FSTDT

Arthur Gordian #elitist #racist socialmatter.net

A Brief Defense Of The Hereditarian Caste System

Returning to the topic of Indo-European mythology, there are two distinct ways that Indo-European societies organize themselves. The first is by means of caste, which Georges Dumézil defines as an order built on the concept of function. He argues that the Proto-Indo-Europeans organized themselves into three groups, the famous trifunctional hypothesis of Priests, Warriors, and Laborers, and that this caste system evolved into the various manifestations we see from India to Ireland. While there were numerous permutations of this system, each changing in some way the specific character of the castes, the same foundational rules applied across the board, namely that society should be divided along the lines of the function men play in the maintenance of order.

The alternative method of organizing society, also indigenous to Indo-European societies, is the class system which dominated the post-Medieval world. The major distinction between class and caste is that class system organizes people by socio-economic status rather than social function. What one does in society does not matter in a class system. What matters is the amount of wealth and status you can accrue from your function. Members of the upper class can be politicians, businessmen, or generals, but these roles are insignificant to the class system. It is certainly true that upper-caste members tend to be wealthier than lower-caste members in traditional economies, but the material differences are incidental to the caste system and central to a class system.

In Dumézil’s Mitra-Varuna and his two volume work on Ancient Roman religion, the author shows the conflict which emerged in the Roman Republic when the class system began to eclipse and replace the ancient religious caste system. Like most European religions, especially among the Germanic peoples, the priestly caste was largely absorbed into the warrior caste and retained only ritualistic significance, which Dumézil traces in the various priesthoods of the Monarchy and Republican period. What distinguished the Romans was the rise of a system where men were divided into socio-economic classes, such as the Senatores, Equites, Proletarii, and so forth. While there were hereditary roots to these classes, after the Republican period they were primarily economic, as the poet Juvenal tells us:

Would you not like to fill up a whole note-book [of satirical writings] at the street crossings when you see a forger borne along upon the necks of six porters, and exposed to view on this side and on that in his almost naked litter, and reminding you of the lounging Maecenas: one who by help of a scrap of paper and a moistened seal has converted himself into a fine and wealthy gentleman? – Satire 1

Juvenal’s complaint should sound familiar to modern ears: unscrupulous foreigners who lacked any respect for the Roman virtues or laws usurped the positions of power, authority, and wealth from the native Roman population. The openness of the Roman system, which transitioned toward the class structure after the Servile Wars in order to permit qualified plebians to serve in high military office, allowed the complete disenfranchisement of the Romans themselves.

—when a guttersnipe of the Nile like Crispinus —-a slave-born denizen of Canopus —-hitches a Tyrian cloak on to his shoulder, whilst on his sweating finger he airs a summer ring of gold, unable to endure the weight of a heavier gem—-it is hard not to write satire. For who can be so tolerant of this monstrous city, who so iron of soul, as to contain himself when the brand-new litter of lawyer Matho comes along, filled with his huge self; after him one who has informed against his noble patron and will soon despoil our pillaged nobility of what remains to them—-one whom Massa dreads, whom Carus propitiates by a bribe, and to whom Thymele was made over by the terrified Latinus; when you are thrust on one side by men who earn legacies by nightly performances, and are raised to heaven by that now royal road to high preferment—-the favours of an aged and wealthy woman? – Satire 1

As hard as it is to tear ourselves away from the masterful writing of Juvenal, let us return to the point; the openness of a class system, which reduces all social order to that of wealth and popularity (to which Juvenal has more to say, but I’ll desist), creates the opportunity for the erosion of social values and cultural goods by removing one of the core limits on superbia, the overweening ambition of the opportunist.

The rise of the low-caste man to a position of absolute power is bad enough, as history has demonstrated, but the greater danger is that such a society is a magnet for every two-bit con man and grifter across the globe. People with no attachment to the land, culture, or society can use class systems to free-ride on the cultural and social capital of a well-ordered society until even the greatest community is brought down under the overwhelming weight of parasitism. Rome became that magnet, attracting the scum of every corner of the Mediterranean to pull down the greatest civilization before our own. When wealth alone determines social status, anyone willing to violate the norms and unspoken rules governing society can elevate themselves, because when their actions transform society into a cesspit of corruption and despair, they can simply pick up again and move on to the next target. The weight of social disapproval, which ensures a functional society’s consuetudines et usus, the unwritten customs, values, norms, and beliefs which undergird social order and protect against anti-social disruption, does not function on the alien. Cicero declared the fundamental character of a community to be a common language, common “ius[1],” and common weal. There is no common language, “ius,” or weal in the Rome Juvenal is portraying to us, and that is largely due to the Roman class system.

Thus, we return to the notion of caste, in which function and heredity primarily determine one’s social position. I am under no delusion that I am a “secret aristocrat,” as the liberal slur goes. My heredity is pure redneck back over five hundred years. Under a strict hereditarian system, I would most likely be prohibited from receiving enough education to read Juvenal. Nevertheless, the reactionary in me says that my personal situation is irrelevant, and I ask of my reader to keep that in mind themselves as they read the following. If I must be a farmer in order that my people should be free and my children be assured a place, no matter how humble, in their own homeland, then that is a price I am willing to pay.

No functional society is possible without a hereditarian caste system. The arrogance and superbia of Man is such that there must be hard, unbreakable limits on personal ambition, along with strict disincentives to opportunistic parasitism. I am not saying that there cannot be any movement, or that every son of a farmer must be destined to farm forevermore. Even Plato did not suggest this. Every system has some level of flexibility, both ethnic and caste. It is no coincidence that English populations on the borders of the Danegeld, Wales, and Scotland show DNA markers for Nordic and Celtic genotypes. Nor do I deny the various Ciceros and Charles Martels who rose from middling ranks to preserve and protect their homelands. However, the flexibility inherent in any caste system is a weakness in the armor of a nation, and every exception to the rule justifies the waiting masses of alien grifters, who undermine the whole of social order for the material benefit of himself and his tribe.

Hereditarianism is perhaps the most important safeguard to any society because social stability rests on consuetudines et usus, unwritten norms and ethics tied to particular ethnic and cultural groups. It is no coincidence that Ethnic and Ethics arise from the same Greek root. One does not routinely scam one’s neighbors because they are kith and kin; their essential connection to you is the bond and guarantee of equitable relationships. We mourn the day when “a man’s handshake was his bond,” but that handshake wasn’t the true bond. The bond, (in legal terminology, the collateral of a contract) is the reputation one has in the community, which is built upon common heredity. Honor matters because it is the mark of approval from the community that one abides by the unwritten rules which make society spin. The alien neither has honor, nor cares for honor, because he does not care for the community with which he shares no blood.

In any caste system, the alien is either the lowest caste or outside the system altogether. The merchant, who surrenders his identity for a cosmopolitan existence, is also low on the scale, even when he shares blood with the community. This is because a caste system is a fundamental barrier to dyscivic practices and free-rider scenarios, and these two groups have the most to gain from undermining the system and replacing caste with class. When wealth replaces blood, who becomes the highest members of society? It is no coincidence that the word “liberal” was nearly always preceded by “bourgeois” until the 20th century; they are the beneficiaries of the replacement of the medieval caste with the capitalist class system. Likewise, the replacement of caste with class is the only means wherein the alien will be permitted to rise in status over the native-born.

Caste and blood are the only protection that native-born labor have against oppression and loss of self-determination–hence the traditional support of the rural working class for reactionary politics. The upper-castes, the priesthood and aristocracy, are limited in their oppression by those very customs which make society run, but the alien landlord or banker is not so constrained by the cultural limits on power and is free to grind the working classes into dust. When a reactionary says, “neither capitalist nor socialist,” it is a recognition that both are symptoms of the same social breakdown.

The destruction of social order epitomized by the English Whigs and the resultant socialist working-class backlash to an out-of-order bourgeoisie have their roots in the rejection of the role of blood and heredity in determining a social order. Bourgeois rebels against custom and order create socialist rebels by destroying the functional limits on power in society which rested in the hereditary aristocracy.

There is a price to be paid in personal liberty for a caste system, true. I would never be allowed to become a scholar in a society where heredity ruled. The other option, however, is this:

Then up comes a lordly dame who, when her husband wants a drink, mixes toad’s blood with his old Calenian, and improving upon Lucusta herself, teaches her artless neighbours to brave the talk of the town and carry forth to burial the blackened corpses of their husbands. If you want to be anybody nowadays, you must dare some crime that merits narrow Gyara or a gaol; honesty is praised and starves. It is to their crimes that men owe their pleasure-grounds and high commands, their fine tables and old silver goblets with goats standing out in relief. Who can get, sleep for thinking of a money-loving daughter-in-law seduced, of brides that have lost their virtue, or of adulterers not out of their teens? – Satire 1

[1] It can mean law, justice, or Right. In this situation, it probably means all three.

Mark Yuray #fundie socialmatter.net

The Mannerbund is also the source of sexual morality, which is actually a subset of property rights, since women are naturally the property of men – of either their fathers or husbands. Suppose you have a good friend. Suppose this friend has a girlfriend. Do you hit on your friend’s girlfriend in front of his face? No? Why not? Isn’t she a free individual enjoying all the rights afforded to her by a liberal democratic society, including the right to accept and decline sexual offers with consent? She doesn’t have to accept your advances, but why is it anathema to even make them? The reason is that your friend’s girlfriend is your friend’s property, and if the two of you are friends, you are members of a Mannerbund with (at least) two men. She is “his,” not yours, and hitting on her would be just as bad as reaching for your friend’s wallet.

This little example illustrating how women are naturally the property of men does not require formality or affirmation by the state to be accurate. In fact, this little example is an example of civilization and order on a relatively tiny three-person scale. With two men and a woman, the correct way to resolve the problem of competition for mates is the Mannerbund and the resulting instinctual respect for property rights and the specific subset of property rights governing mates. If you want civilization, you need order, and order – contrary to the pious proclamations of some – is often most stable when it is instinctual and unspoken.

Were it not for the Cathedral-State and the economic and legal privileges afforded to women over men in the West, this example of order could easily scale beyond three people to three hundred, three thousand or three billion. Over the transition from three to three billion, it would acquire some cultural or religious veneers, but the underlying biological/socio-political arrangement would remain the same. Politics is downstream from culture when the word refers to the kabuki theater of progressive-liberal democracy, but culture is downstream from politics when the word refers to the actual systems of biological and socio-political arrangements between humans. The most basic working socio-political arrangement between humans is the Mannerbund. The only unit smaller than the Mannerbund is the man – not the individual, but the man.

It could be argued that the family (specifically the nuclear family) is a more basic socio-political unit than the Mannerbund, but this approach is incorrect. To paraphrase Mencius Moldbug, hominids need government and politics because hominids are social and violent. To clarify Moldbug, hominids need government and politics because male hominids are social and violent. A man’s woman and children are extensions of the man and dependent on the man’s capacity for violence on their behalf, i.e. on their man’s capacity to defend them physically from other men. Women and children are social but their capacity for violence –- physical, but also psychological — is negligible compared to that of men’s, and for this reason they are de facto property, not political agents themselves. The Mannerbund, not the family, is the basic working socio-political unit.

A solid and dependable Mannerbund is a necessity for every man. No man is an island, they say, and a man without a local Mannerbund is going have deeply limited capacities when it comes to securing his property and legacy. Individualistic proponents of neomasculinity are missing the point already: no man is more “alpha” than a Mannerbund. Without a Mannerbund, a man cannot control his women, he cannot ensure his immobile property’s security in the case of state failure (deliberate or not), and without security of his women or property, he cannot secure the futures of his children.

Arthur Gordian #fundie socialmatter.net

This article offers an alternative hypothesis as to the reason why transgenderism has become the cause celebre du jour of Cathedral elites. The ordinary hypothesis, based on works like those of Paul Gottfried, says that transgenderism is an example of left-wing virtue-signaling and the escalating competition to be more holy than the next person. In an attempt to raise one’s status, the leftist must embrace more extreme signals of egalitarianism than others of his cohort. Thus, left-wing signaling is an arms race in which leftists are trapped by the terms of their religious status system in an escalating spiral to see who can find the most radical, most irrational expression of egalitarian ideas.

Instead, consider an additive hypothesis: the Cathedral elite know full well that transgender individuals are mentally ill and have chosen to embrace this cause for ulterior motives, as there is something inherent in the issue that provides them an advantage. Transgenderism is Type 1 Propaganda, and its primary targets are not loyal leftists, but individuals on the marginal Right capable of swinging either for or against the Cathedral.

What are these “types” of propaganda? In the collection of rhetorician Richard Weaver’s essays entitled In Defense of Tradition, Weaver describes the different forms which propaganda can take and their intended effects. Type 1 Propaganda is the “Big Lie” of the Soviet Union or Orwell’s 1984. The nature of the “Big Lie” is that the lie should be so big and so obvious that no sane person could believe it.

Superficially, this form of propaganda would be similar to the Chinese loyalty test referred to as “Point Deer Make Horse.” The difference is how the lie is used. As a loyalty test, the “Big Lie” is meant to distinguish those who will lie from those who will not lie for the authorities. As a form of propaganda, the loyalties of the targets are already known: they are enemies. Instead, the lie is a form of psychological torture meant to degrade and demean members of the opposition. Consider the following quote from Theodore Dalrymple:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is—in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Weaver explains that this form of propaganda is aimed at demeaning, humiliating, and eroding the self-respect of those who oppose the regime. It is an expression of pure power, in that the propagandist can force the victim to repeat a doctrine that both people know is untrue. There is no potential gain for the propagandist except insofar his enemy is psychological broken and defeated. There is no intention for the “Big Lie” to have any effect outside the torture chamber. Whether or not transgender individuals are accepted by society is irrelevant to the exercise of power by the Cathedral elites over marginally right-wing individuals.

The best illustration of this type of propaganda is the famous scene from 1984 when O’Brien asks Winston how many fingers he is holding up. O’Brien knows that he is holding up four fingers. He knows that Winston knows there are four fingers. O’Brien is not trying to torture Winston to the point that he will forever be incapable of distinguishing four and five fingers. O’Brien is simply exercising power by demonstrating that Winston is utterly powerless and that his very words and actions are controlled by the Party. As soon as he walks out of the room, O’Brien does not care how many fingers Winston sees, only that Winston recognizes the power O’Brien, and by extension the Party, wields over him.

In the end, Winston’s broken state is such that he no longer feels the capacity to resist the Party. When Winston says that he “loves Big Brother” at the end, this is not to be taken as an act of will, that somehow he has been “brainwashed” and now believes in Ingsoc. Winston has been hollowed of the capacity to love at all. The only thing he is capable of doing is mimicking the commands of the Party. Insofar as he “loves” Big Brother, he is simply repeating the motions commanded by the Party robotically.

Likewise, the promotion of transgenderism is aimed at instilling such a state on the members of the marginal Right, which the Cathedral understand to be subject to radicalization. The Cathedral understands that the Outer Right will outright reject the propaganda, but doesn’t need transgenderism as a kind of loyalty test. The Outer Right has outed itself in a multitude of ways prior to this particular propaganda campaign. These days, one merely needs to look at a person’s Twitter or Facebook to identify them as loyal or disloyal to the Cathedral. Instead, this propaganda is aimed at religious and socially conservative or moderate individuals who are politically centrist or center-right. The threat is implicit: either admit that the man in a dress is a woman, or we will take away your job, take away your respectability in the community, send CPS after your children, and otherwise destroy your life.

To take it one step further, examine the various media pieces about how straight men are bigots because they won’t have sex with transsexual “women:” the implicit threat here is chilling. The message from the Cathedral mouthpieces is that the time is coming when dissenters will be told that they must copulate with a transgender or be punished by the regime. What could be a greater exercise of pure power than forcing your opponents to participate in soul-destroying sexual depravity and to pretend to enjoy it? Can one imagine a more powerful means of psychological destroying an opponent than to command them to defile their body and call it an act of love?

The typical individual this is aimed at is a moderate Republican who thinks John McCain is a hero for his military service, attends a traditional church but wants a little compassion for homosexuals, and who lives in a 90%+ white neighborhood, but says race has nothing to do with the flourishing of his community. He is understood by the Cathedral to be potentially disloyal, even if he is not disloyal at this moment. If he gets robbed at gunpoint by a young black man or if a member of his church gets sued for not baking a gay marriage cake, he could very well radicalize. Therefore, the Cathedral needs to get to him first. While his children can be converted via public education and mass-media propaganda, it’s much harder to change the mind of a grown adult. Therefore, the Cathedral focuses on blackpilling through propaganda.

As described in the Dalrymple quote, being forced to call Bruce Jenner a woman is only part of the blackpilling effect of Type 1 Propaganda. Being marched into the Boss’s office and having to lie about one’s beliefs do erode the self-respect of the victim. What makes this form of propaganda more insidious is that every person who submits to it participates in the attack on other dissenters. Type 1 Propaganda is more than just O’Brien and Winston in a small room; it’s the Two Minute Hates in public as well. When our moderate Republican submits to intimidation and spouts the transgender lie, he participates in pressuring others to submit to the lie, give up their self-respect, and resign themselves to apathy and helplessness in the face of Cathedral tyranny. In his assent, he becomes an agent of the Cathedral and an ideological Stasi agent no different than the one who attacked him.

Transgender individuals are puppets of his system. Their ultimate fate is irrelevant to the question at hand, and any discussion on the right about “compassion” or “understanding” is a non sequitur. Just like the Civil Rights movement, once the Cathedral gains its objective the superficial justification for the campaign is cast aside. Once the Cathedral demolished the ability of local competing political elites to resist the power of their national institutions, the plight of the black community was not longer relevant to left-wing politics, except insofar as they could be leveraged for further objectives such as nationalizing and centralizing law enforcement.

Likewise, acting like transgenderism has anything to do with helping actual transgender individuals makes one a participant in propaganda and a willing dupe.

Ultimately, the goal which the Cathedral has set for transgenderism is to blackpill the marginal Right into silence and compliance. The terror of retaliation by the political elites is used to instill the kind of hopelessness and passivity which would prevent individuals on the Right from breaking out of the false consciousness of Cathedral ideology and recognizing their true interests in removing the Cathedral from power.

They don’t need the men on the Right to physically cut off their genitals because the Cathedral is commanding them to do it psychologically.

How many genders am I holding up, Winston?

John Smith #racist socialmatter.net

The genocide of white men is coming. The executioners will be other white men, usually with sociopathic tendencies, employed by your local police department. It is well known, and blessed by SCOTUS, that a person can be too smart to be a cop (Google the New London case). The police are now militarized with heavy equipment. Combine massive killing power with sociopaths at the controls and you get genocide.

My father was a Marine Corp fighter pilot of the WWII generation. He thought himself a great American patriot. In reality, he was the perfect Nazi storm trooper. He would always side with those in authority (institutions, the powers that be) over the individual.

There is no doubt in my mind that if my father, the great American patriot, was alive in 1776 he would have been a Tory because rebellion and freedom was not his credo. His credo was obedience to higher authority.

There is also no doubt in my mind that if he had a Corsair in 1776 he would have gladly annihilated the embattled farmers at Concord and Lexington. If the embattled farmers of 2016 dared to march on Washington he would gladly strafe their convoys, because he had been ordered to and if for some reason his plane crashed he would die knowing in his heart he was an American hero and patriot.

My father is emblematic of the white American Gestapo that will gladly kill their white countrymen without thinking about what color will fill the power vacuum left when white men have been reduced to the remainder of the genocidal Gestapo. They simply cannot grasp such a thought.

And this is the insurmountable problem. The white race will complete its suicide (begun in WWI) within the next two generations. Nothing can be done to stop it. Historical forces are at work.

The future is yellow and brown. Blacks think they will succeed when whitey is gone. They will be sadly mistaken. Yellow and brown will inflict atrocities upon their people that would make Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot blush. Demographics is destiny. Prepare yourself.

E Antony Gray #fundie socialmatter.net

I’m not generally concerned with the specific case of genocide as defined today, but more the general case of mass killings. Genocide can be seen as a specific sort of mass killing, but as we will see, its underlying logic is the same: surgical excision or more broadly, a kind of physical removal. If you have a cockroach problem, you could try to get the cockroaches to clean up after themselves, be responsible with the number of eggs they lay, and so forth, and thereby establish a more just society (or at least, patronage), or you could simply physically remove the pests, which might in fact be the most cost-effective way of handling their tendency to foster disease and damage your property.

Generally the logic of ‘why not genocide?’ for a particular pest problem, or again, more generally, ‘why not mass killing?’ depends mainly on an emotional argument. That is, lots of people dying is awful. And it is. That is, provided those dying you care for in some way; if they are hated enemies or subhuman (as in the case of cockroaches), you might end up with the Conanical Response:

Mongol General: What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

So as I noted above, while the will exists to extend familial or affine bonds to any given human this emotional ‘logic’ will work fine, but as we can see, it has no rigor and can be quickly turned on its head—the things which worked to make it awful make it all the more delicious. Thus ends the explanation of the popular or vulgar argument against genocide and also the popular or vulgar argument for it.

To correctly oppose mass slaughter of men, we must properly understand the arguments for it. To do this is a bit of an act of faith; I have some assurance that without manipulation I’ll come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the practice (at least in general) without having to distort the facts or warp the truth in my favor. It may be a wild ride!

As I have outlined above, there are situations where both a large group of people contains or presents a problem and it is either more effective, or only effective, to physically remove them from your jurisdiction. I outlined it analogically as a cockroach infestation. In this sense, the cockroach infestation is the “absurd” end of this species of problem, classically named “questions.”

“What shall be done about the [group]?” is the general formulation. Its answer is not necessarily physical removal—but we have to appreciate that the cockroach situation can arise. As a quick example, squatters often act as cockroaches (not that they are)—they may start a fire somewhere to keep warm which might damage the structure, they probably don’t keep very clean, given there is no running water, etc. The proper solution with squatters is to evict them as quickly as possible from the abandoned building, before they make it worse than it is. Like cockroaches, they don’t own the place, and if it turns into a giant heap of sewage and sawdust, they can move on.

Mark Yuray #fundie socialmatter.net

Crypto-Islamic news editors at CNN were in shock yesterday: ‘Qandeel Baloch: Pakistani social media star strangled by her brother.’

This was apparently front page news, nestled between stories about Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick, the assault-style truck attack in France, and the aborted coup attempt in Turkey. I doubted many of CNN’s readers knew or cared much about Pakistani social media stars, so I dove into the article to see what I could learn about the mass mind-control apparatus that is CNN. What did they want me to think because of this article?

The answer came quickly, in the vein of why we are all constantly force-fed praise about Malala Yousafzai: women are being oppressed in the Indian subcontinent, and you should feel bad about it. This time the oppression took the form of an angry Pakistani man who strangled his sister, who was making a name for herself posting half-naked selfies on Facebook and Instagram. He protested the “kind of pictures she had been posting online.”

CNN described Qandeel Baloch’s online exploits as “brazenly sassy, and increasingly political.” She was “curvaceous and self deprecating.” Here’s a money quote:

"In recent weeks, several of her posts encouraged her audience to challenge old practices of Pakistani society. In a July 14 post, Baloch referred to herself as a “modern day feminist.”"

Haha, oh man.

Qandeel Baloch’s brother didn’t murder her. Feminism murdered her.

I almost feel bad for Qandeel Baloch. Almost. This chubby female of middling looks, with the desperate need for attention common to her sex, somehow found a way to boost and buttress her own status and popularity. In a traditional Pakistani society, she found the Internet. She found Facebook and Instagram, doubtlessly shortly thereafter followed by Western ideas about “women’s visibility.” She found that, even though she was pretty average and unremarkable, she could do a simple thing to become famous and popular: post half-naked pictures of herself on social media with captions using words like “empowering.”

What happened next? The Cathedral found her, of course. Feminists found her. NGOs found her. Journalists found her. Did they tell her to stop posting such lewd and stupid stuff online? Did they tell her that Kim Kardashian is a warning, not a role model? Did they tell her she’d be better off doing something actually productive, like raising children? No, of course not!

...

That newspaper eagerly encouraged and fueled Qandeel Baloch’s narcissistic endeavours in order to further a political goal: the advancement of feminism and other progressive norms in Pakistan. Baloch made a reckless but predictable deal with the Devil. She would be the cudgel with which the Cathedral would beat traditional Muslim Pakistanis. In exchange, she got attention, fame, notoriety, and money. In theory.

In reality, the deal got messy very fast, and her own traditional Muslim Pakistani brother strangled her before she became a Kim Kardashian. He saw her become the Pakistani Lena Dunham, and he had enough.

Now CNN is eulogizing her as yet another martyr in the global and endless war of feminism and progressivism against human nature.

...

Tanqeed is not quite a fully-fledged Soros operation yet, but its donor list is suspiciously full of non-Pakistani names: Brady Calestro, David Dencker, Anna Waltman, and so on. Tanqeed, much like Dawn, provided cover and incentive for Qandeel Baloch. Do they reap any blame for her death? Are they at all ashamed or apologetic for pushing her into the role of a crowdfunded Lena Dunham in a country where honor killing is still common? No, of course not!

...

It’s clear she wasn’t rich, because if she was, she would have been writing a feminist column in The Harvard Crimson far away from Taliban and honor killers. She was a working class woman who took the high-risk job of being the Cathedral’s frontline feminist culture war shock trooper in a heavily Muslim country.

...

The Express Tribune, needless to say, is another major English-language Pakistani newspaper. It is Pakistan’s only newspaper affiliated with the International New York Times. Its editorial stance identifies with “social liberalism.”

What is the real story here? CNN wants to spin an epic tale of an average woman standing up to patriarchal oppressors against all odds. CNN wants to turn her into a martyr and a heroine. But she is neither of those things, and CNN’s tale is false on its face.

The real story is a sordid one. It is a story of a number of news organizations and NGOs following Anglo-Saxon ideologies of feminism and progressivism, funded and directed from abroad, working on a long-term project to undercut traditional Pakistani society and remake it in the images of Harvard and Oxford Utopia. It is a story of a lower-class Pakistani woman without a husband who got sucked into the pointless spiral of selfies, clicks, and likes that is Western social media, and was then selected and fueled down that path by those same news organizations and NGOs in order to further their political goals.

When she met her inevitable fate in Muslim Punjab, they eulogized her and blamed the patriarchy. And yet, before Qandeel Baloch was having phone calls with journalists at major left-of-center newspapers, she was not likely fearing for her life, nor twerking half-naked for millions to watch on YouTube. Qandeel Baloch was not empowered, she was a political pawn for organizations that did not care whether she lived or died.

Feminism killed the Pakistani Lena Dunham. It’ll kill the American one too, but that inevitable wound will be self-inflicted, unlike in Muslim Pakistan.

Mark Yuray #fundie socialmatter.net

“What was true in the Wild West is even more true to-day. A woman with an Armalite and a computer can be as useful, or deadly, as any male. Here’s an idea – how about a partnership of equals? Works for me.”

Totally unbelievably wrong. I’m sorry you’ve swallowed the equalist dogma so deeply.

Women are psychologically and constitutionally incapable of possessing the killer instinct and leadership talent that men possess. This is not a muscular thing, nor an IQ thing. It is a psychological thing, a hormonal thing, it is a spiritual thing, a social thing — women can neither form nor lead Mannerbunds which are the basis of all action and civilization.

“and—..well— you can’t.”

Yes, you can.

“You can legislate until you’re blue in the face, but disenfranchising 50% of your population in one fell swoop will cause chaos.”

1. No, it won’t.

2. We’re going to be disenfranchising 99.99% of the population, not just females.

“OK, then. let’s ban education for all females.”

We don’t have to ban education for all females. We have to ban progressive education, progressive schools, progressivism, progressive preachers, etc. Then we have to sex-segregate and educate in a traditional, classical format.

“Almost overnight tens of thousands of underground schools will open up that will result, in a very short time, with a better educated female population than their male counterparts – you will make education cool for all girls.”

This is laughable. If I was King Mark, I would be presumably truly sovereign, in which case if I banned all female schools, I would order my army to shoot anyone who tried to set up a female school, and then order the army to wipe any settlements off the map if they tried to disobey my Kingly rule.

Of course, I don’t plan to do that, because I wouldn’t ban female schools, I would ban females from public life, and ban progressive schools.

“Fine. Let’s just fire all female government employees. This will be bad – your administration will collapse in a matter of weeks. Any more bright ideas?”

You’ve been commenting here for awhile, so I know you haven’t just escaped from Tumblr to comment here, but you sure sound like you have.

The government will collapse in a matter of weeks if you fire all female workers? To quote a cuck — are you kidding me?

And again, we’ll be firing ALL government employees, not just the women. How progressive of us!

Mark Yuray #fundie socialmatter.net

It was more than a year ago that I first wrote that women’s liberation is more properly called women’s prostitution. At the time, I was saying it with evidence culled from personal experience and from traditionalist intuition, but I am now both pleased and horrified to say that I can buttress the statement with some apt historical facts, too.

...

Suppose I hadn’t just showed my hand by telling you the following characteristics were all associated with 19th century frontier prostitutes, and try to think of what the following list would conjure in your mind:

Owns property.
Likes free health care.
Marries later in life.
Divorces frequently.
Travels extensively, often alone.
Avid and inventive social dancer.
Fixture in “saloons” (read: bars and night clubs).
Brazen and public.
Wears lipstick.
Overtly sexual makeup, clothing, and hairstyle.

Not so different from the average empowered feminist woman of today, no?

Granted, some things are notably different. The average liberated woman is usually not a fan of owning and using guns, but that’s because they’re even bigger fans of living in lily-white urban enclaves surrounded by effeminate men — not raucous cowboys. They’re also usually not successful gamblers or land owners, but they’ve more than made that up by being drug users and earning male salaries.

Aside from those two things, the average post-feminism woman of today has adopted every hallmark of the 19th century frontier prostitute. Decline alarmism is worth tempering, but it’s difficult to claim that a social shift like this is actually a good thing. I can hardly think of a way to more unambiguously demonstrate that social standards and cohesion have collapsed in the last two centuries, and especially in the last 50 years since the sexual revolution of 1969.

Of course, I am not the first one to make the argument that feminism turns decent women into prostitutes. I am not even the first one to notice this particular pattern at Social Matter. 19th century Americans had good reasons to look down on the behaviors and attitudes of prostitutes and I am certain they articulated them extremely well, extremely loudly, and decisively proved beyond a reasonable doubt that their arguments were superior to the defenders and supporters of powerful prostitutes and feminists. I am also sure that they lost anyway and that we are living in the aftermath.

The traditional view in the 19th century was that women should not own property, should be married early, should never divorce, should be modest, should remain near male relatives, should not hang out in or near bars or saloons, etc. This view was not born from arbitrary misogyny; it was born from a desire to keep ordinary women unassociated with prostitutes and the 19th century equivalents of strippers and camgirls.

That lipstick and the rest of the markers of prostitutes had such a bad reputation was not because of the arbitrary whims of The Patriarchy, but because they facilitated prostitution. Women who owned property and used guns had more power than a lot of men, and therefore found it more difficult to find an appropriately dominant husband. Women who “painted” themselves with makeup and wore sexual clothing and hairstyles attracted all kinds of men, but didn’t make it easier to get married to any single one.

Women who got married later were at risk of never getting married at all, and in any case would limit their reproductive potential and therefore their mates — who wants to marry an aged woman, especially an aged prostitute, if they can marry a young, normal woman and have twice as many kids? Traveling alone and hanging around watering holes just tempts the loins and everyone knows it, and so on. All these basically anti-social and destructive behaviors used to be the domain of open prostitutes, but are now the domain of the high status “liberated” woman.

...

So in addition to pioneering nightlife, late marriage, divorce, traveling, dancing, makeup, sexual dress, and the planks of feminism, 19th century American prostitutes also pioneered abortion and birth control. The quoted author above mentions that abortion had even spread to “respectable women,” but it’s clear what the vector of transmission was.

Respectable women didn’t start aborting their kids and then unfairly discriminating against sex workers who did the same. Sex workers aborted their kids because of their promiscuous and unhealthy sexual habits, and then melded into the general population as they got older, perpetuating and spreading the habit as well as cheapening the reputation of actual respectable women, since nobody wanted to admit that prostitution was tacitly tolerated and that ex-prostitutes (or not even ex-, possibly) were allowed back into respectable society after plying a degenerate trade.

The other main difference is that in 1866 abortion, birth control, overt sexuality, “partying” as we think of it today, and the like were considered unambiguously bad, and were tolerated as an unfortunate fact of human nature at best and violently suppressed at worst. Today, between the decades of sophistic pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the allied assault on traditional culture by the Cathedral, the raft of bad behaviors associated in 1866 with unrepentant syphilitic whores have become enshrined as fundamental human rights in law and furthermore celebrated as expressions of piety towards the ostensibly humanistic religion of social progressivism.

That is not just a condemnation of the very concept of human rights, but of the entire formal and informal apparatus of government of the United States, as well as the ideals of progressivism.

Anyone who listens to Ryan Landry’s Weimerica Weekly podcast might even be convinced that contemporary empowered women are worse than 19th century prostitutes. Between the hellish trends of young female teachers having sex with their students and the media gearing up to normalize literal prostitution, they’ve got a good argument going. Tinder, Seeking Arrangement, and the rest of the click-swipe-bang(-pay) crowd have already put us a good part of the way there.

The only question is if in another 25 years people will still remember at all that prostitution used to be considered a bad thing. For the sake of the good and decent women left out there, I sure hope so.

Mark Yuray #fundie socialmatter.net

Paraphrasing the admirable James A. Donald, the West of the 18th century considered women so lacking in continence that they would crawl through nine miles of broken glass to fornicate with their demon lover if not restrained by their husbands, fathers, brothers and pastors. In Egypt, a sexist, homophobic, hopelessly backwards Islamic society, girls living alone, beyond the reach of their family, are assumed to be whores. The Egyptians, I think, are not as backwards as we chauvinistically presume, since it seems their intuition about the behavior of unrestrained females has been more than comprehensively vindicated by the state of Western society today, where all girls can live alone (and do much more besides) — and where all girls are whores. Feminism failed. Modernity failed. We got women’s liberation and ubiquitous technology of unimaginable power and complexity, and the result was not a new Golden Age for civilization, but a new Golden Age for depravity.

“Modern,” “enlightened,” “liberal,” protestations aside, the situation in the West of 2015 is clear. Females can live alone, vote, run for office, commit infanticide, get away with murder, work men’s jobs, receive preferential treatment in universities and corporations, deny fathers their children, ruin innocent men with false accusations of rape & assault, and almost anything else they want to do — with the full support of the educational system, the media and the exponentially-expanding police-surveillance state. The dream of women’s liberation has been achieved, and then some. And then some. And then some more. And even some more after that! Females can live alone, unlike in Egypt. Females can live alone, and they do exactly what our 18th century forefathers, and 21st century Egyptian fellows a continent away intuited that they would do — they whore themselves. “Women’s liberation.” Women’s liberation is women’s prostitution. We should have known better.

If I miraculously became the Supreme God-Dictator of the West tonight, and upon finishing my gourmet breakfast of bacon, eggs and the finest Caspian caviar the next morning, I issued an edict that no woman may live alone, what would happen to the West’s marriage and divorce rates? The fertility rate? The bastardy rate? The amount of fornication, adultery, pornography and sexual perversion? The number of broken families? The number of kids shuffling between Mommy’s house and Daddy’s house on alternating weekends? (Or, more likely, just watching Mommy shuffle boyfriends while Daddy contemplates the taste of gun metal with a restraining order trembling in his hand.) What would happen to the rates of suicide, teen pregnancy, alcoholism, mass shootings, herbivore men, sexually transmitted diseases, eating disorders, self-radicalization, depression, gambling, drug abuse, obesity, cat-lady spinsters, gang violence, self-harm, ethno-religious tension (and violence), juvenile delinquency, social alienation and hollow shambling wrecks of human beings one missed medication away from walking off the edge of a thirty-story building?

...

Quite simply, if we put every woman back in the home, back next to the hearth, and gave her one son and one daughter to educate, civilize, inform, teach, nourish, protect, cultivate, cuddle, cherish and love, what would happen to our society? What if we gave her a fit, cultured, intelligent and loving husband who could teach his son baseball and read Cinderella to his daughter? A husband who didn’t spend his boyhood drugged out on ADD medications, his teenage years drugged out on cannabis, and his young adulthood drunk out of his mind? A husband who was taught to appreciate Beethoven, recognize Van Gogh’s Starry Night, recite a little poetry in French, and recognize a Biblical quote in Ancient Greek? A husband who was taught to shoot a gun, punch a drunkard, row a canoe, and hike up a mountain without complaining? Who kept a library where the television might’ve been, and who knew who his father was, his grandfather, and their fathers and grandfathers before them? Who worshiped the same God as his most distant ancestors, and lived on the very same land they conquered long ago? Who maintained and honored the inheritance bequeathed to him by his forefathers, both material and spiritual, and left it in better condition than he received it, and passed it on to his own sons and daughters? Might we see a resurgence of the stable, loving family? Might we actually see — trigger warning – a better society?

Dramatized wave. Hint of a bow. Knowing wink. “Ma’a As-Salaama!“