If you're not aware, there was recently a White woman riding the train in downtown Chicago who literally got set on fire by a raging nigger. These types of high-profile, racialized incidents are welcome news to those on the alt-right, because it provides them with atrocity propaganda that will benefit their movement.
However, it has since been revealed that the victim in this case was a typical libtard, signaling support for Black Lives Matter on Faceberg:
This risks deflating the outrage surrounding the incident -- instead contributing to a sense of schadenfreude among right-wing, White men. So in order to keep the interpretation of the incident strictly within a racial paradigm, various alt-right personalities have endeavored to make arguments for why the victim's political beliefs shouldn't matter:
1. "Women have no agency"
The idea here is that women are essentially children, and whatever they espouse doesn't matter. While not entirely incorrect, this has always struck me as anachronistic, wishful thinking in our modern context. In reality, women are highly agentic in modern society -- especially in affluent, urban areas like downtown Chicago -- accounting for a majority of consumer spending and a majority of university enrollees, thus exerting a decisive influence on local politics.
To consign all of this social mobility and influence that women clearly have into irrelevancy seems to be a priori reasoning -- that is, those who argue this want it to be true despite their lying eyes, so they'll act as though it's true. And maybe if they act as though things like modern feminism don't matter, women will eventually just submit to right-wing men again.
So if a White female BLM supporter gets attacked by a Black man, it is nothing but a confused child "going with the cultural flow" who should be all the more pitied -- since their BLM support, if anything, shows just how naïve and innocent they are.
I wonder if the alt-right would venture to extend this sympathy to coal burners. After all, can a White woman truly be faulted for having sexual relationships with Black men if they have no agency? Indeed, they are just misguided and operating off of social conditioning!
2. "The Black man targeted the White woman because she was White, and that's all that matters"
This is an interesting notion because when a White male BLM supporter was infamously beaten to death by a feral nog in front of his girlfriend years ago, I do not recall anybody on the alt-right making an effort to excuse his political activism. It was exclusively an atmosphere of people celebrating his "just desserts."
This goes back to the first point and how women can supposedly be judged by a different, more forgiving standard insofar as they're perceived as hapless children. Men can never be justifiably misguided, on the other hand, and should always be held responsible for what happens to them.
3. "If you support this woman getting attacked, then you must support your own mother/sister/aunt getting beaten up by niggers!"
This transference between a random woman you don't even know and female, familial relations is a classic mainstay of feminist discourse.
I once witnessed it invoked in person. A Hispanic woman had just gotten beaten up on a subway platform, and proceeded to berate the man nearest to her for failing to intervene. She said, "don't you have a mother, a sister? Would you just watch them get attacked too?"
Apparently, men must continue to fulfill their side of the patriarchal social contract -- where women are protected like so much cherished property -- even as women do not need to abide by their own obligations as the submissive protectorates. They want to eat their cake and have it too, and it shows given how fat women are today!
However, it has since been revealed that the victim in this case was a typical libtard, signaling support for Black Lives Matter on Faceberg:
This risks deflating the outrage surrounding the incident -- instead contributing to a sense of schadenfreude among right-wing, White men. So in order to keep the interpretation of the incident strictly within a racial paradigm, various alt-right personalities have endeavored to make arguments for why the victim's political beliefs shouldn't matter:
1. "Women have no agency"
The idea here is that women are essentially children, and whatever they espouse doesn't matter. While not entirely incorrect, this has always struck me as anachronistic, wishful thinking in our modern context. In reality, women are highly agentic in modern society -- especially in affluent, urban areas like downtown Chicago -- accounting for a majority of consumer spending and a majority of university enrollees, thus exerting a decisive influence on local politics.
To consign all of this social mobility and influence that women clearly have into irrelevancy seems to be a priori reasoning -- that is, those who argue this want it to be true despite their lying eyes, so they'll act as though it's true. And maybe if they act as though things like modern feminism don't matter, women will eventually just submit to right-wing men again.
So if a White female BLM supporter gets attacked by a Black man, it is nothing but a confused child "going with the cultural flow" who should be all the more pitied -- since their BLM support, if anything, shows just how naïve and innocent they are.
I wonder if the alt-right would venture to extend this sympathy to coal burners. After all, can a White woman truly be faulted for having sexual relationships with Black men if they have no agency? Indeed, they are just misguided and operating off of social conditioning!
2. "The Black man targeted the White woman because she was White, and that's all that matters"
This is an interesting notion because when a White male BLM supporter was infamously beaten to death by a feral nog in front of his girlfriend years ago, I do not recall anybody on the alt-right making an effort to excuse his political activism. It was exclusively an atmosphere of people celebrating his "just desserts."
This goes back to the first point and how women can supposedly be judged by a different, more forgiving standard insofar as they're perceived as hapless children. Men can never be justifiably misguided, on the other hand, and should always be held responsible for what happens to them.
3. "If you support this woman getting attacked, then you must support your own mother/sister/aunt getting beaten up by niggers!"
This transference between a random woman you don't even know and female, familial relations is a classic mainstay of feminist discourse.
I once witnessed it invoked in person. A Hispanic woman had just gotten beaten up on a subway platform, and proceeded to berate the man nearest to her for failing to intervene. She said, "don't you have a mother, a sister? Would you just watch them get attacked too?"
Apparently, men must continue to fulfill their side of the patriarchal social contract -- where women are protected like so much cherished property -- even as women do not need to abide by their own obligations as the submissive protectorates. They want to eat their cake and have it too, and it shows given how fat women are today!
Last edited:
