Rollory is the penname of a Franco-American man who comments in both counter-jihad and white nationalist sites.
Dymphna is the penname of one of the two administrators of the counter-jihad site Gates of Vienna (GoV).
Her husband, Baron Bodissey [Ned May], is the other admin.
Like Rollory, Queen is a regular visitor.
In my last post I also stole comments from another GoV thread in order to expose Takuan Seiyo’s haughtiness when a woman confronted him with the Jewish Question (JQ). The intelligence of that woman is the exception that confirms the rule. In general, women don’t carry under their shoulders mankind’s destiny.
The counter-jihad movement not only suffers from blindness at the midst of its vision. Some of its members are almost blind on collateral subjects too.
It is true that I like both Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders, and their blindness on the JQ and other subjects do not bother me so much. But intellectuals should be different. They are supposed to delve deeper into the causes of Western malaise than the politicians and the popularizers of the dangers of Islamization. That’s why white Gentiles like Fjordman [Note of 2012: actually he’s half-Jew], and also Baron Bodissey, the main administrator of Gates of Vienna, need to be exposed. (Blindness on the JQ among Jews like Takuan Seiyo and Larry Auster is just ethnocentric self-deception, not treason of one’s own ethnic group.)
Why am I criticizing the GoV-ers if we still were good friends at the beginning of the last year? Because I cannot stand dishonesty out of cowardice. If we, white nationalists, are so dead wrong about the JQ, the intellectuals of the counter-jihad sites could refute our views without much effort (cf. again my previous post on Takuan Seiyo). Instead, they conveniently avoid all substantial discussion with us out of intellectual cowardice. But why am I criticizing them if I myself wrote that we who defend the West should never attack each other? Because counter-jihadists are not defending the West as they claim they do. And the earlier those who visit their sites wake up, the better.
The following includes parts of three comments by Rollory, some sentences censored by Bodissey, in the longest thread at GoV to date, “Sex, Gender, and Civilization.” Although I don’t agree with Rollory’s sympathies for the likes of Roissy (Roissy’s “Game” debilitates the West), I believe that Rollory hit the nail about feminism and so-called “women’s rights”.
No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:
Addressing Dymphna, Rollory said…
Wow, the things you find when you stay away from a thread for a week!
“…that women have done for the cause for years before people like ‘Rollory’ even knew what Islam was all about.”
Hey you contemptible little coward: if you have something to say to me, say it to me directly. Don’t run around being catty behind people’s backs—particularly if you want to counter the disdain that young men are increasingly experiencing for your type.
“I’ll continue to fight Islam on my own, but I part company with anyone who wants to take away my right to work, vote, or be an equal citizen in my country. [Chechar’s note: Those are not “rights.” It is feminism: a weapon of mass destruction used against the West.] I’ve read this blog for many years, but if this is the way it’s going to go, I’ll continue to go my own way.
Please do not go down this route. You will only alienate intelligent women like me who have given our hearts and souls to the counterjihad for years.”
Ok. Here’s the deal. You want things to work your way, make it happen.
What you are not allowed to do is to benefit and champion feminism and then complain that men aren’t responding to the resulting incentives the way you think they should—that is, they aren’t being sufficiently slavish to you. It doesn’t matter how this makes you feel. It does not work.
My claim is that fighting Islam, just like any other great project, will depend entirely and solely on the Western/European/white men deciding to actually do it, and that they will not decide to do so as long as the current female-empowered society remains in place. You can complain about this. You can throw tantrums. You can mount whisper campaigns behind people’s backs. You can take your ball and go home. None of that makes a goddamned bit of difference. The only thing that counts is success. If you can stop Islam your way, do it. If you are sure you are correct, you should not be afraid of me.
What I am advocating is: one family, one vote, with the patriarch as the executive. This is the traditional, historically sound system. It is the system that has been overthrown over the course of the last century. It is the system that was overthrown in the fading days of the Roman Empire, and in the weak years of the Caliphate before the Mongols, and in every society that is trending toward dissolution and collapse. These things are not random coincidences, nor are they evil conspiracies. They are facts of life and human nature. That they make you feel bad does not make them go away.
[Addressing Queen]: This is perfect example of female thinking at work. It is not about taking away your specific right to vote. It is about women in general. Women, in general, cannot generalize. You just proved that. Women in general like sexy over reliable, like security over liberty, like cute over competent. Women in general also think that one counterexample disproves statistics.
There are exceptions. The problem is that they are exceptions. Your arguments—all based on “me, me, me”—[are] complete validations of Vox Day’s rule about women’s most passionate arguments always based on how it makes them feel—are perfect examples of why women should not vote.
“The age of consent in Mexico and El Salvador is 12. Any mom with a daughter that age who’s walked her child in front of a phalanx of men of that ethnic group knows the score. Ditto the mothers of the 11 and 12 year olds being targeted by Muslim rape gangs in Britain. This is a women’s rights issue like no other. There is no way the multi-culti feminists can blunt this argument.”
Don’t you get it yet? Feminism is a subset of leftism. When it comes to a conflict between feminism and Islam, feminism gives way, every time.
If you were less inclined to screaming fits at the name “Roissy” this phenomenon might actually make sense to you. In any case, this battle is a losing one, it has been lost every time it has been attempted. But hey, don’t take my word for it, go prove me wrong: turn Islamization around based on feminist arguments.
♣
Ok, having read the rest of this [thread], I see no reason to change what I have said.
Equal rights and equal suffrage is something that got invented a hundred years ago. The corresponding trends regarding growth in government and increasing dysfunction are clear. That they are directly causally related is not proven, but it would be foolish to claim there is no connection when we have thousands of years of history of doing it the other way, without the specific societal dysfunction.
I realize how hard this is for modern women to accept. In fact I don’t expect them to. I expect that they will try to preserve the system, will fail—due to the young men being absolutely unmotivated to contribute—and that building the one I advocate will be my children’s and grandchildren’s task. They will have the benefit of seeing the utter failure of the feminist system before them.
And if I am wrong, it costs nobody anything, because the feminists will have won already and we will all be living in a shiny futuro-technomage society of peace and rainbows.
Baron Bodissey said…
Rollory,
I’ve redacted the insults and profanity in your comment. If you do something like this again, I will delete the comment outright. I don’t have time to play censor.
Rollory said…
They were not insults. They were an accurate description of her behavior. It is contemptible. It is cowardly. And that is a big part of why everything she claims to be striving for will fail.
Besides, I wasn’t the one to start with the personal insults here; your wife was the one who chose to start publishing them. Rather hypocritical of you to complain about someone responding to them.
_________________
My 2012 comment:
With rare exceptions, I don’t believe that women can help us in restoring our civilization, at least intellectually.
3 replies on “Scolding Dymphna”
Chechar, I would also disenfranchise men without children. In my opinion, they should have no say in the the decisions that affect the future of a society. Why should they?
‘With rare exceptions, I don’t believe that women can help us in restoring our civilization, at least intellectually.’
It’s good to see more WN men dealing with ‘the woman question’ head on.
In response to the above comments, based on my understanding, not every White man was eligible to vote in the founding of the White Republic by the American Founding Fathers, for obvious reasons of responsibility and to put it bluntly in neo colloquialism, of not giving a fuck. No. Only ‘landed White men’ were eligible to vote, that is, White men aged 30 or more, with name, title, proven service record, deed and deeds, children, good reputation, etc. Not just any walking cock passing through could vote. This is the reason why our forebears fought tooth and nail in duels to the death, to defend their name, because without their name, they were nobody.
I do not think having children was a requirement, after all, female numbers dictate population growth, not males’. A single male can impregnate hundreds of women. George Washington had no children, the Republic was his child. Nikola Tesla had no children. Achilles had no children. Christ had no children. Having children is women’s dharma, sacred duty. If White men of good reputation, with proven military record, who own land, and have a relationship with their White neighbors who will vouch for them, do not have children, that is irrelevant.
Again, children are women’s business, period, fullstop.
What makes a White Man eligible to vote is his proven commitment to sacrifice and fight for defending White Land.
We are THE Warrior race. Never forget it.