing to do with a reluctance to elect a woman. Let’s not kid ourselves: Sexism pervades every area of US politics. Of course, Sanders supporters can be committed to gender equality and simply choose to prioritize his economic agenda. Others, however, look past that choice and simply find it easier to vote for a male nominee. But that’s not progressive. That’s patriarchy.
People who thought the Republican field was divisive have no idea how much narrative collision bubbles beneath the surface of American liberalism. To suggest that ((((Sanders)))) supporters are sexist for not supporting Clinton is completely ridiculous and would horrify the pajama boys of the Democratic party. But some people sincerely believe this. When feminists talk about sexism, they are referring specifically to what they conceive of as a male-only transgression, so that is clearly who is being targeted here. I would pay to see the look on male Democrats’ cuck faces when they are accused of being sexist for supporting ((((Sanders)))). How will they signal their way out of that one? You can’t trump a feminist woman at feminism; as a member of a designated oppressed group, she must be right, and you cannot challenge her experiences.
We on the alt-right know kowtowing to feminists will not reward you in the long run; how could it when they so explicitly want you deposed? If patriarchy just means men in power and feminism means fighting the patriarchy, you’re being gender-cucked. Thanks for keeping the throne warm. There are ways around being a man in a feminist’s world though.
In addition to the identity-politics-driven feminist-leftist conflict over whether a far-left male politician is better than a center-left female politician, there is also the conflict between third-wave feminists and second-wave feminists over the status of “transwomen” in their cosmology of womanhood and oppression olympics. Transwomen are men who identify as women and may or may not have had surgery to convince other people of their delusion. This presents a rare opportunity to agree with (second-wave) feminists for the wrong reasons: that women exist and are distinct from men and that men pretending to be women are offensive. Such views have led some feminists to call for a boycott of other feminists; the serpent feeds on its own tail. Because of her non-acceptance of men who identify as women as real women, the otherwise Marxist harpy Germaine Greer faces a student-led boycott at a university in Wales. Some choice quotes from the Change.org petition:
“Greer has demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether… Trans-exclusionary views should have no place in feminism or society… Such attitudes contribute to the high levels of stigma, hatred and violence towards trans people – particularly trans women – both in the UK and across the world.”
Let me get this straight:
- A feminist woman is considered anti-woman by other feminist women because she thinks there is more to being a woman than cutting off your penis.
- It is now considered hateful and contributes to violence against eunuchs to suggest that cutting off your penis doesn’t make you a woman.
- People who think otherwise have no place in society.
Somehow we’re the fascists. It’s a shame we live in a society that can’t recognize Stalinism for what it is.