June 13, 2017
We’ve got a packed show today. I’m going to start a bit early actually, just so we can get to everything. I’ll start the show at 4:30pm US Eastern with Augustus Invictus, he’ll be telling us about the anti Sharia protests that took place across the country over the weekend.
From there, it’s time to talk about chicks, man. My piece about Women in Radical Movements has people talking. Tara McCarthy of Reality Calls is one of those people, and she joins us for the first full hour to discuss women in politics.
To briefly reiterate, I had expressed a degree of suspicion toward women who involve themselves in politics, particularly in radical movements, and more so in right wing circles. I see statecraft as a masculine thing due largely to its violent nature, and to me feminine influence thusly seems out of place and suspicious.
I of course recognize there are reasonable exceptions to this, but there are reasons the Democratic Party and leftists more generally hold themselves up as the defenders of women. There is no such thing as a right wing (or libertarian) feminist. Opposing the leftist onslaught necessitates embrace of inequality, and only a communist would deny that men are the dominant half of the hard coded gender binary. Perhaps leftism appeals to feminine instincts. Perhaps our rivals promote the elevation of women into power because estrogen poses less of a threat than testosterone. Perhaps women are just more easily fooled. Whatever the cause, those of us on the right know from voting patterns and other demographics, that we would all be a lot better off if women were not permitted access to the voting booth. Chief amongst the beneficiaries of ending women’s suffrage would be women themselves of course, since their support of left wing policies is resulting in their own misery, degradation, and even rape and murder.
In thinking of my “suspicion” of women in politics, I was reminded of Nick Land’s “The Dark Enlightenment”. In it, he discusses privatizing the State apparatus into something he refers to as gov-corp. He suggests that with the state entity being the property of its shareholders and absent democratic control, nobody would need to take any interest in politics, and to do so would “exhibit semi-criminal proclivities.” This makes sense to me, and feeds into my broader suspicion of democracy. Whatever flaws there may be in the political behaviors of women, the same can be said of men in large part, especially if we do not exclude non-whites and non-land-owners.
Most people are not suited to statecraft, male or female, black or white. It is infinitely complex. Whatever form any future government may take, the broad overreaches of the modern State are sure to influence its policies, and so rulers will have broad and destructive powers. Individually it is almost too obvious to need stating that a white male Antifa degenerate will have a worse influence on politics than a conservative white woman. However, by dealing in demographics one can broadly eliminate political problems through racial and sexual discrimination, freeing up energy to detect and handle internal threats posed by poorly behaved white males.
Tara’s recent commentary on Women In The Alt Right was refreshingly self aware. She explored the obvious marketing phenomenon of attractive women gaining otherwise unearned attention in media, as well as gender dimorphism and the gender roles it carries. She differentiated between participating in discussions, and showing up at demonstrations where potential for violent conflict exists. Suggesting that women who attend such things perhaps ought to be dissuaded from doing so by their fathers and husbands.
At first glance, she seems like a notable exception to my suspicions, though it is noteworthy that she mentioned a fiance and it would in hindsight have been wise for me to differentiate between single and taken women in my earlier commentary. I look forward to our discussion.
In the second hour, we’ll be joined by Azzmador. He’s a Daily Stormer contributor, and YouTuber who recently found himself in a standoff with Oath Cucks (formerly known as Oath Keepers) in Texas. You might recall me talking about Daily Stormer trying to egg the blacks on into renaming the City of Houston. It looks like the blacks were smart enough to stay out of the trap, but the Oath Cucks fell right into it. They even allowed an illegal immigrant to assault one of the Stormfront guys.
All this and more, plus your calls at 747-234-2254 or RadicalAgenda on Skype.
So join us, this and every Monday, as well as Wednesdays and Fridays, usually from 5-7pm Eastern, but starting today at 4:30pm, for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about common sense extremism where we talk about radical, crazy, off the wall things like putting people in their place.
I’m still banned from streaming to YouTube. Catch the live video stream on UStream. Listen live on the TuneIn app! Got Roku? We’re on there too! Or add the raw stream to your favorite streaming app! Get the podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, Roku, RSS, or RadicalAgenda.com.
I keep the lights on here by selling premium memberships, as well as bumper stickers and shirts. I also solicit donations, and encourage you to shop through my affiliate links. Without that support, this show will cease to exist.
Subscribe via email and never miss another post!