3/21/21: Follow-Up on Yesterday

Comments.

Some readers may wonder about my criticism of Jeelvy yesterday, given my own frequent negative comments about milady.

Was that just knee-jerk criticism of Counter-Currents from the “insane” and “paranoid piece of crap” Sallis?  No. 

First, Jeelvy is one of the pitiful current crew of Counter-Currents writers who I find childish and stupid, and so this is just another example of his juvenile jackassery. Second, and more importantly, I see Jeelvy’s post as a form of Bunkerism, which I oppose.

Bunkerism I define as politically irrelevant and ultimately futile or counter-productive expressions of racial, ethnic, religious, etc. bigotry by a White right-winger, conducted as an atomized individual or as part of a group of private citizens, which has no positive effect in advancing the views of the “Bunker” in the real world.

Jeelvy’s comments about women are sexual Bunkerism, all sound and fury signifying nothing. Only political action that accomplishes the attainment of real world objectives matter; gibbering about “beating women” on a pink-frilled pseudo-intellectual rightist webzine accomplishes nothing to practically advance rightist social policy.

Bunkerism of course has a foundation in truth, and Jeelvy’s opinions on women have a foundation of truth as well. But the descriptive truth of Bunkerism can be expressed more optimally, and there is no real political prescription there.

There are a number of sociopolitical policies one can propose that could alter social sexual mores and be pro-natalist: Changes in divorce laws, subsidies for stay-at-home mothers, cash payouts for the right kind of people to have children, production of cultural artifacts that promote traditional masculinity and femininity and that push back against feminism and all other social pathologies, changes in the education system (including Title IX) and in the workplace, etc. Talking about “beating women” and about anti-female violence in general, while it may excite the incel crowd, is not in any way a serious and helpful contribution to the discussion. Supporting MGTOW at least would be better – force women to work to attract quality men instead of having men focus their entire existence around women (like the “game” crowd preaches). But, no. Counter-Currents is no longer a serious endeavor, it is all about “shock jock” tactics for page views, it is all about “D’Nations,” so don’t expect anything useful from that source.

Someone else gets Johnsonian hypocrisy (emphasis added):

HobocopMarch 20, 2021 at 1:55 pm

Greg Johnson Counter Currents podcast AMA March 2021: “You know, there are lots of people with strong opinions about pair bonding. Sometimes I find myself banning and blocking them at Counter Currents because they’ll write in and say, ‘The problem is all women, they’re all whores,’ and I don’t want to write that, I don’t want to publish that at Counter Currents. It’s too unnuanced, its too sloppy.”

Nicholas R. Jeelvy Counter Currents article March 2021: “Absent patriarchal society’s relentless shaping of females into the eusocial category of woman, which here means wife and mother, females become whores, jumping from cock to cock in their quest to secure ever-grander alpha male attention for themselves…There is a nurturing instinct in women, but it has to be nurtured and reinforced. The opposite instinct — the instinct to whoredom and hypergamy — must be violently discouraged (and by violently, I mean beatings).”

There is no way out but through Johnson.

And that is a serious matter. It’s not just another example of Johnson’s mind-numbing hypocrisy, self-unawareness, ineptness, and gaslighting. This underscores the low quality of “movement” “leadership,” it underscores the lack of seriousness, consistency, and intellectual rigor in Der Right, and it once again demonstrates why giving “D’Nations” in that direction is equivalent to flushing money down the toilet.

Business as usual, eh?