Why is the alt-right correct in every other element of society

I'm sure there's an amazing trap thread for people to look at but this is a legitimate question.

I don't know about the alt-right, bet the ends don't justify the means.
I'm sure there may be a distant benefit for enslaving all of humanity to a very small elite, yet I doubt you'd like that.

>>35247079
Traditionalism i guess. Sure you can fight against ideas and such, but libido? That thing that is ingrained into your subconscious via millions of years of evolution? I guess its hard for them to break free. Also baby factories are important i guess

>>35247079
>philosophically feminist
>traditional values
it's an obscure feel.

File: 1487567772296.jpg (917KB, 2405x917px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 2405x917px

>>35247362
Yes but I mean it's a total protection of women and all of women's rights, right down to the right to vote.

Women need to be controlled, and 50s traditionalism didn't go far enough. It needs to be controlled very hard for it to work.

Stormfags often adopt an attitude of female shaming, that only Alphas deserve women and everyone else SHOULDN'T be allowed to reproduce. It's like it comes from the mouths of women themselves.

Even though every civilization ever has worked on harnessing the productive energy of betas and lower by allowing them integration into the sexual market via marriage.

>>35247079

As females tend to be rather driven by emotions and not logic, their actions often lack in practical results. This easily explains the ignorance women (or rather: Female concerns) face during prosporous or challenging times.

>>35247413
Maybe its misplaced empathy then? They feel thst women are just as capable as men, because of the rose coloured glasses society puts on men at a young age

>>35247546
Yes but the belief system should dissuade that.

"Allowing blacks to vote was a mistake, and we should have never been so blindly focused on progress."

"We need to do what's best for our race, even if it hurts feelings."

"Many groups of people are going to have to either leave or die for us to fix the problems liberalism has started."

Yet when it comes to women 50s traditionalism is the most they'll go back to (50s traditionalism, by the way, existing post-first-wave-feminism), Anything further is "Islamic" (despite Christianity preaching the same shit), and they gleefully engage in female shaming tactics calling any man that "can't keep a red-pilled woman" a race-traitor or even better, a virgin (again despite women having extreme political and sexual freedom leading to left-wing policies).

It's like they don't even know that propagating feminism was part of the Soviet intrusion into American higher-education that happened nearly 70 years ago.

>>35247490
I just get sick of hearing "we must protect our women from wearing hijabs!"

All I can think is "would it kill them to dress a little more modestly?"

Sex positivism is a good thing. People wouldn't be so fucked in the head if they weren't so repressed.

>>35248115
That does nothing to fix inequality in the sexual marketplace. Sex positivism simply leads to greater inequality.

>>35248115
People aren't repressed now.

If anything, the constant slide into degeneracy has lead to more people being fucked in the head. Which is why alongside the Eternal Homosexual and Eternal Pedohpile, we also have transexuals, omni-sexuals, furries, and the like.

The mistake these guys make is thinking they can bring back the dating/marriage market of the 50's through a change in laws or culture. The most basic reason he 50's were so great for men was the shortage of men after all the deaths of WWII.

The only way we could create the young female to young male surplus, without starting a massively deadly war, would be to outlaw abortion only in the case where the baby is a healthy girl. If it's a boy, or has a genetic defect, then it can be aborted, but if it's a healthy girl then the mother must carry it to term and either keep it or give it up for adoption.

>>35248236
There's no need for that. If the distribution of men and women are roughly equal, then it is up to society to provide each man with a woman, and yes, having society view women as property is a key understanding of this.

Women don't really care how many men there are, it only takes one man to impregnate every woman.

If there were only 10 men on earth, the one who is 10lbs skinnier than the other 9 will get all of the attention from women.

>>35248327
But the distribution is not equal. There are 105 boys born for every 100 girls. When you add in mostly male immigration, women's tendency to marry older men, and divorced men having higher rates of remarriage than divorced women, it distorts the market even more against young men.

Think about it logically, would it be better for a peaceful society to have an excess of young women unable to find a partner, or an excess of young men unable to find a partner? Which one of the two sexes, when denied this fundamental aspect of their nature, is more likely to cause problems?

File: 1487573315253.png (124KB, 925x737px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 925x737px

>>35248426
Again you're ignoring the natural society. I agree that a female surplus would be good, but if our current society existed as it did and had a female surplus, nothing would change.

80/20 rule applies to all tournament sexual-selection species, and tournament sexual-selection species don't build civilizations.

>>35248511
Obviously I'm talking about having a female surplus while also rolling back women's rights. If we did my idea that female surplus would be able to undo everything at the ballot box, so women's suffrage would definitely have to go.

Then we'd have to go back to at-fault divorce, mandatory paternity testing at birth, and make adultery punishable by law.

>>35248594
However, I disagree that abortions of males would be the ideal way. Simply because 1.) abortions are degenerate and 2.) it's a slippery slope into matriarchy and we don't want the reverse of the Chinese problem where they just kill/send off all their female babies.

>>35248594
Also, get rid of welfare for single mothers, except in the case where their husband died.

>>35248646
There is another method, but tradcons would never go for it. It involves accepting gay males and male-to-female transsexuals, as they remove young men from the dating market.

>>35248705
Those things are symptoms of the current awful system, however. If things were better, they wouldn't exist to such great volume.

>>35248730
You still don't see the big picture. Unless you want to create a society that is in a perpetual state of war, and get rid of some the advances in medicine and military equipment, in order to kill off the excess population of young men, then nature will always create a surplus of young men.

So even if we take away women's rights, and treat them as property, there simply won't be enough to go around, so you will have to deal with 5% of young men unable to find a mate and the danger they pose to society. Whereas, a surplus of young men, won't pose any physical danger tot the society, and that competition will make the other women fearful of not finding a man, and create another layer of control over their behavior.

>>35248819
* a surplus of young women won't pose a danger

>>35248819
If we accepted gays we'd have to make sure they stayed separated from polite society.

>>35248859
I have no problem with gays, just pass decency laws against same sex kissing and other forms of intimacy in public so they keep their behavior private.

>>35248046
We should protect them from hijabs, but I agree women do need to generally dress a lot more modest.

>>35247079
I like to think there's a bigger play at hand.

Consider this, the movement knows woman has to be lead and controlled into a more strong traditionalist way of life since it's getting out of hand. At the same time it knows that current feminism and grrlll powr agendas have gone too far to easily revert.

If you try to rock the boat at once, it'll likely ends in a mess unrepairable, furthering the problem. To avoid that, they try to sway the woman's views little by little.

>>35249108
It would be easier to believe if they didn't immediately call men virgins and believe in an ideal world where only "alphas" get to marry women, which sounds a lot like what the ideal woman world is.

File: 1485599624325.jpg (86KB, 710x423px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 710x423px

You just know a lot of these 'alt-righters' are orbiting some 'not-like-the-other-girls".

File: IMG_0715.gif (440KB, 500x277px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 500x277px

Because

People are naturally tribal, so nationalism isn't hard to swallow

People are naturally selfish, so capitalism isn't hard to swallow

People are HARDWIRED to love, comfort, praise, and adore women

You're fighting primal instinct

The MINUTE you say ANYTHING bad about women, all hell breaks loose

The liberals will call you a bigot, virgin, sexist, evil, redneck, and anti-egalitarian

The traditional conservatives will call you a jew, homosexual, muslim, degenerate, etc

Both sides are will to do ANYTHING to protect women from criticism or hard facts

A stormfag can gleefully read a study about nigger IQs but will BE DAMNED before he reads a study about female mating habits

>>35249590
I always thought complaining about mating habits was quite stupid. Flocking to Chad is the least of the problems with women.

>>35249590
My major annoyance is the half-assed acceptance of the nature of women.

They'll say about how women are emotional and collective but then ignore the fact that even "red-pilled" women are more left-leaning than their counterparts. Altright.com is obsessed with female speakers that talk about how much they hate Muslims but also refuse to consider themselves the property of their fathers or husbands.

>>35248154
Lol

Deal with it bro