Of all the “questions” based on false premises floating around the Alt Right (the Jewish question, the democracy question, the capitalism question, etc.), the “woman question” stands out as absolutely the most stupid. The framing of these other “urgent” questions may be erroneous, and the answers offered may be even worse, but, mixed in with the faulty reasoning and hyperbole, they all have at least some redeeming qualities. Not so with the woman question.
Perhaps the most frustrating part about this is that, to an ethnonationalist, this is a question that doesn’t need an answer. For the sake of argument, let’s say that people like F. Roger Devlin and Andrew Anglin are right about everything, that women are more sexually disloyal (miscegenation) and display irrational/excessive pity towards the ethnic other. In the ethnostate everyone is white; “problem” solved.
I know that people like Anglin and Devlin will counter that if women are not properly repressed, it won’t be an ethnostate for long. This though, does not take into account the likely nature of the ethnostate, especially one in the New World. The ethnostate will almost certainly be settled by a primarily self-selected population. And this founding population will probably include more males than females, meaning the female population would be even more self-selected. (If, like Anglin, your end goal is “worldwide white supremacy,” your project is doomed from the start and miscegenation should be the least of your concerns.)
But forget my assumptions about the ethnostate’s population. This is an empirical question, and the empirical evidence is stacked against the claims of the neo-patriarchic Alt Right. Anglin’s recent article on the supposed necessity of “white sharia” (yes, it’s as degenerate as it sounds) deals in the same nonsense as all the others. The tone of feminine hysterics is his own personal touch, and he squeezes in a product placement for steroids, but the meat of his argument is the same as every other neo-patriarchic Alt-Right piece:
Before wading into Anglin’s argument, I want to point out that even non-self-selected countries, like Poland, Hungary, and Japan, are able maintain a healthy ethnic consciousness without resorting to white sharia. In all these places women are allowed to vote and drive cars. I guess maybe Polish and Hungarian men are manly enough to satisfy Anglin, but Japan is hardly a nation of Jason Stathams. We’re talking about a country where a third of men sit down to take a piss.
Anglin attempts to pound his readers into submission by aggressively insisting his claims are settled science—this is a common tactic people use to try to cover for the fact that they’re full of crap. You’ll notice, for instance, that nowhere in the article does he link to a single scientific study. (Although he does provide links for his readers to purchase steroids.)
And this is not because no data is unavailable. If there’s one thing this country does well, it’s collecting data on race. So, of course, we have a lot of data on romantic racial preferences. The data sources are not always in agreement on all points (such as how white women rate Asian men in comparison to black and Hispanic men).
The single most consistent finding however, is that of all race/gender combinations, white women have the strongest preference for men of their own race. This is what white women tell opinion surveys, and based on the data on whom white women date and marry (online and in the real world), they’re telling the truth. Women as a whole seem to have a stronger intra-racial romantic preference than men—as you would expect, if your thinking on the subject were not clouded by personal bitterness. And women generally consider white men the most desirable and black men the least desirable (the exception in both cases being black women).
In other words, the three points revealed most clearly by the data directly contradict the arguments of the neo-patriarchic Alt Right (I’m speaking of the relevant data points—what non-black men think of black women is not relevant here). The idea of institutional white male privilege is a myth, but in the dating world, it’s a plain reality.
Anglin is on slightly firmer ground when he writes that women want a powerful man, if we define power very broadly. Anglin however, defines it very narrowly: all women want the toughest guy possible because he, and the tough sons he sires, will protect them. This is because women have primitive brains and their libidos don’t realize that we no longer live in a state of nature.
Here too, the research data on what women want does not agree with Anglin. At least this time though, it doesn’t directly contradict him. This is because there is not much of a clear message either way, as the studies contradict each other or are focused on more minute matters. (So there’s not a lot to be gained by linking to them, but for an overview, here’s a Wikipedia article on the subject.)
Women’s preferences seem to change based on their time-of-the-month, their stage of life, and whether they want a life partner or a fling. They like guys who drive fast cars, except when they don’t; you get the idea. The only consistent messages from the data is that the majority of women want a man who (1) is taller than them and (2) is not a fat slob.
Whether the data shows it or not, I’m sure it’s true that a majority of women would prefer a man who is somewhat above-average on some vague measure of physical toughness, all else being equal. So I’ll grant Anglin that much. But all else is not equal. Frankly, the fact that so many people on the Alt Right need someone to point out something that is obvious to normal people is depressing the hell out of me.
Under Anglin’s theory, athletes should get better-looking/higher status women than rock stars. Does that seem even remotely true to you? Using Anglin’s reasoning, we should expect Tyson Fury and Nikolai Valuev to do better with the ladies than Jared Leto and Leonardo DiCaprio. Are you beginning to see just how far the ideology of the neo-patriarchic Alt Right is disconnected from reality?
Just try to think about the real world for ten seconds. Which of these statements do you honestly think is closer to the truth: (A) The most attractive 5% of women tend to date the most attractive 5% of men. (B.) The most attractive 5% of women tend to date the toughest 5% of men. Of course, there is some overlap between these two categories of men, but clearly (A) is the right answer. If you’re an adult and haven’t noticed this by now, you’re either dumb as a rock or have very eccentric tastes in women.
This Manosphere/neo-patriarchy stuff isn’t just embarrassing because it’s so thoroughly wrong, it also comes off as really pathetic. The Alt Right is supposed to be a serious ideological movement, not a self-help seminar. For a movement that spends so much time worrying about trying to appear as the “cool kids” (way too much time), you’d think people around here would be sensitive to how “beta” this looks to most people. You live in a country where women consider white men to be most attractive, so if you’re having a hard time out there, I’m sorry brother, but that’s on you. Don’t taint the ethnonationalist cause by associating it with your sexual frustrations.
In his response to Anglin, Andy Nowicki is getting at something more fundamental than perhaps he even realizes when he writes:
Perhaps part of the reason for this is that men are far more content to be alone than are women. Forget all the wild claims of the Manosphere/neo-patriarchy crowd, the most significant psychological difference between men and women is that women, on the whole, can’t stand to be by themselves, whereas men, when you get right down to it, prefer to be alone. I don’t know why this is, but given the relative vulnerability of women, the difference does make evolutionary sense.
I can’t find it online anymore, but a few years ago I remember seeing a stand-up comedian joking about the flawed set-up of Father’s Day. Sure, it seems nice that we all gather to spend the day with dear old dad, but if you really want to make dad happy, just give him one day where you leave him the hell alone. He’s a guy; he wants to be left alone. Civilization is sort of tragic for men. They want to have kids and perpetuate their line, but this also means that they have to share their houses with other people. (I’m not saying this set-up should be changed, I’m just noticing.)
Ideology is a wonderful thing, maybe the best thing. But ideology can not answer empirical questions. If you try to use it that way, you’ll probably end up making a fool of yourself. The Patriarchists’ argument is built entirely on empirical claims, but few, if any, of those claims match the empirical reality because in truth theirs is an ideological argument. If they want to persist in the same direction, they should fess up to this truth.
In his own clumsy way, Anglin just might be the one to kick off this transition. After ranting for most of the article about the scientific necessity of “white sharia,” Anglin ends with what I guess is supposed to be some kind of poem:
"I wish there was another way.
But there isn’t.
Also, I don’t wish there was another way.
This is my favorite way."
Since ideological truth is subjective, you can base your ideology on anything, but just because you can, doesn’t mean that you should. One thing the neo-patriarchists should do though, is man-up and admit they were wrong.
Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published by VDare.
Perhaps the most frustrating part about this is that, to an ethnonationalist, this is a question that doesn’t need an answer. For the sake of argument, let’s say that people like F. Roger Devlin and Andrew Anglin are right about everything, that women are more sexually disloyal (miscegenation) and display irrational/excessive pity towards the ethnic other. In the ethnostate everyone is white; “problem” solved.
 |
| Giving good head. |
But forget my assumptions about the ethnostate’s population. This is an empirical question, and the empirical evidence is stacked against the claims of the neo-patriarchic Alt Right. Anglin’s recent article on the supposed necessity of “white sharia” (yes, it’s as degenerate as it sounds) deals in the same nonsense as all the others. The tone of feminine hysterics is his own personal touch, and he squeezes in a product placement for steroids, but the meat of his argument is the same as every other neo-patriarchic Alt-Right piece:
- Women’s sexual desires, almost universally, are straightforward and one-dimensional; they desire the physically strong and dominant man.
- Therefore, race is not a romantic factor for women. They simply want the strongest.
- And white men are pussies, which is why white women increasingly prefer non-white men.
- Therefore, white sharia is the only way.
- THIS IS SCIENCE!
Before wading into Anglin’s argument, I want to point out that even non-self-selected countries, like Poland, Hungary, and Japan, are able maintain a healthy ethnic consciousness without resorting to white sharia. In all these places women are allowed to vote and drive cars. I guess maybe Polish and Hungarian men are manly enough to satisfy Anglin, but Japan is hardly a nation of Jason Stathams. We’re talking about a country where a third of men sit down to take a piss.
Anglin attempts to pound his readers into submission by aggressively insisting his claims are settled science—this is a common tactic people use to try to cover for the fact that they’re full of crap. You’ll notice, for instance, that nowhere in the article does he link to a single scientific study. (Although he does provide links for his readers to purchase steroids.)
And this is not because no data is unavailable. If there’s one thing this country does well, it’s collecting data on race. So, of course, we have a lot of data on romantic racial preferences. The data sources are not always in agreement on all points (such as how white women rate Asian men in comparison to black and Hispanic men).
The single most consistent finding however, is that of all race/gender combinations, white women have the strongest preference for men of their own race. This is what white women tell opinion surveys, and based on the data on whom white women date and marry (online and in the real world), they’re telling the truth. Women as a whole seem to have a stronger intra-racial romantic preference than men—as you would expect, if your thinking on the subject were not clouded by personal bitterness. And women generally consider white men the most desirable and black men the least desirable (the exception in both cases being black women).
 |
| Sexual attraction is a load of balls, obviously. Source |
In other words, the three points revealed most clearly by the data directly contradict the arguments of the neo-patriarchic Alt Right (I’m speaking of the relevant data points—what non-black men think of black women is not relevant here). The idea of institutional white male privilege is a myth, but in the dating world, it’s a plain reality.
Anglin is on slightly firmer ground when he writes that women want a powerful man, if we define power very broadly. Anglin however, defines it very narrowly: all women want the toughest guy possible because he, and the tough sons he sires, will protect them. This is because women have primitive brains and their libidos don’t realize that we no longer live in a state of nature.
Here too, the research data on what women want does not agree with Anglin. At least this time though, it doesn’t directly contradict him. This is because there is not much of a clear message either way, as the studies contradict each other or are focused on more minute matters. (So there’s not a lot to be gained by linking to them, but for an overview, here’s a Wikipedia article on the subject.)
Women’s preferences seem to change based on their time-of-the-month, their stage of life, and whether they want a life partner or a fling. They like guys who drive fast cars, except when they don’t; you get the idea. The only consistent messages from the data is that the majority of women want a man who (1) is taller than them and (2) is not a fat slob.
 |
| They are both wearing high heels. |
Under Anglin’s theory, athletes should get better-looking/higher status women than rock stars. Does that seem even remotely true to you? Using Anglin’s reasoning, we should expect Tyson Fury and Nikolai Valuev to do better with the ladies than Jared Leto and Leonardo DiCaprio. Are you beginning to see just how far the ideology of the neo-patriarchic Alt Right is disconnected from reality?
Just try to think about the real world for ten seconds. Which of these statements do you honestly think is closer to the truth: (A) The most attractive 5% of women tend to date the most attractive 5% of men. (B.) The most attractive 5% of women tend to date the toughest 5% of men. Of course, there is some overlap between these two categories of men, but clearly (A) is the right answer. If you’re an adult and haven’t noticed this by now, you’re either dumb as a rock or have very eccentric tastes in women.
This Manosphere/neo-patriarchy stuff isn’t just embarrassing because it’s so thoroughly wrong, it also comes off as really pathetic. The Alt Right is supposed to be a serious ideological movement, not a self-help seminar. For a movement that spends so much time worrying about trying to appear as the “cool kids” (way too much time), you’d think people around here would be sensitive to how “beta” this looks to most people. You live in a country where women consider white men to be most attractive, so if you’re having a hard time out there, I’m sorry brother, but that’s on you. Don’t taint the ethnonationalist cause by associating it with your sexual frustrations.
Ladies, He’ll Never Change
In his response to Anglin, Andy Nowicki is getting at something more fundamental than perhaps he even realizes when he writes:
"The main issue I have with ‘white sharia’ lies with what amounts to its ironic ambition to please women and cater to their wishes. For much as they may try to deny it, the central tenet of white sharia is the men should become men again, not because of any inherent virtue in manliness, but because chicks dig real men."Nowicki, I think, is making an idealistic argument, but in sense, it’s also a realistic description of the way most men already behave. It’s not that the average man lives by some Kantian ‘law he gives himself,’ regardless of the consequences to his personal life, romantic or otherwise. Obviously, men do things, and make changes to themselves, in order to attract women. But men mostly make these changes on their own terms. Men want to be, and try to be, attractive, but their idea of attractive is based on their own conception, and not necessarily society’s. This is not a universal law (nor an absolute one), of course, and there are women who think the same way, but I think this is much truer of men.
Perhaps part of the reason for this is that men are far more content to be alone than are women. Forget all the wild claims of the Manosphere/neo-patriarchy crowd, the most significant psychological difference between men and women is that women, on the whole, can’t stand to be by themselves, whereas men, when you get right down to it, prefer to be alone. I don’t know why this is, but given the relative vulnerability of women, the difference does make evolutionary sense.
I can’t find it online anymore, but a few years ago I remember seeing a stand-up comedian joking about the flawed set-up of Father’s Day. Sure, it seems nice that we all gather to spend the day with dear old dad, but if you really want to make dad happy, just give him one day where you leave him the hell alone. He’s a guy; he wants to be left alone. Civilization is sort of tragic for men. They want to have kids and perpetuate their line, but this also means that they have to share their houses with other people. (I’m not saying this set-up should be changed, I’m just noticing.)
Ideology is a wonderful thing, maybe the best thing. But ideology can not answer empirical questions. If you try to use it that way, you’ll probably end up making a fool of yourself. The Patriarchists’ argument is built entirely on empirical claims, but few, if any, of those claims match the empirical reality because in truth theirs is an ideological argument. If they want to persist in the same direction, they should fess up to this truth.
In his own clumsy way, Anglin just might be the one to kick off this transition. After ranting for most of the article about the scientific necessity of “white sharia,” Anglin ends with what I guess is supposed to be some kind of poem:
"I wish there was another way.
But there isn’t.
Also, I don’t wish there was another way.
This is my favorite way."
Since ideological truth is subjective, you can base your ideology on anything, but just because you can, doesn’t mean that you should. One thing the neo-patriarchists should do though, is man-up and admit they were wrong.
Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published by VDare.
0 Response to "WHITE SHARIA: THE ALT-RIGHT AT WAR WITH REALITY, HUMAN NATURE, AND ITSELF"
Post a Comment