Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


I think I should stop selling "behaviorism". By which I mean, I should stop calling what I sell "behaviorism". I shall call it "immediatism".

Basic points are: all politics are local. All cognition is local. Nothing is abstract. People behave so as to immediate conditions. Here's an example. Sweden.

Let me quote:

Sweden has the first feminist government in the world. This means that gender equality is central to the Government’s priorities – in decision-making and resource allocation. A feminist government ensures that a gender equality perspective is brought into policy-making on a broad front, both nationally and internationally. Women and men must have the same power to shape society and their own lives. This is a human right and a matter of democracy and justice. Gender equality is also part of the solution to society’s challenges and a matter of course in a modern welfare state – for justice and economic development. The Government’s most important tool for implementing feminist policy is gender mainstreaming, of which gender-responsive budgeting is an important component.

Feminism gender gender feminism power gender feminism. And first. You get the gist. They also had this sort of battle picture:


So you'd think these people will be very consistent feminists, and make a lot of policies to further the movement. And indeed, they are wreaking havoc in Sweden by doing retarded stuff like "feminist snow plowing", collapsing the whole transport system in the process. But then these feminists do things like this:

And so people start howling: you can't do this! What kind of feminist are you if put on a veil to pander to Muslims. Which is true of course, and this bunch of evil hags should be shamed as much as possible. But if you want to understand what is really going on, you gotta understand immediatism.

See, these Swedish middle aged women aren't feminist in the abstract. They are feminist in their local environment. Which means that there are in a power struggle against their men. Not men in the abstract. But Swedish men. Their husbands, their brothers and their fathers. It is them who they want to spite. And to spite them they adopt "feminism", i.e. they parrot feminist rhetoric, mostly imported from the USA. And the policies they adopt are tailored to fuck with Swedish men: like taking the snow out of the driveways that women walk, instead of the big roads that their men use to drive to work and transport stuff.

Iranian men just don't compute in whatever drives these people's behavior. Even the Muslim men who are slowly invading their country don't count for much. For all they care they aren't real people. They're just some abstraction you read about. Only the people in your Dunbar circle are real. So their "feminism" is about fucking with the men in their Dunbar circle. Anything else isn't actually there. It is often said that progressive rhetoric assumes that minorities don't really have agency. Everything is the fault of white men. Same thing. Progressives are in a power struggle against fellow white people: nobody else matters. "Agency" only exists in so far as progressives find it useful in order to achieve more power for themselves against their Dunbar-rivals.

And so when a Swedish prime minister goes to Iran, she puts the veil. Not because she's not a feminist: but because her feminism is an immediate concern, not an abstract principle. Far away from home, out of sight of her husbands, brothers and fathers who they want to spite, they can be themselves, and enjoy being in the company of real men who force them to behave like decent women. They actually enjoy this, obviously. But they will never admit so to their fellow men. There's two reasons for that. Often people say that is because their fellow men are beta, feminism is a shit test, the local people don't pass the shit test so women end up despising the men for it. But I don't think that's all the story. Point is, in the local environment, white women and men are rivals in a power struggle, and no quarter is given. No amount of alpha can solve that. Only alphas who are not part of the local power struggle can influence women. Of course the question is how to stop white women from being in a state of war against their men. But that isn't as easy as it sounds: Asian women give plenty of shit to Asian men, and even Muslim women are a pain in the ass in their own way. I guess only Afghans got that solved for good.


Leave a Reply
  • I would suggest that its unsolvable - the gender war is ever-present en masse and seen in non-human animals as well. Its why you get either a patriarchy or a matriarchy, but never equality.

  • Clearly delineated gender roles seem to work. There's an undercurrent of feminism in orthodox Judaism, but only (from what I've seen) on its left edge. Western women don't know how to be women. They want structure that is lacking in our culture (not an issue when they were farm wives). I hung around with stay at home moms for a couple of years, and they all desperately wanted someone to tell them the correct way to do everything. They're mimicry machines with nothing to mimic, hence feminism.

  • > Of course the question is how to stop white women from being in a state of war against their men. But that isn’t as easy as it sounds: Asian women give plenty of shit to Asian men, and even Muslim women are a pain in the ass in their own way. I guess only Afghans got that solved for good. Nature gives women all the power. All a man can do is kill you, but a woman can make you immortal. It is thus quite difficult to impose patriarchy and to keep patriarchy. It is in the nature of women to struggle for power, not because they actually want power (they reproduce most successfully if enslaved outright) but as a shit test, to filter for the strong man. Which filter may well be carried out most successfully if the men in their society who are incapable of controlling their women are conquered and exterminated, and the men of a more virile and manly society carry the women off into slavery. On the other hand, in eighteenth century England, patriarchy worked fine. But the mechanism is hard to perceive because it was largely enforced by non state institutions, and people of the time took it for granted like the air that they breathed. The imposition of patriarchy becomes more visible in late eighteenth century Australia, because, due to social breakdown, the state imposed it. The key is to stop women from playing one man against another by stopping them from fucking around. The key measure is to impose chastity on women. Also the state in Australia enforced the marital oath that the women honors and obeys, and the man loves and cherishes - well, cannot really enforce honor, but can enforce obey and no talking back, and cannot really enforce cherish, but can enforce that the man takes care of his wife and kids. But the key step was to stop women from fucking around. Women get their power from the possibility or actuality that they might fuck this man, or that man, or the other man. If you put a stop to that, then you depower women. It is not that sex is bad, it is that continuing female choice is bad. Sex produces babies. Continuing female choice produces female power, which produces cat ladies and cats.

    • Ah, that explains why women who have gone through menopause lose all social and political influence whatsoever.

      • I always likes S.A.M Adshead remark that traditional Chinese culture was so patriarchal that in the end it was the grandmother who held the most power, because grandpa was likely either dead or bored, and the father always obeys his mother.

        • Very ugly females (with whom no-one would want to reproduce) shouldn't find ways to exert influence even in their 20s and 30s, if so. But we know that they can (specially in the feminism department). The post-menopause rule applies to non-ugly women.

      • At menopause single women do in fact suffer massive loss of power, though it seems to take them a while to realize it.

  • A good post, but this part gives me pause: "Far away from home, out of sight of her husbands, brothers and fathers who they want to spite, they can be themselves, and enjoy being in the company of real men who force them to behave like decent women." I think it's more "being nice to the foreigners by respecting their ways," a politeness which, of course, seems to be lacking when it comes to their actions towards Swedish males.

    • That is just a pious rationalization. White nominally Christian female tourists visiting a white nominally Christian foreign country shit test far less, and less severely, than in their home town.

      • I think we are in basic agreement. I am just suggesting that this matches standard modern progressive thinking: that political correctness is just "good manners." (Though of course they don't apply the same rules when dealing with the domestic "patriarchy.")

  • These women are destroying themselves; they have no power. They are going away, they do not reproduce themselves, they are a genetic failure, they are from a country in terminal decline, and they will be replaced by other types of women and other types of cultures. They are simply cowards, who are afraid of attacking brown patriarchy, because that will be racist. And racism is far bigger sin that sexism, because WW2, when tens of millions died, was fought over race, not over gender. Racism trumps sexism. A white woman can not criticize a brown man. They are done, they are irrelevant, they will not exist in the future and are only good for a good laugh. As i accidentally found out, women are not destined to have power in human societies, because they do not understand human group relations. Studies found that women understand only close interpersonal relations, but unlike men, they do not understand very well human group relations, such as inter-racial relations, inter-religious relations, inter-ethnic relations, etc. Men care about their tribe, women do not. A tribe can not survive if those who rule over it do not care about it. A feminised society means an open society. Open to all types of hostiles, parasites, or invaders. Men are the immune system of society, women are not. In other words, feminised societies destroy themselves by excessive xenophilia, negative birth rate, and open borders/open legs for everyone. In my artice here, i found how feminism destroys itself, and why barbarism will be the last stage of feminism. My finding was that feminisation of society directly leads to third-worldization of society, the spread of low IQ people, and possible collapse and disappearance of the feminised group. The article is large and it contains enormous information, references, voting patterns, video clips, and studies about female behavior. I believe that my study will be very helpful for men here to understand what is happening to us and our countries, why is it happening, and what is the role of women in all of this.

  • This theory has merit, but how does it explain the American situation? I contend that it doesn't. Those progressive media people having conniptions over an offhand negative mention of Evola, those women marching in Washington wearing full-body cunt costumes, those scientists like Peter Woit, Terry Tao and probably Scott Aaronson - they haven't got anybody in their Dunbar circle whose opinion differs from theirs by more than an epsilon. Who are they sticking it up to? Is Ezra Klein sticking it to his Slate reporter wife Lowrey? Or is she sticking it to him? Or both?

  • " I guess only Afghans got that solved for good." Which, to me, did read as "you should be proud Spandrell has considered banning you". (And maybe I should change sides, read Slate and vote Democrats? What if THIS Afghans-got-that-solved minded people actually came to hold the main levers?)

    • I don't mean the solution is a desirable one. But if you take pride of my threatening a ban, I shall make you even prouder by actually banning you.

      • What IS the solution Afghans used? And why is it actually working, if nothing else ever worked?

        • Same as the solution that the Christians of Timor Leste used. Women on Timor Leste cannot own property and must always be under male supervision and authority. Any woman not under male authority and supervision is a whore.

  • Excerpt: "Handy Translation: “Now that we American feminists have completely neutered our men into submission we secretly get moist for the Saracen barbarians who would put us in our legs-spread, ass-up place. And we can perfectly rationalize this under the rubric of multiculturalism." Written in 2007.

    • There coexist 2 impulses, urges if you will, in the female mind: power (they're still humans with an amount of testosterone, after all) and subjection to power. People like these "career women" are high on the first of the two impulses: they try to satisfy it most of the time... but then, on the side, they feel the need for their subjection. Less testosterwomen are contented with ruling over their husbands offspring. Still less T whose core impulse is submission women crave an authoritarian bully, or an "alpha" in monkeyblogsphere jargon. Or they convert to Islam because "our society gives too much latitude to women", as I once saw a Western woman say.

  • "I guess only Afghans got that solved for good." And who knows what goes on behind closed doors there?

  • You have caused me to have an epiphany good sir. This is why the white middle class feminist types - or at least the one's who don't have to live paycheck to paycheck for whatever the reason, never have a problem with "misogyny" when it comes to people not from their "area" or at least country and ethnic group. Hispanic men tend to be very sexually aggressive. It's a cultural thing. Engage in the same manner in New York and you'll likely be labeled some kind of aggressor providing you aren't Hispanic. Now apply this to the rest of ethnic and racial "minorities" as to their means of getting a girl and the roles they see for each gender in their particular conclave. It's why these Swedish Jezebels wear hijabs in Iran, but certainly won't do the dishes because of who it's for and where it is.

    • Those "gotcha!" videos posted by white feminists---of men aggressively whistling at or hitting on the women while they walk down the street---show mostly swarthy men doing the whistling. It usually takes a Super Woke White Woman to point out the incipient racism of the white feminists' videos: Though here's an honest black woman on the subject: In other words, some women do initially put gender equality above all else, even if it means calling out both their own (white) menfolk as well as other races' menfolk. To be sure, such women are typically shamed into rejecting that kind of Principled Equality in favor of Who/Whom and locality-based principle shifting.

  • Is there anything you would elaborate on this theory since the Marie Le Pen incident, which I saw soon after I read this article? Obviously she wouldn't be classified as a feminist as the Swedish women are/claim to be. But she is still a part of 'white men and women are rivals in a power struggle'. Why do you think she used the exact same opportunity to send a contrary message? Is she simply more loyal to her political identity than her female identity? Is she signalling to her group/locale what she understands to be a loyal Right-wing approach (ie. fuck the Arabs and their ways)? Its all so confusing...

  • Perhaps this was the correct place to make this comment rather than on what is now your latest post, Power. Feel free to delete my comment on that post. Here is the latest innovation in Feminism What the Fuck is After-Birth Abortion? This is really cutting edge stuff I must say, literally and Figuratively. Can’t wait to see what you have to say about this. I really think your thoughts on this merit their own post. Can there be such a thing as a feminist singularity or is it merely a subset of the leftist singularity.

  • 8 pingbacks