alt-right antifeminism heartiste men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA racism women's suffrage

Antifeminism and white supremacy: Joined at the hip for more than a century

Not sure that portraying the woman voter here as a total badass really helped the antifeminist argument, but whatev

Men’s Rights Activists, and anti-feminists generally, are forever warning anyone who will listen that excessive feminism could, any day now, bring about the end of western civilization itself.

This is not a terribly new or original idea. And a post on Nazified pickup artist blog Chateau Heartiste today reminds us just how old and unoriginal this notion is.

The proprietor of that blog, James “Heartiste” Weidmann, brings his readers’ attention to a lengthy quotation from a 1911 book by a fellow named Octavius Beale.

[U]nreasonable demands for exaggerated “rights ” of women will always find a limit in the fact that the majority of men will constantly prefer for wives those who do not claim such rights, but who rather seek their happiness in cultivating and developing their specially feminine virtues and attributes, apart from any aim at equality with men.

Take that, feminist cat ladies with no husbands!

These attributes will also therefore be preferably inherited, whilst the extreme tendencies of the women’s rights movement will usually not come into heredity, but will constantly tend to die out.

Well, he was half right. Feminism did die out, for a time, but then it came back.

Notwithstanding, should woman-rule —contrary to all expectations— become so strong in any single State that it will be able to enforce all its demands, even the most extreme, that result could only be possible where the men are completely degenerated.

Degenerated, huh? Can you see where this is going?

Such a nation would soon be supplanted and dissolved by healthier peoples, who might, perhaps, stand on a lower scale of culture.

I believe he is referring to what the Nazis of today like to call “white genocide.” Back in 1911, Beale called it “Racial Decay” — which was in fact the title of his book.

Amazing how quickly and easily Beale slid from antifeminism to white supremacy. Just as so many antifeminists do today.

Heartiste follows up Beale’s dire, racist warning with a dire, racist warning of his own.

After declaring “equalism” to be “a corruption of civilized man’s soul,” he tries his best to rally the troops in defense of their white “tribe.”

[F]emcuntery will only achieve wrecking power in a nation of degenerated men unable and unwilling to act to preserve their culture and protect their tribe. Women are followers and will follow their nation right into the abyss if it guarantees their social standing among peers; as I’ve been saying, it’ll take shitlord men with big balls to bring their women to heel and their nation back to greatness.

Heartiste, seriously, no one wants to hear about your balls.

394 replies on “Antifeminism and white supremacy: Joined at the hip for more than a century”

Thats a personal choice. if you want to do that you shouldnt be crying about the “patriarchy” paying you less. Its a meritocracy.

If it was a meritocracy, parents and carers would be paid the most.

Thats like saying feminists have been saying men are rapists for the last 10 years. The majority are not like that(in western society).

Has anybody pointed this out yet?

Aah the appeal to the people fallacy, we meet again.

(Oh God it’s 11:42 pm and I’m making stupid video game jokes, where did my life go so wrong.)


He’s also mixing his classification systems together. But, you know, anything to invalidate Chiomara’s perspective and experiences, since they’re inconvenient to his worldview.


He specifically called Brazil a third-world country, which made me lol. But you’re correct, he’s referring to “western” countries (what he really means is Global North but it’s obvious that he’s never heard that term before) and “third-world countries” as though these two things are different categories in the same system.

Economically, Brazil is a BRIC country, which does not imply undeveloped! So even dividing into Global North and Global South, Brazil does not fall neatly into either category.

@ troubelle

I’m hoping Bradley comes back. I’m sure he’ll be honourable enough to furnish Peevee with at least a partial apology.

How about this peevee, as soon as I see as many female engineers, doctors lawyers and investment bankers as male,, I will admit I am wrong

I’d like to know what college has an “engineering class of 23 people”.

I thought the one room colleges didn’t exist anymore?

But if he is the 329 year old engineer from Gull Island, it makes more sense.

Good luck working remotely there.

@Alan, but you’re from the UK…and as Bradley stated Brazil doesn’t count, I cannot imagine he would think the UK does, either…

I also do not think Bradley “sees” much of anything.

Bwee. I just feel like I’m leaning against the wall of the metaphorical room here, smoking a metaphorical cigarette as I watch one dolt babble on about blatant falsities while everyone counters him.

I don’t condone tobacco smoking, plus I’m feckin’ 17, but for visuals’s sake.

@ peeve

I cannot imagine he would think the UK does, either…

But…but…! (Stop it Al. 4 July 1776. IT’S OVER! Let it go.)

Guys I’ve got it ! Broid actually refers to his ergonomic chair (where no woman has ever worked, and where he is the apex of merit) as The Western World ™ !

Hey, I ain’t judging. My chair’s got a stupid name too.

Don’t mock Brad! He makes software for businesses! As everyone knows, that’s far more important than surgery, or making roads that surgeons and patients can travel over to meet in hospitals so that surgery can occur! And he has friends who stand, sit, and loll about the Stock Exchange for way more hours than a labourer or physician can practice their trades! Also, he knows a woman!

Brad, seriously, what you (claim you) do is provide tools and support to the people and businesses that actually achieve things. That’s fine, respectable, useful, and in your case apparently well remunerated. Nice for you.

Why the fuck are you so contemptuous of your fellow support workers? I can’t see how you are any better than a hospital orderly or road construction worker or stores department administrative worker.

Your arrogance is one instance in which you are worse than average.


4 July 1776

July 4, 1776, I think you’ll find 😛

Fun fact: battles in the Murican Civil War have 2 names. 1 given by the Union and 1 by the Confederacy. The north named battles after nearby waterways and the south by nearby towns. Battle of Bull Run vs Battle of Manassas. The name used by the winner tended to stick. Always loved that bit of trivia

Holy shit this thread. I just spent like an hour and a half of my time reading this dude’s bullshit. Thank the gods that my insomnia reared its ugly head last night, because this shit is 1000x funnier when I’m sleep-deprived and nursing a Monster.

I like the parts where he insists that his sources aren’t bullshit, we’re just “biased”. Biased against outright bullshit, maybe.

I mean, who are we going to believe? Brad’s Obviously-Not-Biased sources from JudgyBitch and paid right-wing think tanks, or our own biased eyes?


Also @LindsayIrene, speaking of memes: I love this meme. It’s a good meme.

Can I explain a little thing? I mean, I am not very well versed in global geography, but I studied a lot to get into medschool, so it’s fair to say I know a bit (not much) more than the average person who only learned it in high school. Also, the way we learn geography is different from how Americans, at least, do it, your education seems really self centered.

Anyways, I don’t know if it’s right, but what I learned is this:

There are several socio-economical divisions. One of them is the northern/southern division which I am guessing is ANCIENT, but can’t remember when from.
Northern is everyone in the geographical northern hemisphere and weirdly(in a geographical sense, but makes sense socio-economically), Australia. Southern is everyone else.

One of them was created during the cold war and is the “first, second, and third world” division. In this division:

-First world, also called western* world (cause most were localized in the western part of the globe), are the capitalists, or the main players on the American side of things. Say, using a football analogy, they were player one, with the US being their team captain.
-Second world, or eastern, is communist, or main players for the URSS. Player 2.
-Third world, were the countries with small economical power who couldn’t afford to feel strongly for either side. They just hoped they didn’t blow up the planet. This includes Brazil. In the football analogy, we were the ball. And boy, were we kicked around.

*Western and eastern can mean several things. This is what it means in THIS context.

Now, during the Cold War, we say the world was bipolarized. There were only two poles (US and URSS), and you were either important to one of those or you didn’t exist nor stand a chance. But, post Cold War (which some historians say isn’t over yet, but that’s not up for me to discuss), the world became multipolarized (with the US still being the main force), or globalized. Due to the advent of the Internet, to the cold war itself, to the economy, to multinationals, to resources, to several things, we can no longer ignore poorer countries. We are finally learning to stand up and walk with our own legs and be valuable players, mostly because we have valuable resources (cheap manpower or natural resources) and they can’t simply arrive here guns blazing, kick us out, and steal our shit anymore. So a new division needed to be created.

This division was “Developed, developing and underdeveloped”.
Developed are the ones previously known as first and second world.
Developing is us! The countries who were previously colonies and non important players, but now are educated and industrialized and want a piece of the cake. Includes part of eastern Asia and the BRICS (except Russia), and others.
Then there is underdeveloped. The countries that just can’t seem to get up economically, don’t seem to industrialize in a meaningful extent anytime soon, have problems of chronical poverty and warfare… Sigh.

So. Brazil is southern, it is not “western” (in THIS sense), and it is part of the third world. All of this is correct. Our friend was using an extremely outdated and US centered division of the world, but who here is surprised? Not me, I bet Trump himself still divides the world like this. But the division that best fits today’s world – the one actual global entrepreneurs don’t seem foolish enough to ignore, because we have resources and a huge market – places Brazil in the “developing” area.

Phew. This took long. Thank you for your time.

@ Axe

Always loved that bit of trivia

I love stuff like that too! So thanks.

I’ve now got an image in my head of the Union forces in a field between two rivers shuffling a bit closer to one or other of them.


Phew. This took long. Thank you for your time



I’ve now got an image in my head of the Union forces in a field between two rivers shuffling a bit closer to one or other of them

Apparently, Union forces were urban, so they found rivers to be more notable. And the Confederates were rural, so a lotta them rarely saw towns at all and found them important. Also, the north based their war winning strategy on taking control of the south’s water routes to strangle em til they quit. So, their river obsession paid off 😀

“Global North” and “Global South” are different from geographic northern and southern hemispheres, but nod to the fact that the most developed countries trend northern and the less developed ones trend southern. Many countries in the northern hemisphere are Global South and vice versa – it’s about trends rather than hard lines.

Brazil is definitely first-world today. First world means within the sphere of influence of the US and Europe. Second world means within the sphere of influence of the USSR and the PRC. The US has made a point of putting all of the Western hemisphere into its sphere since the early nineteenth century, but has not totally succeeded so there are still some third-world countries in the Western hemisphere. And Brazil was not first-world for a good while, but it has been effectively captured by this point today. If the USSR still existed today and made a play for Brazil, the US would ferociously defend its influence there.

This hasn’t been a very useful classification system for some decades, however, and the meaning has been diluted by the common parlance of referring to the “first world” as developed countries and “third world” as less developed, as though the classifications were purely economic in nature. One can claim an economic aspect having to do with capitalism vs. communism, but it was a political division far more than an economic one. Most less developed countries are capitalist or proto-capitalist, after all, but what made them third-world was their lack of political/strategic attractiveness to either the US or the USSR.

I think it’s been firmly established that old Bradley is, to use the technical term, “Full Of Shit” and he earned his degree from the University of Assfaxia School of Mansciences.

@Bradley full of shit
1) Brazil is both First World and part of the West
2) When one of your sources is JudgyBitch, you really don’t get to call other people’s sources biased
3)Heart surgeons can work remotely now? I thought you said that heart surgeons were better than everyone else those lazy, lazy blue collar workers because they couldn’t be replaced by robots

Gotta admit I was amazed at the “your non-US country don’t matter” argument.

It’s bad enough that he throws in just world and relative privation at the same time, but then he moves the goalposts in direct contradiction with relative privation. Okay, sure.

Like, dude, I know you love the word “fallacy” but you’re exactly the kind of person who should be forbidden to pronounce or write it. A fucking sophist is what.

I thought you said that heart surgeons were better than everyone else those lazy, lazy blue collar workers because they couldn’t be replaced by robots

Which is hilarious, because

PaganReader – Misandrist Spinster | March 27, 2017 at 12:34 pm
3)Heart surgeons can work remotely now? I thought you said that heart surgeons were better than everyone else those lazy, lazy blue collar workers because they couldn’t be replaced by robots

Actually, there have been awesome advances in medical technology in the past few years that would allow surgeons to work remotely.


It’s been a while, M…

Granted, the tech is expensive, but once it’s normalized and proven useful for most hospitals to have, it would be a great benefit to people all around the world to have access to the best doctors the world has to offer without taking an expensive (and sometimes risky) trip to to to where the doctor is, or to pay to have the doctor fly to where they are.

And another given: The tech obviously isn’t perfect, and the doctors would have to learn how to operate the machine and account for lag and all of that, but it’s a good step forwards.

Of course, I’m sure our troll would think that people don’t deserve to have this life-saving technology because they should just work hard enough to be rich enough to have access to any of the world’s doctors while they or their loved ones are getting sicker and sicker.

Because apparently time is never a factor in these situations, which is one thing that gets me about the “Don’t take care of kids/elderly family members! Get rich and hire a nanny!” bullshit.

Not every sick child or every elderly family member has the time to wait for their caretaker to get rich enough on a part-time job (or three) to hire a full-time caretaker. Some of them will die or can get very, very hurt without round-the-clock care or supervision.

The other thing that bugged me: not everyone wants to just leave their loved ones in the hands of a complete stranger, no matter their qualifications or their socio-economic brackets. It just seems callous to some people.

So forgive them for putting family and kids before getting rich enough to dump them on a nanny/caretaker in that regard. [/sarcasm]

Of course, I’m sure our troll would think that people don’t deserve to have this life-saving technology because they should just work hard enough to be rich enough to have access to any of the world’s doctors while they or their loved ones are getting sicker and sicker.

Buuut he hates Ayn Rand !

Noooooo. No.
Guys, I think you have your reasons to think that, and I don’t mind your opinion, but I very much disagree.

As I said, “first, second and third” world was a division made during the cold war era that only made sense in the cold war era. Please drop that completely, it’s useless, outdated and over-simplistic.
Even if the cold war was today (it isn’t, so…), Brazil wouldn’t be first world. To say Brazil is first world or developed is as innacurate as saying it’s underdeveloped. It’s ignoring some very important issues we have and ignoring our role in global economy.

Developed/first world countries sell technology, we “sell” cheap workers and resources. We sell oil for the US to transform in gas, then buy the gas back from them at a much higher price simply because we don’t have the technology to refine it, for example. Or the US put factories here or in Mexico because of smaller taxes, salaries and environmental laws, and we accept because it generates jobs for our people. The US outsource call centers to India for the same reasons. We can’t pretend we are technology producers, our role in global economy is clear and defined and different from the role of developed countries.

Not to mention our social problems. A significant portion of the population here can’t read. We have people dying out of hunger and diarrhea. We have states where child marriages is normal. At the same time, we have boosting metropolitan areas such as Sao Paulo. The differences are huge, one area is urbanized and others aren’t, such is the common reality of developing countries, which we share with other developing countries. I very much accept the label of developing, and with pride, no less, and I believe it’s a very accurate label.

And the US DID fight to have influence over us during the cold war. As I said, we were THE BALL. The cold war was a war of influence. The US INSTALLED A MILITARY DICTATORSHIP THAT LASTED OVER 20 YEARS in Brazil to shut down communists. And this is not a conspiracy theory either, this is a confirmed fact, we have DOCUMENTS proving the US gave our military all kinds of support to reach power. I mean, the only reason we didn’t descent into a “Vietnam War” is that our people are not too fond of war and communism was not too strong here, so, yeah. We aren’t first world for several reasons, which don’t include the US not caring about us.

I mean, generally speaking, we know our place in the grand scheme of things, and we are okay with it, at least I am. I am also pretty realistic about the situation here, and I believe the population in general is too. Brazilians are optimistic people, but we are not patriotic at all, at least not in that sense. I noticed in discussions like these people from developed countries either act like we are cave people opening coconuts with rocks or we are a smaller warmer America and will feel offended if you say otherwise. We are neither, we are pretty well off in some ways, horrible in others, but trumping, falling, and breaking a few bones, we walk forward, and that is okay for me!

That, or he honestly disagrees with her views.

O wait


Like I said, “first world” doesn’t imply anything about your economic or social situation. It only implies that you are in the sphere of influence of the US (or Europe, but the US in the specific case of Brazil). It’s a political classification, not an economic or social one.

Economically, Brazil is one of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) which implies that the country is, so to speak, on its way up but still near the bottom, which in turn implies that it is a great investment opportunity. It’s a purely economic classification that is independent of the old first/second/third world political classification.

First/second/third world classifications have been misused in English to imply certain economic systems/levels of development, but that’s a misuse. The US jealously hoards its influence over the Western Hemisphere and has frankly abused other countries in order to make them little capitalist markets for US goods, as well as to extract resources. The places where this has succeeded are first-world.


I’m pretty sure that the only reason troll hates Ayn Rand is that she was a woman.

That’s undoubtedly part of it, but there’s also a schism among right-libertarians between the pro-Rand and anti-Rand factions (Who call themselves objectivists and libertarians respectively), because Rand talked a lot of shit about libertarians in her writing, and both factions are so ignorant about their own movement’s history that they don’t realize she was referring to left-libertarians*, as that was the default meaning of the term a the time she got started.

*i.e. people of my political persuasion


*Shrug* That’s not what I learned at school, but if you say so, I respect that. I have neither credentials nor references to discuss this in a deeper way.

I’ve heard South Africans say that we’re First World because we sided with America during the Cold War. I’ve also heard South Africans say that we’re Third World because we export raw materials and import services and finished goods.

I’m not happy with the word “BRICS”, personally, because those five countries are so utterly different that it seems weird to group them; but then I’m not an economist.


I find both these things so weird because… All right, so we are “first world” because we aren’t and weren’t communist, OK. When exactly were we referred to or treated as “first world”? Not in the cold war and not now. Also, what else do we have in common with the US and the EU countries? Nothing. Seems like a very fragile division based on nearly nothing but something that only mattered on the time window from the 60’s to the 80’s/early 90’s.

Also, we are third world cause we mostly export raw goods. Do we seriously think we can compare ourselves to Nigeria, somalia, etc? When we gather to discuss the group of countries in extreme poverty that need our collective help, both humanitarian and financial, to be able to thrive, can we seriously put everyone who is not as industrialized as Europe or the US in the same bag, can we say it’s as important to help Brazil as it’s important to help Somalia? Sounds very weird. I mean, this kind of division is not made because of semantics, or based on a single characterisc, it’s based on several things that are relevant at that point of history with the point of making the study and discussion of common characteristics and problems easier. It’s not this simple, and if it was, the division would lose it’s purpose.

But I am not an embassador, a president or a economist, and the category people decide to put my country in matters as much in my life as my opinion and what I learned at school matters to the ones responsible to categorize it (which is not at all), so meh.

I think BRICS is not one of those socioeconomic divisions. You see, ACCORDING TO WHATEVER I LEARNED AT SCHOOL (which may or may not be correct), in this multipolarized world countries decided to make alliances to become stronger and have more competitivity in the global market. See the EU, the thing between US, Mexico and Canada, the Asian Tigers, Mercosul. Now, those are economical blocks, but are the examples I know, sorry. BRICS are not an economical block nor seeks to be one, it’s a bunch of countries who decided to cooperate with each other economically, mainly because they want to grow and be a bit less independent from the US. Brazil, India, and South Africa come with the raw materials and consumers, China and Russia comes with the technology and industrialized goods. Basically, we are buddies because we decided to be, not because a random economist looked at us and said “And now I shall call you… BRICS!”

I am sorry if I sound like a complete idiot, everyone! I’m just saying what I was told to write in tests!

You don’t sound like an idiot, Chiomara. These concepts can be, and perhaps should be, criticized.

I’m pretty sure the definition of “first world” and “third world” and shit is very loosely defined so Britain and America can lord superiority over other “less developed” nations, whatever “less develop” means at whatever time. The terms are also becoming less and less meaningful when world-wide the standard of living is rising, along with lots of non-labor intensive jobs and careers to choose from.


Absolutely nothing is time sensitive. You can go around as you like, and it’s actually encouraged in a number of ways. Straying too far can be dangerous ’cause some Machines can be deadly to someone who’s never encountered them before and/or isn’t properly equipped, but otherwise traveling is a damn pleasure and exploration is rewarding. You can still try your luck in the more dangerous environments and play it safe by making use of all the save points scattered around.

Hell even after finishing pretty much everything else kept just wandering around and hunting the big ‘uns. The world’s not that big but every inch of it is worth a trip. Plus you can still find yourself sorely overmatched even in post-game* if you get cocky, which adds substance to the wandering.

Damn I wanted to post a quick reply and go to sleep and this turned into a wall o’ text again. Buuut HZD .-.

Edit : *dammit I meant post-game.

It’s a good year for sandbox RPG fans. As soon as I’m done with FO4, I’m moving on to Horizon, then Zelda… Of course, I put about 1200 hours into Skyrim (that is not a typo), so it might take me a while.

Hell even after finishing pretty much everything else kept just wandering around and hunting the big ‘uns. The world’s not that big but every inch of it is worth a trip. Plus you can still find yourself sorely overmatched even in post-game* if you get cocky, which adds substance to the wandering.

This pleases me.

Gotta concede I was astounded at the “your non-US nation don’t make a difference” contention. It’s sufficiently awful that he tosses in simply world and relative privation in the meantime, however then he moves the goalposts in coordinate logical inconsistency with relative privation. Alright, beyond any doubt.

Like, man, I know you adore “misrepresentation” yet you’re precisely the sort of individual who ought to be prohibited to articulate or compose it. A fucking critic is the thing that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.