Tuesday, 13 June 2017


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.

Giving good head.
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:

  • 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.

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.

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.

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.


  1. Pretty funny, white sharia is about pleasing women! HAHA, ultimate white knighting.

  2. I have mixed feelings about this article. While I don't think Anglin's "White Sharia" perspective is necessarily justifiable in the literal sense mentioned here, there are certain reasons to support the spirit of the idea, and some of these can fall under the empirical. However, it is also important to understand how much of Anglin's work is propaganda meant to cause a certain reaction (that would benefit our movement) in others rather than it being a genuine representation of his actual beliefs. The White Sharia meme is an exaggeration, but it relies on some truth. For example, when looking to voting patterns, women BY FAR tend to vote leftist much more than men do, especially unmarried ones. Under the previous patriarchy, women of good reputation tended to live with ONLY their fathers before marrying at a relatively young age and then living with their husbands. The idea of voting would be "one man, one vote." In other words, one family (house), one vote, and the man was the head of the household. Granting women the vote is one of the many things that set our society on its current course to destroying itself.

    While I have read the studies you quote regarding white women's preference in men, I do not feel they tell the whole story. First, these studies are mostly conducted in majority white countries in which the majority of men from which to choose are white. Self-segregation has made this even more relevant. If we look at the trajectory of how things are headed if things do not change, it is quite possible these preferences will change. Anyone paying attention can see that race mixing, particularly for white women, is portrayed in all the "trendy" media, entertainment, music, etc. as the thing to do. Try watching an Ariana Grande video.

    When it comes to being manly, obviously, simple "machoness" is not all that counts, and I do not believe Anglin is making the case otherwise. Men tend to be attracted to youth and fertility, while women tend to be attracted to men with resources and the ability to maintain and defend those resources. This can come in many forms, hence the reason your rock star may have more sex appeal than your football player. However, it is more than that. It is also to what esteem a man is held within his (preferably) large group that attracts women.

    I am at work, so I do not have time to continue blathering, but I will make one final point. When the "partriarchists" in the Alt-Right talk about stuffing a woman "back in the kitchen", it does not sound nice or modern. However, there is a lot of truth in the notion that women should have respect for their men and recognize them as leaders. In today's world there is no such thing as male or female, and all is about pleasing the self for all eternity. Allowing our women to run around acting like whores without social stigma attached to it is a BIG problem. Women of any race no longer have respect for white men, and it seems white men (as a group) have no respect for themselves. Why else would they allow the things that are now occurring to continue without rising up? Part of the White Sharia meme is about a return to white men of their self-respect, honor, strength, and much more. If this can be done, then our women will follow, and they will prefer the kitchen to the nightclub.

    My final point (I cannot help myself) is that those of us who share the common goal of saving our people should quit arguing amongst each other publicly about the best way to do it rather than attacking the problem that lies before us threatening to destroy us all. We need an "all of the above" approach, as that is what it will take to win over MORE of the people we are trying to save. All of us, including Anglin, are doing good work.

    1. >women BY FAR tend to vote leftist much more than men do

      A 10-15% gap in voting patterns, even if it keeps itself constant, is not nearly as large as people who lack any context might imagine. Certainly not as dramatic as all the hair puling and fingernail biting that elicits from the manosphere might lead one to believe. You can find really big gaps (40%+ would actually justify your use of "BY FAR") if you account for educational attainment; rural vs. urban etc. In context, the male-female difference is rather small.
      And considering that women tend to be more intensely subjected to liberal propaganda because of their educational preferences, alongside possessing certain character traits, I honestly find it surprisingly low.

  3. Unfortunately, some men in the alt-right are only after sexual socialism. In civilized societies, every man is paired up with one woman. The nuclear family then becomes the basic, stable unit of society. Sexual frustration is minimized.

    We have regressed to a more primitive system where 20% of the most attractive men build harems with 80% of the female population. This leaves 80% of men struggling to get laid and the bottom 20% of men (like Anglin) not getting laid at all.

    This creates a lot of angry, sexually frustrated men who want to either be "assigned" a wife or violently force a woman to "marry" them.

  4. This is the most awkward, tone-deaf blog on the Alt Right and this article is no exception. Alt-Right blogspot tries to position itself as a principled gadfly to the Alt Right but they always just come off as impotent whiners who are angry because everyone in the movement has moved past their weak, milquetoast brand of ethnoservatism. The writers who publish here are so disconnected from the movement they claim to be a part of that one wonders who they think they are reaching with this stuff? Only the tiny circle of self-reinforcing outcasts from the Alt Right like Collin and Brett Stevens.

    1. So we're tone-deaf if we're not pro-Sharia law, and we're weak and impotent if we don't whine about not getting laid?

    2. A tick biting a gadfly can hardly complain that the gadfly is biting a frog.

  5. Well said, I entirely agree with you. This blog has pretensions that it cannot justify. It is little more than a thorn in the flesh of the real Alt-Right. Very well, let it oppose us. But for goodness' sake, at least have the decency to ditch the title 'Alternative Right'.

  6. The reason women can't stand to be alone is because they are sluts. Can't be a slut all by yourself. Slut shaming stops them from being sluts 27/7. So what if guys like to be alone from time to time. Hell it does not even matter if some guys like to be alone all the time. Guys still create civilization. Woman birth babies and are fixated on match making. I am pretty certain the match making has something to do with the birthing babies. I believe a Jew, at the beginning of the last century, wrote a well regarded book on this very topic. He then shot himself in the head . Agree with the other commentators about the general quality of site. Still you have place on the Sh-tlord Aggregator.

  7. The Stormer crowed is getting ready to stat harassing alt-right women. Here's a statement from DS:

    "I think there is a resurgence of boomerposting because at this point in time the Alt-Right has not yet learned how to follow White Sharia Law. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. The Alt-Right is not going to be the thot-friendly safe space it was in the last year. Stormers are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for the Alt-Right to make. They are now going into a Conanism mode and Stormers will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, the Alt-Right will not survive."

    This is really an insidious strategy. It will scare away women and reinforce the stereotype that the alt-right is made up of loser malcontents that can't make it with women.

    1. Here's the link: https://www.dailystormer.com/its-a-huge-transformation-for-the-alt-right-to-make/

    2. I get the impression that the extremism is to drag the overton window in a desired direction, even if the end goal isn't necessarily illiterate, uneducated baby incubators held hostage in their own houses. I do however understand the power of the meme, it says "if you want to import sharia, we'll just give it to you right now. No need to import anybody. You want to be raped and enslaved? No problem, we can do that for you." And in doing so you intellectually disarm your political adversaries. They have to admit that Sharia is bad and thus disconnect from the left wing muslim diversity crowd.

  8. I would say you're on to something accept the point of the meme is to meme women back to the kitchen and motherhood with or with out the veil and no voting or getting educated.



by Colin Liddell AUDIO VERSION AVAILABLE HERE In recent days, the news cycle has been dominated by so-called "racism" ...