Julian Assange, Anti-feminist

21270829_10211928967353538_5859219997483018791_n

Something I wrote about Julian Assange on Facebook today:

“Julian Assange has been anti-feminist for a long time. His experience in Sweden would have confirmed this. He seems to be a right-wing libertarian. He clearly disliked Hillary.

I doubt that lack of vitamin D [in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London] is the issue. It is perfectly possible for someone to espouse his views and ideas on sexual politics and geopolitics and be as sane as most people.

He has an unusual mind and is not your typical progressive.

I understand what drives him because I tend to agree with him.”

Advertisements

10 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by fuzziewuzziebear on September 4, 2017 at 7:03 am

    The interesting thing about him is that he has made enemies of governments because he released information to the public. I think their outrage would be less had he revealed it to other governments.
    I have heard that the dubious rape charges have been dropped. Still, there is the matter of breaking bail in the UK. For all that, I think I can understand that his position against feminism.

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 4, 2017 at 7:10 am

      His anti-feminism predates the Swedish experience I think. He has made dismissive remarks about women at times. He has that low opinion of women that many nerds have. He is a very bright guy and not unattractive. I can imagine him finding women a bit unimpressive.

      Frankly, he reminds me of myself. I like women but I have never had a high opinion of them.

      Reply

      • Posted by fuzziewuzziebear on September 4, 2017 at 7:26 am

        I can see that.
        I have to warn you that I am struggling with holding back bear references.

      • Posted by Roman Lance on September 4, 2017 at 8:15 pm

        I used to have a stratospheric opinion towards women. They could do no wrong, as far as I was concerned. The failure of any relationship I had with women was may fault. As far as I was concerned If women were suffering it was because of some external factor, if they were alone it was because some man abandoned them for his own selfish reasons.

        Realizing that women were just adult children was a huge awakening for me. Unfortunately, telling myself that and accepting it as a new mindset has been easier said than done, and throwing off that reflexive deferential response when some woman is seen to be “suffering” is still a source of constant mental conflict. I think of all the time, mental energy and money I spent “feeling” for some woman and her problems, that she ultimately brought upon herself, and I almost want to beat my head against a wall.

        The effect of being raised by a single “mommy” I guess.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 5, 2017 at 4:25 am

        I wouldn’t say that women are “adult children”, although I know what you mean. Some women are “men’s women” and are pretty impressive human beings, combining the sensitivity of a woman with the steady intellect of a man. But even they remain women. As a female blogger once wrote, a woman is not a child, but nor is she a man.

        I once wrote that women are great, in their place. And got criticised of course. But what I meant was that women work well in a patriarchy (even a mild one like we have in the West.) They seem to need a moral structure provided by men, in one of the great religions for example, which are mostly patriarchal of course.

  2. I think he’s just a realist, not that he has a bad opinion of women. He clearly understands that the current Keynesian mode of capitalism in the West requires constant GDP growth–thus, a birthrate greater than that of replacement (consumer replacement). His problem with feminism in this tweet is clearly to be taken in the context of an economic observation: Females working and eschewing the primary existential imperative of civilization–procreation–can not maintain the existential dynamo of the West which built and sustained our cultures. The leaders of major EU countries all being childless, is a great observation which solidifies his equation.

    The most interesting aspect of his tweet is actually the inclusion of Atheism in his formula; specifically because Islam is filling the birthrate void that the West can no longer provide to stop our Keynesian capitalist economies from collapsing. Islam is only capable of achieving this because women are regulated by males in Islam, being held in their existentially important position as baby makers and carers. Assange can clearly see that the change to Atheism is responsible for the West abandoning this biological distinction and imperative, simultaneously giving birth to some really toxic forms of feminism (laced with civilization killing misandry) which present childbirth and rearing as a patriarchal oppression.

    FACT: Misogyny and patriarchal society will never threaten the birthrate.

    FACT: Misandry and ‘my body my choice’ (or matriarchal) society, will apparently always threaten the birthrate. Women will choose to compete with the male gender role by attempting to assuming it, requiring them to ditch their primary functional biological role in our species.

    As such, whether western women like it or not, the west is collapsing and being replaced by a more virulent strain of patriarchy (Islam), precisely because it rejected patriarchy. What an irony … and there’s nothing feminists can do to stop it, because in a democracy, their non-existent children get zero votes, and the children of Muslims grow up to have one vote each. They will live under Sharia whether they like it or not, unfortunately, unless some miracle in our fortunes occurs. 40% of under 6 year old’s in germany are the children of Muslim parents, apparently! They will almost be in control of German Universities in 20 years, which always leads to a conquest of all politik and bureaucracy.

    In regards to his mention of Atheism, moral considerations regarding the sanctity of life, in the womb, are mostly a concern for the religiously minded. Atheists see nothing special about a fetus, many of which would have reluctantly been allowed to go full term, even if unplanned, in a society where sanctity of life was enforced and violations of such, on moral grounds, were still shunned and stigmatized. This would all keep the birthrate sufficient to justify immigration control, even when utilizing an economic argument, keeping the competing pathological patriarchy of Islam out of our countries.

    Julian Assange is a social commentator after my own heart, it would seem … and I just thought he was a leak-journo. His little tweet is a veritable Red-Pill, packed up nicely and concisely. One might call it a eulogy to an already dead friend.

    We all have to admit, Assange changed world history probably like no other Australian has ever done, because I don’t think Trump would have made it over the line if the Clinton and Podesta leaks had not been vectored through the credible institution that Wikileaks has come to represent–without peer. Considering also that the Australian ex-pat Rupert Murdoch is the only operator of a conventionally conservative remaining MSM outlet in the US which gave Trump support after the primaries, I would say Australia, albeit indirectly, had a major effect on US politics that most people don’t seem to have given any credence to …

    … not that this is within the bounds of your Assange post though. Forgive me, I stray sometimes into related material.

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 5, 2017 at 4:14 am

      Yes. I am not a misogynist. I just have a realistic attitude to women.

      I have written about the fertility issue before. Modern young women are “burning the furniture” of civilisation. They have decided in large numbers to cash in their patrimony. Many social trends make sense when one realises the profound anti-natalist motivation at play.

      Reply

      • I wasn’t saying you were a misogynist, but to a feminist you would definitely be one, so would I, and so would any man reminding a woman that she alone of the genders has an existential mandate to give birth.

        You might find this demographic image set of the Netherlands interesting, because the Dutch are in many ways the canary in the coal mine when it comes to splintered western political systems and modern ‘liberalism’.

        It shows district breakdowns of the following:
        1) A map of the Population% of immigrants (mostly religious Muslims)
        2) A map of the Population% of Christians (dubbed the Dutch Bible Belt)
        3) A map of the birthrate of all districts.

        These maps clearly show that Atheist, Secular, and thus Feminist areas, are producing hardly no children, but of course produce all the marxist ‘academics’ and left-wing activists that want to dictate what type of world future generations should live in … even though they are nowhere near replacement rates. So why do they care? Control, I believe; purely for control over their existential superiors. They know they are wiping themselves out, but they see the Muslim influx as a weapon to use against the Old European Christian remnant. It’s like a guy who walks down the street, sees that his neighbor has a nice shiny sports car, so keys the paint off in spite.

        The Christian and Moslem districts are producing all the babies–future tax payers–and also all the strong family units. From other studies, it is the non-religious areas that have much higher anti-depressant dependency, domestic abuse (Islamic areas also though), mental disorder, and suicide rates.

        Leader of the Netherlands is Mark Rutte, 50yrs old, still single, childless.

        It would seem Julian Assange’s tweet was very concise in my opinion.

    • Posted by Darwinian Arminian on September 7, 2017 at 4:20 am

      Misogyny and patriarchal society will never threaten the birthrate.

      This line is truth, and it also underscores another important reality that gets overlooked: For all of the whining that you hear from feminists about how modern society is rife with “misogyny,” there are actually only a tiny minority of men who truly hate women and want to treat them badly. In fact, men on the whole will freely admit that they usually like women and enjoy their company. But they’d also usually prefer to have it within certain boundaries and roles — and it’s that last caveat that is all that is needed to meet the feminist terms for “hatred of women.” A great example of this can be found in the recent news story about the filmmaker Joss Whedon. His wife just went public with her plans to divorce him, apparently because he had engaged in a string of affairs with actresses and co-workers, all while assuring her that he loved her and wanted to promote her talents and abilities. This, she said, proved that he was really just a misogynist. But that’s laughable on the face of it. When a man is going out of his way to make time with a variety of ladies in the most intimate capacity while also maintaining a legally binding relationship with another one for many years there are many sins that you could believably accuse him of: Deceit, hypocrisy, and unchecked lust might be a possible few. “Hatred of Women,” however, is not a great explanation for why a man wanted to be with so many of them, and on so many occasions.

      Reply

      • Good point about the absurdity of saying Whedon ‘hates women’.

        One could possibly say that he hated his wife–a particular woman–by lying to her and dishonoring her, but obviously not all women. If he was physically and/or psychologically abusing them in addition to using them sexually, granted, it would be a fair point to say he perhaps hated them, but being a gynophilic addict is hardly an issue of hatred. Point taken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: