The Woman Question in White NationalismGreg Johnson
Translations: French, Polish, Slovak
The perennial question is back: Why are there so few women in the White Nationalist movement?
Before venturing an analysis of this question, I need to say a few words about what White Nationalism is. White Nationalism is about preserving the biological integrity of the white race by making our race’s survival and flourishing the number one political priority. White Nationalists represent the genetic interests of all whites, men and women, adults and children.
But preserving our race’s biological integrity requires more than defeating multiculturalism and multiracialism. It also requires the defeat of feminism and emasculation (male infantilization) and the restoration of sexual roles that are not just traditional but also biological: men as protectors and providers, women as nurturers.
These sex roles are norms, meaning ideals. Realistically, not every man or woman will be able to function according to them. (That’s what makes them ideals!) But a White Nationalist society needs to maintain these ideals as norms nevertheless, for even in a racially homogeneous society like Japan, feminism and male infantilization are causes of personal and social misery and below-replacement birthrates, particularly among the educated and intelligent who should be reproducing more rather than less.
Many men who genuinely wish to become husbands and fathers shy away from marriage because every man knows another man who has been emotionally and financially savaged by the punitive feminist biases now codified in laws governing marriage, divorce, and child custody. White Nationalists will change that.
Many women who genuinely wish to become wives and mothers nevertheless feel forced to pursue a career first because of a lack of men who wish to assume the protector and provider role. They want a Prince Charming, but all they see are Peter Pans. White Nationalists will change that as well.
The restoration of traditional and biological sexual norms will affect men as well as women. Indeed, it will be harder for men than for women. In a White Nationalist society, men will no longer be allowed to prolong their adolescence into their thirties and forties. They will be expected, encouraged, and enabled to take on adult responsibilities as soon as they are able. They will become husbands and fathers, providers and protectors for their families. White Nationalism will demand that men “man up” so women do not have to.
White Nationalism promises women a society in which they are free from the fear of the black and brown predators who commit the overwhelming majority of rapes. Nobody will stop women who wish to remain single and childless to pursue their careers. But the overwhelming majority of women who wish to marry and raise families will be able to find husbands who can support them and their children in stable, monogamous marriages. No matter what their income, they will be able to live in safe, homogeneously white neighborhoods. No matter what their income, they will be able to send their children to safe, homogeneously white schools. In a White Nationalist society, no mother will need to fear that her children’s livelihoods will be lost because of affirmative action, non-white immigration, or shipping jobs overseas. In a White Nationalist society, no mother need fear that her children will die on battlefields to serve the interests of other races. In short, White Nationalism has a great deal to offer to women.
So again, why are there so few women in the White Nationalist movement?
My answer is simple: Most women see politics as a largely masculine enterprise. They are correct in this. Thus women are waiting for men to build a White Nationalist movement that credibly advances the interests of our race. When we accomplish that, the women will come, and they have an important role to play as natural networkers, nurturers, and multi-taskers.
So White Nationalist men need to focus first and foremost on advancing our cause: building community and raising consciousness, honing our message and developing new ways of communicating it, organizing to pursue aims in the social and political realms. If we take care of those things, the woman question will take care of itself.
As for the few women who are already in our cause: that is to their credit. They are in the vanguard of their sex as well as the vanguard of our race.
The last thing the movement should do is soften our message or compromise the pursuit of our ultimate aims simply in order to court women.
First of all, we have to ask: Is the lack of women in the movement even a problem? Yes, of course, we need all the people and resources we can get. But is the existence of overwhelmingly or exclusively male groups by its very nature a problem? Yes, by all means, let’s bring women into the movement. But does that mean that all groups need to be open to women or have “gender parity”? Is our struggle against racial diversity strengthened by sexual diversity? Are we feminists, then? Are we building a rainbow? Are we nuts?
Michael Walker’s otherwise excellent speech at the 2008 American Renaissance conference was marred by his claim that he would like to see every other seat filled with a woman. That would, of course, be excellent advice if we were a ballroom dancing society. But it was not so long ago that politics was an exclusively male thing. Armies and police and fire departments were also exclusively male. Were these organizations less able to look out for the interests of women when they were exclusively male?
The truth is that sexual diversity in an organizational context, like racial diversity in all contexts, is often a source of division, conflict, and weakness – particularly if the organization is involved in something quintessentially male like fighting and self-sacrifice for the common good. Thus all-male police and fire departments were probably more effective at protecting the interests of women than today’s integrated forces.
We have to ask ourselves if this might not also be true of some White Nationalist organizations. And might some White Nationalist groups be more effective if they were all female? See Amanda Bradley’s excellent review of Women of the Far Right, which deals largely with women-only organizations. We need a lot more of such groups.
If sexual diversity is a source of weakness for all other political movements, shouldn’t White Nationalists – who can’t afford to pass up any tiny advantage – be eager to experiment with sexually homogeneous organizations? If our enemies are slowing themselves down by tying themselves to women in three-legged races, why should we be eager to adopt their handicaps instead of sprinting unencumbered for the finish line?
I am all for pluralism. White Nationalists need to recruit the full diversity of whites in order to reach the full diversity of whites. We need to have people from all different groups and walks of life adapting and delivering our message. We need a whole range of different organizations and strategies. Some of those organizations might be exclusively male. Others might be exclusively female. Still others will be mixed. But there is no apriori reason to think that something is wrong if a White Nationalist group or the movement as a whole does not have a 50/50 male/female ratio.
The main reason why men want more women at White Nationalist meetings is they wish to find ideologically compatible mates. But as our community grows we will be able to separate political gatherings from purely social ones, and some of those political organizations might function better by being sexually segregated. (Every normal society tends organically toward having at least some sexually segregated organizations.)
The White Nationalist community is often characterized as “misogynist.” Many White Nationalists are so afraid of that label that they will actually censor, shun, and betray other White Nationalists who are accused of misogyny. Just how cowardly and contemptible this is should be obvious.
“Hate” is the stock accusation of the enemy. Even if you offer up the most sober, scientific accounts of racial differences, you will be labeled a race hater. Oppose multiculturalism and you are a race hater. Offer up the same sort of accounts of sexual differences and you will be called a woman hater. Oppose feminism and emasculation and you are a woman hater.
The enemy controls the media and status system in this society. Of course they are going to use harsh words to stigmatize us. And that is just for starters. But if someone is able to stand up to the first accusation, he should be able to stand up to the second. The inability to do so strikes me as the sign of scandalous intellectual confusion and moral weakness. Jewish power will not be overthrown by men who are terrified of their own wives.
That said, just as there are White Nationalists who are race haters by any reasonable definition of the term, there are genuine woman haters. They are not found everywhere, but they have their bastions. They are not the majority, but they are a sizable and vocal enough minority that the movement as a whole has been characterized as misogynist. (There are also passionate man-haters, but like women in general, they are few in number.)
But why the intense mutual hatred between the sexes? Such hatred is not natural and healthy. It is the product of a sick social order.
White Nationalists hold that racial hatred is an inevitable result of breaking down racial boundaries and introducing racial competition within the same realms. Diversity and integration are not cures for racial hatred, they are causes of it.
Hatred between the sexes is also a product of the breakdown of natural and traditional sexual roles and competition within the same realms. Feminism has brought women into formerly male bastions, creating enormous resentment from men. Feminism and its corollary, male infantilization, have caused untold conflict and suffering for both sexes. Feminism in the legal system has made life hell for countless divorced husbands and fathers. Feminism is not a cure for misogyny, it is a cause of it. This means that a White Nationalist society will be the cure for misogyny as well as race hatred.
So what do we do about misogynists in our ranks? I vote we do nothing. In the appropriate venues, we need to let their voices be heard, in spite of frequent crudity and excesses. Also, remember: much of what is stigmatized as misogyny is simply salutary “sex realism” and the absolutely necessary project of restoring traditional/biological sex roles.
White men are the victims of a pincer movement. We are victimized as whites and as men. How can our movement claim any moral credibility and leadership if we demand that our racial brothers who are often in extreme pain be censored, whether the motives be feminism or misplaced conservative chivalry?
I understand that this sort of atmosphere makes female vanguardists uncomfortable, but I will simply ask you, as a personal sacrifice to the greater good, to be tolerant and understanding. Honest communication even about unpleasant matters is one of the things that sets our movement apart. And cultivating this kind of openness is absolutely necessary if we are to establish an intellectually sound vision of a white society and a strategically and tactically sound path to achieving it.
One false explanation for why there are so few women in the movement is the presence of weird men: curmudgeons, cranks, nerds, people who have been locked in mental institutions, and so forth. This would, of course, explain the relative absence of normal women. But there are plenty of weird women out there. And the reason they are not White Nationalists is that they are waiting for their weird male counterparts to make some progress before they will hop on board. In that, at least, they are perfectly normal.
Savitri Devi once said that she could never love a man who loved her more than he loved his ideals. What makes a man worthy of respect is his ability to look above himself and his personal interests to serve the common good. This is what Evola called Uranian masculinity. The best women respect that. They are right to despise a man who compromises his principles in order to court their favor.
The same principle applies to our movement. Women will become White Nationalism’s most fanatical and devoted supporters once we demonstrate that we are truly able to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. If we neglect that end, soften our message, and split our camp with needless witch-hunts and finger-pointing, all in the name of catering to the ignorant and foolish, the best women will hold us in well-deserved contempt as we listen to the sirens singing our race to its doom.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 527 Machiavellianism & More
The Machiavellian Method
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
Remembering Richard M. Weaver (March 3, 1910–April 1, 1963)
La Russie et l’Ukraine, à nouveau
The Roald Dahl Controversy
A great article, My Brother. You’ve really been on a roll. This is kind of the capstone on the three articles discussing this subject over at AltRight.
Thanks, I appreciate the compliment.
I recall Th. Fleming writing in Chronicles about Operation Rescue and observing that if these women were concerned about society and children, they should be at home, raising their own children, not traveling all over the country “demonstrating” while their children are left in the hands of the public schools.
@ Nobody will stop women who wish to remain single and childless to pursue their careers.
Except in the case of the most beautiful nymphs, of course. I cannot conceive how a healthy ethnostate could be created unless real men ruthlessly revert mores back to the Jane Austen world, at least in the first decades of its creation. Otherwise there will be lots of aggressive Demi Moores pursuing their individual interests at the cost of the poor Michael Douglasses and the interests of their race. I am tempted to quote Schopenhauer but suffice it to say that women belong to us; they don’t belong to themselves.
@ Savitri Devi once said that she could never love a man who loved her more than he loved his ideals.
This is pure gold…
I don’t think there is a future for a WN movement. It’s an abortive venture. I’ll write about this in the near future on my site as to my most recent tryst with WNs. I’m of the opinion that those who see light at the end of the tunnel are callow. In fact, none of those harbingers of hope have availed themselves of good, solid evidence as to why we are going – nay, bound – to win. I can support my thesis by citing Evola’s “Revolt” as indomitable evidence as to why we are definitely doomed. I would recommend Evola-ists re-reading that (last?) chapter.
To stop this digression let me go further than you, GJ, in your explanation of why women don’t join: women, by their nature, as you stated, are waiting for Prince Charming. True, but women are followers more so than men. Men, who fight for women, are more individualistic and take more risks; women not so. Women are greater creatures-of-the-herd than men.
Indeed, women go for what is popular more so than men. They uphold the status quo, because they are not innovators and free spirits, but copy-cats. Universal liberalism, and the fact that women are by nature liberals (they love everything, like Mother Earth they don’t differentiate unless set-straight by men), explain why women are overwhelming liberal, and thus, a Fifth Column.
Foregoing politics, which is a male-venue, as you rightfully stated, let’s look at other fields of endeavor. Women, unsurprisingly, lack any significant contribution to the world of Culture.
Where’s the female Beethoven, the female Shakespeare, the female Copernicus, the female Praxiteles, the female Tiepolo, the female Napoleon?
Outside their mushy-gushy novels, women have shown themselves to be uncreative. Please, please, everyone, don’t tell me about single instances of women doing this or achieving that: look at the overall picture.
Men need to get their act together and women, as is their “monkey-see-monkey-do” nature, will follow.
On a personal note, allow me to elaborate. I realize that women have a predisposition to discuss babies, “relationships” (oh, brother…), soap operas (“relationships”), and other sundry matters that are intimately involved with family-life and perpetuation of the breed. However, these matters are boring to most men. It’s not a far leap to notice how men can look down on women for their limited scope of discussion.
We’ve all heard the lecture on why men must internalize the oft-repeated dogma of gender complementarianism. Well, I think this lecture is sound – up to a point! Honestly, and here is where I wax fractious, feminine nature is IRRITATING and LOW-BROW. Their constant drivel about their feelings, discussions of babies and diapers, their yappiness, mental discombobulation, lack of knowledge and/or desire to discuss “serious” subjects (the Fine Arts, philosophy, etc.), makes them, outside the realm of love and lust, simply UNBAREABLE.
I have yet to meet a woman of my equal standing on matters dealing with Culture. I have a handful of friends who are “in-the-know” on cultural matters, but I have yet to meet women who are likewise. The closest that I have ever come to meeting a cultured women was as the wife of a cultured man. However, the cultured lady couldn’t enunciate, list, or discuss the works at hand in an insightful manner.
I think I agree with the Scholastics and metaphysicians when they pontificate that Woman lacks a soul, that, though she is the Ying, she takes up less of the monad. She needs man. Man, however, can do without her.
Doesn’t Man need the solitude of the forest or mountain to transcend? I can’t imagine an anchorite seeking wisdom or “completeness” by shacking up with a being who is a slave to fluctuating emotions and listening to her nonsense and empty blathering.
A sign of further degeneration is our utilization of feminine, emasculated, and/or enervated words of choice which fit in quite well with the spirit of modernity. Egalitarianism is, indeed, a feminine concept. The all-encompassing love for everything under the Sun is a womanly idiosyncracy.
Be that as it may, GJ brought up the issue of politics being a manly field. Again, I concur, but let me take it to its logical conclusion and state the following for when we get our act together:
1. We must disenfranchise women.
2. Certain professions will be closed off to women that will be deemed unfeminine and which will give women undue influence over others, especially men.
3. No woman as juror.
4. Women will be re-domesticated.
5. Re-learn the term “animal husbandry” and apply it to livestock – and women. (Couldn’t resist!)
6. Produce propaganda showing Nordic men as being mavericks and conquerors; whose judgement is not only superior to Nordic women, but will also be obeyed by them.
7. No woman as pundit or commentator. Indeed, we need to drastically reduce the role of women in the media and replace them with men.
8. Legalize and make mainstream polygamous unions.
The above isn’t in any specific order.
Your turban is showing.
But seriously, thanks for showing up here so I can position myself as a moderate.
1. I support disenfranchising everyone, frankly. But if women are going to fight for a White Republic, it seems crazy to ask them to fight for a society in which they have no voice. Covington is dead right on this issue.
2. Sure, some professions should be male only. Police, military, firefighting, law. Others should be female only. Nursing, midwifery, child care, early education.
3. Juries benefit from a variety of perspectives. And women are often far more psychologically insightful than men. So female jurors should be an advantage.
4. Re-establishing the norm and the institutional framework that allows women to stay at home and be mothers, home-makers, and community builders is one thing. Purdah is something quite different.
5. Eugenics is for everyone.
6. Today’s men would find that even scarier than today’s women.
7. Frankly, this is nuts. One of my best writers is a woman. Publishing is an industry in which women excel, because it requires a good deal of multi-tasking.
8. Schopenhauer made a good case for limited polygamy. It would be an interesting topic for debate.
Broadly I agree with your points but not with #8.
I will talk as brutally honest as I think.
While my instincts drive me to possess every cute woman, at the same time I recognize that social interests have priority over my impulses. If, after the ethnostate is created, we revert back to an Austen-like world, we males ought to endure severe sacrifices as well.
If in the racial dictatorship we force women to make the sacrifices you point out above we must compromise too: specifically on fidelity and not abusing the fairer, albeit younger nymphets.
We who follow Schopenhauer cannot have it both ways. If traditional marriage à la P&P is going to be imposed, again, in an ethnostate, we must behave like gentlemen. Polygamy is but the sign of inferior cultures. Just watch the Muslims in Europe.
I disagree with Covington on this one. At the end of A Mighty Fortress for example Covington has a stunning young white American as a famed director of a blockbuster movie on the épopée of the new state. But in the real world women can only write novels, scripts and make films about vampire men fighting werewolves as the perfect metaphor of what they unconsciously want: that we become men again to the point of abducting them if necessary in order to save our race from extinction (if things get close to a world like Hold Back This Day).
The fact is that real, brutal and ruthless men are the ones who will do the most gruesome task of the coming revolution. Women will never grasp the whys of the level of ultra-violence that we men are capable of, let alone do the dirty job.
Once we men recover our original lust for blood (remember the initial scene of Francis Coppola’s Dracula and how Gary Oldman handles Winona Ryder), women will follow us like gentle sheep wherever we go, even to Transylvania.
We men made this civilization. We handed it over to the Jews, the Negroes, the Feminists. When we reclaim what we created we won’t need the help of those who didn’t create this civ except by accepting our genetic info into their bodies and nurturing cute white kids.
Once again, Mr. Johnson, thank you for addressing an issue that the rest of us simply don’t have the time to write about properly.
There are some very good things at Alt Right, but Janelle Antas’s feminist article was the worst thing at that site in a while. It smacked of the worst kind of entitlement and stereotypical female self-centredness: “This movement isn’t to my liking, so it has to change to suit me.” That is standard, shopworn feminism, and the author’s defenses were laughable — saying that she’s not a feminist, even though she uses a standard feminist stratagem. “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,” as the saying goes.
If anything, her article gave an indication that if there is a lack of women in WN, that’s a GOOD thing — or rather, if there is a lack of women such as she (i.e., self-centred women with a sense of entitlement that a movement must change to suit THEM), then that’s a good thing.
How predictable that rather than thinking that the absence of women in WN indicates something lacking in the majority of women, no, she sees this as evidence that there is something lacking in WN (!).
Focussing on attracting women (or any minority) is the standard recipe for how a movement kills itself. It’s how traditional conservatism was distorted into the abomination known as “neoconservatism.” First, it too asked, “Where as the women?” and became pro-feminist. Then “Where are the Jews?” and became philosemitic. Then “Where are the blacks?” and became “anti-racist,” and so forth, until this more “inclusive” conservatism had NOTHING conservative about it, and was just another kind of leftism.
It was the Janelle Antases and their equivalents among Jews, blacks, and other minority groups that destroyed the Old Right, because they whined and whined and wanted the Right to change to suit THEM, and sure enough, it did, until all of its principles were gone.
A great society is not founded by women or run by women. A great society is founded by men and run by men, and women are the wives and mothers. That is simply the nature of the species — men are concerned with principles, with ideals, with the race, and women are at their core shallow materialists concerned above all with their own personal gratification and security and well-being.
(I speak generally, of course — just as one speaks of any minority in general terms. There are always statistically irrelevant outliers.)
The national socialists understood this, as they did everything else. That’s why there wasn’t one, single youth movement. There was one for boys, and one for girls, owing to the fact that the genders are different and have different interests. But the leadership of the movement was, and had to be, male.
That this is even a question for debate is a measure of how far left even “radical traditionalists” have drifted. “Misogyny”? That is simply the modern slur for a clear-eyed recognition of gender differences, one that the majority of the public, from king to peasant, would have clearly understood in past centuries.
Don’t focus on attracting women. Win power, and the women will come, as they always do. That one famous line in the movie “Scarface” is as true in general political terms as it is in personal terms: “First you get the power, then you get the women.” Which is not to say that you get women by power; rather, simply that once there is power, women come of their own accord. That’s basic biology.
Now let’s not beat up on Jaenelle Antas. A woman who can put up with David Irving for months on end must be made of stronger stuff than I am. I think she does valuable work for this cause, and I expect great things from her in the future.
As I made clear in my article, there is a place for women in this cause, even if we reject feminism and emasculation. Just look at Amanda Bradley’s review of Women of the Far Right. My concern is not to exclude women from our movement, but to attract and integrate them for the right reasons, and to resist the siren songs not of sirens, but of emasculated men who are willing to throw truth, justice, and honorable men under the bus to court fickle and ignorant women.
Whites have never practiced Purdah. Even in traditional white societies, women have played public roles. Was Joan of Arc a feminist? Of course not. Was Savitri Devi a feminist? Of course not.
@ “Whites have never practiced Purdah.”
I remember having read that in Pericles’ Athens men used to conceal their women from men.
Actually, it was really only in Athens and perhaps the city-states over which it had influence that women were kept indoors. In Sparta women were encouraged to practice athletic training and engage in Olympic-style competitions (though not in the Olympics themselves), and as I understand it, they were not shielded from the public view. Also keep in mind that Athens was notorious for its pederasty, while in Sparta this was much less prevalent, and Spartan men were undoubtedly superior in their manliness to their Athenian counterparts.
Weren’t the Theban band from Thebes?
Miss Antas may do good work in her roles as Mr. Irving’s secretary and in whatever admin she does for her imprint — although what really has she done? — but the narrow-minded ideas in her essay would be poison for radical traditionalists to adopt, for the reasons that I outlined in my post.
Someone can “do good things for the cause” as a secretary, or whatever, but be utterly ill-equipped as a thinker.
Let’s not indulge in affirmative action here and give any special consideration to Antas, or any other woman, just because she’s a woman. I recall a previous essay by Antas at Alt Right that basically consisted of her saying that she felt bad because people were insulting her and hurting her feelings, but she would make lemonades out of lemons. (I’m not even making that up — that was the tenor of her article.) If a male writer has submitted a piece as trite as that, there’s no way it would have been published, likely not even at Alternative Right.
If there is a place for women in the cause, then they must earn their place by merit (e.g. Leni Riefenstahl). For example, there was a female author who published a poem here recently (I can’t recall her name) that was a powerful and beautiful lyric. She could have a place as a bard of WN. But I doubt she would publish a self-serving, myopic essay like Antas’s.
And that’s the point. When women come along who, on the basis of merit, can contribute something to the movement, let them. Antas’s piece (and I would decry it just as much if it had been written by a feminist-leaning man) is an example of the familiar ploy by which feminists get weak-willed men to change a movement or a society or a culture to suit women’s wishes and tastes — to the detriment of that movement or society or culture.
Antas wasn’t calling for a place to be made for Joans of Arc. Joans of Arc need no special provisions made for them to enter. Antas’ essay was saying that the structure of the movement must be feminized. It’s no different from a Jew saying that the movement must be made more Jew-friendly. It’s a self-centred agenda that poisons the movement.
In fact, when a movement or society rejects the kind of affirmative action approach that Antas advices, that’s when women DO emerge who legitimately have something to contribute — like Riefenstahl as a director, or like the Brontes as writers. No special privileges for either, just because they were women.
If Antas wants more women in WN, then let her help influence more women to be worthy of WN, not try to tell WN that it needs to distort itself to mollycoddle women and make them feel appreciated. Let her tailor a WN society/publication specifically to women’s tastes, as a supplement to what already exists (that would be constructive), rather than taking cheap shots at the current elements of WN and its members (which is merely a destructive act).
Your two comments are so good that I copied and pasted them for an entry in my blog (along with my introduction). Thanks.
Antas’s article was off putting to me, as was Matt Parrot’s response. Although I rarely disagree with Matt Parrot, he went skating on thin ice in his defense of Antas and women in general. He provided no evidence for his claim that women deserve the credit for America’s remaining de facto segregation.
I only glanced at Antas and Parrott’s pieces before writing my own. Now that I have had a chance to look at Parrott’s piece, I realize why it did not grab me like the rest of his work usually does. He is being chivalrous, but it is the misplaced chivalry that Ludovici blames in part for the rise of feminism. The right form of chivalry consists in protecting women and children from harm. The corrupt form of chivalry consists in enabling women and children to harm themselves and others by protecting them from the truth or cleaning up and paying for their follies. https://counter-currents.com/2010/07/ludovici-on-chivalry/
Interesting article, and I like the way you summarized Ludovici’s main idea. You have a talent for clarifying and distilling the important points from these various writers like Ludovici, Schmitt and others.
This idea of the “chivalry of protection and responsiblity” versus the “chivalry of enabling” is a useful distinction. We need more chivalry of the Ludovici variety.
As a basis for comparison, here’s a link to Goebbels’ 1933 speech on women. Some points he made then truly resonate today:
“Looking back over the past years of Germany’s decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman.”
Interestingly, he places the blame on men and not on feminism nor organized Jewry.
I must confess I am somewhat puzzled by the discussion here.
All the issues concerning women and their place in society have been clearly defined in the writings of the classical theologians.
The hierarchy is as follows : God, his priests, man, woman, children, and so on, each to his/her place taking full charge of his/her responsibilities. Refusal of assuming one’s place and responsibilities leading only to disorder.
The relationship married man/woman is fully explained and developed in the conjugal rights or obligations – and there is nothing prudish there.
“We need to be ‘Mormonized’!”
Nope. Take the Austen world as a paradigm of reasonable reversal. We don’t have to go that back. The English of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were far more developed culturally that the Vikings or the Chinese (the latter horribly crushed the women’s feet through the centuries). Any married man supporting, say, 6 wives in polygamy condemns 6 of his fellow men to masturbate: a very unhealthy society.
Ditto. My favorite post in one those long threads:
The Chinese used to maim and torture little girls on their feet. The English of the Austen novels never reached these traumatic extremes (see photo). We have to use Western paradigms that have already worked. Polygamy is mostly un-Western from the Greco-Roman world through Christendom to modern Europe, even to the golden Autumn of the 1940s and 50’s before the cultural crash. Revert back to whichever of those societies if you wish. Forget the Chinese: they’re aliens for us.
I don’t think you are right but I am too lazy to continue this debate about polygamy.
At the same time I feel that you could respond to still another article (in addition to Matt Parrott’s piece), this one by Alex Kurtagic, at Alt Right. There’s something wrong with it: he still wants to compromise with the women and the feminized western males.
I much prefer what you said above: who cares about what women think, period. That there’s something true in the claim in WG’s words below–“We did it to ourselves. Stop blaming Jews, blacks, and women”–is suggested by what I said in the other recent thread: that through three hundred years the whites of New Spain did a very good job with the Inquisition, producing the first Judenfrei state in the American continent, and that at least in this side of the American continent we cannot blame the Jews for how the suicidal ideas of the French Revolution infected the minds of the criollos (ethnic Iberian whites born in New Spain, now the re-Indianized as “Mexico”).
We have to be men again. We have to unite, increase exponentially our ranks, and eventually fight like the men in Covington’s novels. Conversely, all of this intellectual seduction to appease the feminists at Alt Right strikes me as queer. Don’t you agree?
Good discussion by all hands I think. As to Philippe’s comment above…you are correct, however the truth must be repeated in and by each generation otherwise you get what has happened today.
By the time the third generation comes around the great grandchildren have forgotten and need to be reminded. One must live the truth, such as in this case of the gender roles, not just speak it…
Quite right, hence the importance of tradition and the rejection of external influences.
Greg, you’ve hit another home run. I feel similarly. I think the average woman who claims to be “into” politics, doesn’t really know what politics is. She just identifies with an established party because it is effectively marketed to her. The average man operates the same way. I don’t expect many women to convert now when all we have is an unclear vision of the future and endless disagreement on how to proceed. If we had the presence and power of a serious political movement, then we would have the support of the opposite sex as well as several different races.
Also, I want to tip my hat to Mrs. Bradley; surely her work will reach out to the type of women we need to attract.
the-spearhead.com has been doing yeoman duty in this area.
Women want GREAT MEN – ALPHA Males – who will take the responsibility to lead, with wisdom and discernment.
Women do not worry about Civilization until her basic needs (wants!) have been met – if then.
The best of us will sacrifice most of our wants, for Civilization.
Resolution: NEVER put her first. ALWAYS put The Work first. She will moan, sulk, and admire you all the more.
If she doesn’t, and leaves, GOOD!
Your life just got a lot easier.
Simple, and direct!
What’s In YOUR Future?
Very well said, Fourmyle of Ceres. You’re exactly right.
Lets stop pretending this is a 50/50 problem.
I wonder where the author found that there are
“Many women who genuinely wish to become wives and mothers”.
Do you live in the West? Because if you do and you believe that such women exist in significant numbers you are totally out of touch with reality….
The so called “male infantilisation” is the result of feminism and a culture which has been relentlessly attacking men in all fields for almost 4 decades now. Women relieved themselves from their traditional roles and men now do the same.
This problem will never be solved and addressed seriously until we stop pretending both sides are to be blamed equally. This “whiteknight” attitude among WNs is getting really boring moreover is pathetic.
You want our race to survive? Restore Patriarchy. It served us good for thousands of years there was no real need to replace it with jewish feminism.
Yes, I believe that most women want husbands and families. That is what their nature tells them. Unfortunately, our culture has been hijacked by sick and evil people who tell women to want careers. Most women think they want that, and all too many of them never wise up before their opportunities for husbands and families have all but vanished.
I don’t think that both sexes are equally responsible for this mess. In fact, I think that men are overwhelmingly to blame. We had all the power, and we gave it away.
Mr. Johnson, I strongly agree with all of this:
But I sharply disgree with this:
No. That is like saying that it is the fault of the White Race that Jews took over our culture. Rather, it is the fault of the Jews.
Feminism is a particularly virulent strain, or subset, of Marxism (in fact, it is “applied Marxism,” and functions along exactly the same paradigm of false grievances, and overthrowing a so-called power structure). White men are no more or less “to blame” for losing to feminism than whites in general are “to blame” for losing to cultural-Marxism (by which I mean, to Jewish thought). Both of these slave-morality ideologies functioned together to undermine society through the same forms of cultural brainwashing (Hollywood and the media).
White men lost to feminism for the same reason (and because of the same sly, culturally corrosive forces) that whites in general lost to cultural-Marxism: they were outmanoeuvred by a crafty, sly, devious force of ancient cunning for which they were ill prepared, because of their noble, naive natures.
Men didn’t “give away” their power. They were swindled out of it. They were guilted out of it. They were brainwashed out of it.
Don’t blame the victim. Blame the enemy.
When a con artist swindles someone, it’s the con artist who goes to jail, not the person who was swindled out of his life savings. One doesn’t say, “Oh, it’s your fault you ‘let’ yourself be swindled,” and allow the con artist go free.
When someone commits treason, a nation doesn’t say, “Oh, it’s our fault for letting the traitor betray us.” No, the fault lies in the traitor, who is punished and prevented from every committing any further such acts.
Again, don’t blame the victim. Blame the enemy. And remember, we are the victims. As Mr. Johnson wrote so well:
We must make no concessions to feminism. Biology and nature are on our side. Restore a society to a traditional structure, and women will gladly and willingly be a part of it. Don’t put the cart before the horse. The re-feminization of women is a blessing and a consequence of a traditionally-reoriented society.
And this is all in tune with female desires. Remember: in the romance novels, which are the barometer of female dreams and desires, the men whom the women dream of marrying aren’t those who champion women’s rights and badmouth other men for not being sufficiently in tune with female needs. No, they dream of what were once called chauvinists — but chauvinists who have power and status.
If you make WN attractive to modern feminists, that’s what you’ll get in the movement: feminists! Feminists and women with a colossal sense of entitlement, who will want to reorder a society to conform to their petty wishes and whims. We’re better off without them. The kind of women who will be attracted to WN if it holds firm on this point will be the kind of women who WILL help build a better society.
As with racial integration and non-white immigration, Jews have promoted feminism because it suits their aims, but feminism is not a Jewish ideology. I too thought it was just another head of the Hebrew hydra. But then I read Ludovici’s books going back to the 1920s.
Ludovici makes it clear that feminism was indigenous to the Anglo world long before Jews were significant players. The women’s suffrage movement, like abolitionism, was an offshoot of Anglo-Protestantism.
And Ludovici repeatedly emphasizes, as did Goebbels, that men could have stopped feminism before it got out of the private sphere and gained political power simply by saying “No.” It was not Jews, but white men who gave women the vote.
And, as you put it so well, when women test men’s boundaries today, men can still say “no.”
Of course, now that feminism has been institutionalized, individual men have much less power in their relationships once the law gets involved. But in the private sphere, they can still say no.
So this is what we have to do:
(1) Individual men need to preserve traditional sex roles in their own relationships to the extent that it is possible. It takes some strength, but in the right kind of women will love you for it. So yes, work on your own character first. Once you do that, you can create a healthy family.
(2) Men who know what is going on need to awaken other men. This is where the men’s movement, “Game,” etc. come into play. There needs to be an organized cultural resistance to feminism and emasculation. And this resistance has to be more than merely online. In the end, men have to find or found communities that maintain traditional/biological sex roles.
(3) The ultimate victory has to be political. We need to junk the emasculating and feminist system and create a new one that is in harmony with nature. But that may be a long way off, and you need to find a way of living normal, healthy lives in a diseased society. That takes strength, but it also builds strength. Someday, that strength might be equal to the job of creating a new political order.
It is true that Mary Wollstonecraft and her ilk were not Jewish.
However, feminism from second-wave feminism onwards is most certainly Jewish, and very aggressively Jewish. And second-wave feminism — the feminism of the 1960s — is what has really put an end to natural relations between the genders. After all, the suffragette poison of the 1920s (first-wave feminism) did not prevent a moderate return to sanity in the 1950s. But from the 1960s onwards (second-wave feminism), gender relations were truly ruined, and this was most certainly because of Jewish women.
Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinham, Naomi Wolf, Andrea Dworkin, just to name a few. Think of any feminism “intellectual,” and they are almost all Jewish:
So yes, while the basic roots may go back to before the Jewish takeover of the culture, feminism in its most toxic form is most certainly “their” movement.
Even more listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_feminists
There are far more prominent Jewish feminists than White feminists.
“Yes, I believe that most women want husbands and families. That is what their nature tells them.”
Indeed, unfortunately the Evil – for it exists – and its agents (no names) have chosen the weak link in the natural order, ie woman, to infuse her with a lot of bullshit about rights and equality of genders – somewhat like Eve.
The key issue there being abortion, that is encouraging women to murder the child that is within her and to whom she owes protection. This new and accepted notion can be symbolically encountered in all aspects of modern occidental society.
We had all the power, and we gave it away.
That’s exactly right.
It was us. We did it to ourselves.
Stop blaming Jews, blacks, and women.
One way out of this mess, I would suggest, is for each White man to take stock of his own character, honestly noting errors and deficiencies, and apply a disciplined program of self-improvement and excellence.
The Reconquest begins with each one of us.
Oh, that’s right. Let the enemy off the hook. Let them keep poisoning the culture. This is the thinking that got us to where we are.
Translation: let the Jews run the world, and have white men keep out of their way, just going to the gym and trying to get a good clerical job.
It is in fact such a narrow-minded, gated-community focus by white men (either on themselves or just on their own individual families) that keeps them irrelevant. Jews, on the other hand, are always concerned with the bigger picture, with having their hands on the tiller of culture. That’s why they win.
Rather, the opposite advice is what’s needed: identify the enemy. Recognize their tactics. Learn how to defend against them. Employ those tactics (if they work) or better ones (if you can devise them) to push the culture in a better direction.
Just focussing on your own little life, your own is like burying your head in the sand. But it won’t work, because the culture won’t let you alone. It will create a world that is hostile to your tastes and interests, a hell that you can’t stand, where the women choose blacks, where the jobs go to illegals, where the culture is ugly and offensive.
The lowliest janitor in Germany 1933-39 was part of a more glorious existence than the semi-affluent wage slave of this feminist semitic dystopia we inhabit today.
It is the responsibility of each of us to look beyond our own little lives and to do whatever we can to restore a world of dignity.
Jews are the cause of many, but not all of our problems. But when it comes to stopping and reversing our race’s decline, Jews are the primary adversary who must be named, fought, and defeated.
Feminism might not ultimately be of Jewish origins, but if you fight it, you are going to find that Jews will be fighting back against you, and they will be the most fanatical fighters, the leaders, and the people who write most of the checks. You may not want to choose Jews as your enemy, but your enemy can also choose you.
Questions about the ultimate origins of our problems are not merely academic. They have practical significance or I would not even entertain them. But pragmatically speaking, all our people’s problems might as well be Jewish problems, because Jews have adopted and promoted them to plague us and will fight tooth and nail against all attempts to fix them.
Don’t be absurd, you shallow-minded hot-head.
No one is letting the Jews off the hook. And no one is suggesting White men drop out of society.
Whites should stop blaming Jews, blacks, women, Mexicans, whoever, for their own failings, and instead improve themselves.
The Reconquest begins with us.
This entails a disciplined program of thought and action, for which most White men are probably not conditioned at the present time.
It’s up to us (or you) to get them in shape.
So if feminism has given women a distorted view of themselves and their place in society, WN must accommodate itself to it? What kind of thinking is that? By that logic, WN must become “anti-racist” too (!).
I don’t care what Islam does or doesn’t say. A course of action is neither right if Islam practices it nor wrong if Islam practices it. Islam is irrelevant.
I am talking about recovering the traditional, natural gender roles that governed Western civilization throughout its history — before first-wave feminism.
I would like to add two things.
1. I do not agree with Citizen Renegade on everything (certainly not with his anorexia fetish), but he’s absolutely right in pointing out that women, or at least a certain kind of immature women, (which is to say, the majority of women today,) perform what he calls “sh** tests.” In other words, such a woman will make an unreasonable, petty demand on a man, and paradoxically, if the man concedes to her whim, he LOSES the test, because she loses respect for him for being a pushover.
But if he does NOT concede to her whim, but stands his ground and points out how silly she is being, he actually passes the test, because he has proven his manhood to her, his ability to stand up to her when she knows she’s being unreasonable.
In essence, Antas’s article (and more broadly, its premise) is like one big sh** test for the entire radical-traditionalist (or WN) movement. No exaggeration. The men who governed Western society in its times of greatness would pass this test, by telling her “No, you’re being ridiculous,” and going on and running society how it should be run. It will be a measure of WN’s ability to restore a great Western culture if it likewise passes this test and doesn’t bend to a petty female whim, or if it becomes a pushover to her whining and scolding.
2. Here’s the poem that I referenced earlier. This is the kind of woman we want in the movement, the kind who expresses such sentiments:
Note the difference. One emancipated, modern woman whines and scolds the men in the movement that she supposedly wants to join — but only on her terms, and which must alter to suit her wishes. But a very different woman pens a splendid lyric extolling the glory of her European heritage.
Which type of woman do we want in the movement? The answer is the poet, of course.
And actually, we will welcome the emancipated, modern woman too, once she expels the entitlement poison that modern society has infected her with and becomes a true ally, not a de facto fifth column for feminism.
Conceptually, accept Paul MacLean’s analysis: we have three brains functioning as one; a small, “lizard” brain, for the metabolism (plant), a larger “leopard” brain, that allows for emotion and activity (animal), and a larger “learning” brain, that allows for abstract thought (human).
White/Western Nationalism has failed, until now, because we have socioculturally regressed, to where we are more “leopard” brain than “learning” brain.
Neuroscience proves people ACT on emotions, with the “lizard” brain; they are rationalizers, rather than rational.
Rightfully, humans control leopards, and leopards control lizards.
If lizards control humans…
What’s In YOUR Future?
My thoughts on this issue can be found in my article for Alternative Right,
Women as a Measure of Credibility
I’ve been a fan of much of your work, Mr. Kurtagic, and your “Wanted: Something to Dream” essay remains the best thing Alt Right has ever published. My praise for it likely still exists in its comment section. But on this point, you’re as wrong as wrong could be. Amazingly so.
I never thought I’d see a worse litmus test for what constitute a worthwhile ally in the first for radical traditionalism than Jared Taylor’s “no anti-semites” rule, but this may indeed have reached a new bottom:
Egad. “Defectives”? Amazing. This is a classic example of a proposition that would divide an already tiny movement.
After all, who isn’t a “defective” these days, eh? Now we hear that someone who isn’t properly deferential to women is supposedly an undesirable “defective.” But then, Am Ren implies that any anti-semite is an undesirable defective. The general Right believes that anyone who is “racist” is a defective. And so on.
So the position of Alt Right is that all of those cheap methods of pathologizing traditional outlooks are wrong, but this one, no, this one is true; this one really is a pathology. How arbitrary.
After all, many would decry the a big chunk of the essays at Alt Right as “cathartic expressions of bitterness toward blacks” or “”cathartic expressions of bitterness toward Muslims” or “”cathartic expressions of bitterness toward Hispanics,” etc. But while we’re supposed to realize that those are mere facile, ad-hominem, leftist put downs, in this sphere (i.e., on women) suddenly the pathologizing tactic has validity? Please. Again, how arbitrary.
Rather, isn’t is possible that just as Alt Right has pointed out that some of the harshest criticisms of Hispanics, Muslisms, black, etc., are true and valid, that the anti-feminist evaluations of women, in the grand tradition of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and the Greeks, are traditional outlooks that are valid too?
If a writer is not a “defective” for criticizing Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics, or Muslims, then perhaps he’s not a “defective” either for criticizing women, no?
It’s another appalling example of a phenomenon in our movement that many have lamented, and that still needs a name: the impulse to scorn anyone to the “right” (i.e., “more traditional”) of the person doing the scorning. To the Republicans, the paleos are the defectives to be shunned. To the paleos, the national socialists are the defectives to be shunned. And so forth.
Meanwhile, on the left, everyone more progressive than the speaker in question is usually valorized as a purer, nobler leftist, almost envied as a better progressive.
I think we, in our movement, would do well to exhibit the same kind of solidarity.
I agree. Those were very impressive comments, particularly on blame and the Jews.
“‘Appalling examples…’ of movement failure?”
It’s the triumph of ideological purity as a rationale for political impotence, tactically, over a strategy of political and personal effectiveness on behalf of the Race.
The Enemy’s Grand Strategy is their touchstone. Their tactics support it.
At BEST we have provincial, tactical “politics,” and have always lost against those who are even remotely organized.
Our best Grand Strategy derives from the vision of a better world in 2050, and how to fulfill this destiny; to wit, the Northwest Republic, and the Northwest Republic Analytical Model.
What’s In YOUR Future?
It’s the other way around: defectives, because they are defective, are typically unable to attract and hold on to women, which typically makes them bitter towards them and prone to negativity and intemperate generalisations.
I did not write anything about deferring to women.
About 50% of American marriages end in divorce with the woman initiating the divorce 80% to 85 % of the time. So if not being able to “hold” a woman is the standard for a man being somehow defective, millions of White men are defective. And this, obviously, is not true. The only thing defective about most of them was their defective judgment in committing to a marriage in this pathological climate of man hatred which most women support.
In some passages in your article (and Matt’s article), you go through what strike me as intellectual acrobatics to shift a share of the blame onto men for the absence of women.
Again, this is an inversion of my argument, and also a false extrapolation.
Defectives cannot hold on to women because they are defectives. But not everyone who cannot hold on to a woman is defective.
Please quote the acrobatic passages in question.
Consider for example the four barriers to female involvement:
1) opposition to feminism
2) evolutionary psychology
3) the presence of a loud minority of male defectives
4) the dominant ideology
You seem to hold the men in the movement responsible for #1 and #3, while #2 is largely outside of the control of both men and women, and so is #4. In this analysis it seems that men and only men are responsible for the barriers that can be controlled. It left me wondering what share of the responsibility women bear for their conspicuous non-participation in the struggle.
Barrier #1 is not opposition to feminism, but the movement defining itself negatively as anti-feminist. Feminism must be opposed, of course, but negativity is the mark of a loser, and therefore unattractive. Even supporters are turned off by it. Far better results would be obtained by defining the movement positively, and emphasising what it is for, rather than what it is against.
Barrier #2 is about the social consequences of a system that lowers the status of dissidents. But that only applies so long as the movement does not credibly present itself to ordinary people as an alternative to the establishment. You can always create status sources outside of the mainstream, socially and economically. Mainstream publishers will not touch Ward Kendall’s novel because it is ‘racist’? To hell with them—here is Counter-Currents and he is now again a published author, getting reviewed and interviewed everywhere. So this is, in fact, the part over which people have most control, provided they are enterprising.
Barrier #3 is not about the male sex in general; it is about the few defectives who happen to be male and who with their bitter invectives poison everything connected with women.
Barrier #4 is related to #3 and #2. One of the problems is that no effective way has been found to organise the marginal characters. The Left has plenty of them, but they have them organised in a way that from the mainstream perspective does not reflect negatively on the Left as a whole. Many end up in fringe ‘anti-fa’ organisations. Notice that even the anti-fa, as loathsome as they are, define themselves positively, so from the mainstream perspective they are ideologically difficult to discredit.
The feminist game is all about blame. We must not play that game and get away from that mentality. I think we all have a clear enough idea of the problem, so we need to focus on solutions—solutions that inspire and bring people on board.
I am all for eliminating defectives, by which I take it you mean people who suffer from severe personality disorders and mental illnesses. But you are mistaken to believe, or lead others to believe, that the real and so-called misogynists will be swept out as defectives.
Take the mentally defective individual currently known as “Hunter Wallace,” for example. Wallace is now wrapping himself in the safe mantle of opposing misogyny (and he is all about safety, hence his new line about Black Run America, rather than the truth about Jew Run America). Attacking misogyny for Wallace is just a pretext for launching his latest round of malicious, personal, and purely destructive attacks on his betters. Whether he does this because he works for the enemy, or merely acts like he works for the enemy because he is defective, is a purely academic question, since in either case we would be better off without him.
By contrast, F. Roger Devlin is an individual who has been labeled a misogynist and cravenly betrayed by some White Nationalists because of that. But he is a highly intelligent man, a deep thinker, a clear and powerful writer, and as an individual, he is rational, honest, sober, and courageous. He is an asset to our cause. Surely you are not holding out the promise of his disappearance. What would that accomplish?
@ “Barrier #1 is not opposition to feminism, but the movement defining itself negatively as anti-feminist. Feminism must be opposed, of course, but negativity is the mark of a loser, and therefore unattractive.” – AK
Negativity the mark of a loser? No way, not in the present circumstances, if we non-Pods are defined against 99 percent of the population that have already been “snatched” (cf my above metaphor).
Following the 1956 film, if a whole California town has already passed through the metamorphosis and you and your fiancée are the sole remaining humans it’s all too natural to define your “movement” of resistance in negative terms (“we’re the remaining non-Pods”). It’s no “loser” trait at all. And like the film even the fiancée is finally snatched, as happened with OD (and I can only hope that Alt Right escapes being snatched by the feminists…).
@ “Take the mentally defective individual currently known as ‘Hunter Wallace,’ for example. Wallace is now…” – GJ
It seems that he removed a recent article on the present topic of discussion. I didn’t see a word of it but as far as I can surmise from the comments section of an older recent article on feminism he mentioned you and me by name. Has anybody of you read it before the removal?
@ Greg Johnson
I never said that all defectives are or become misogynists.
Do you consider F. Roger Devlin a misogynist, or a critic of feminism?
Maybe you didn’t say it, but I think that those who are inclined to think that way would take your article to be saying that.
Devlin is a critic of feminism who has been branded a misogynist.
@ “I am not here to tell women what they ought or ought not to be doing… women who care about the survival of the White race can decide for themselves what or who they want to be and how they get involved.” –One of the initial sentences in Alex Kurtagic’s article
But what about women who don’t care about the survival of the White race (most of them today)? You can see the gulf between the feminized western males at Alternative Right and the ancient Romans who, when their ethnic group was on peril of extinction resorted to the most obvious solution to the problem.
From the Wikipedia article that I linked above:
My article came in response to the debate instigated by Jaenelle Antas’ article, Where are All the Women?, which was about the lack of women in White Nationalism.
As I remarked elsewhere, the ultimate aim is not to attract women per se; it is to win—to ensure the continuity and future prosperity of the White race. And this affects all White women.
*slightly off topic this once*
I think you are an excellent writer, and I have a suggestion for you concerning your prospective book on Nazi saucers and their Antarctica base.
Get a copy of Harbison’s fifth and final book, “Resurrection,” and look at the chapters that are written exclusively in italics. These are Wilson’s comments, sort of a diary, if you will.
It has an ending that ties in nicely with the metapolitical project.
A simple revision and extension of the ideas and examples spoken of there should pretty much clearly define most of the book for you.
This time, please, a Utopia – one of many, perhaps, but at least one!
What’s In YOUR Future?
Fourmyle of Ceres,
Thank you for the reference. I will look this up.
There will be utopia and dystopia, but many surprises too.
The ‘N’ word, as in ‘Nutjob.’
I can’t believe the tenor of this discussion. Ridiculous.
It’s not the normal White women we should be worried about. It’s the normal White men who are repulsed by these pointless discussions.
Some of this behavior, I suspect, is due to a fear of women. The endless worrying and fretting, like a boy on the night of his first big date.
Just get on with the job, guys, and stop pontificating. You’re making yourselves look foolish. You’re wasting time.
Just get on with it.
Karsten, a stellar series of comments. You ought to consider writing for the CC front page.
Very kind of you to say. Please allow me to save up this goodwill, so if/when I write something that rubs people the wrong way (which is inevitable), I’ll have a reservoir of approbation to draw on.
If I can carve out the time, I would be happy to submit an article for CC. Again, thanks.
Karsten, you’ve made some very good points in your statements, to be sure. Your comment about the ‘lowliest janitor in Germany’, vs the current state of Western dystopia is a verity, if ever there was one. Your points about blaming the victims of cunning intruders are well stated too. I understand your statement about the naivete of the White mindset very well, and how its been taken advantage of by outside interlopers. I hope that you do an article for C.C., and soon, looking forward to it.
Let me try approaching this a different way.
I think that where people are running into problems is that they have, for some strange reason, the idea of a unisex movement. This is where the problems start.
It’s is like asking for a unisex armed forces. It’s fundamentally wrong, and it leads to a weakened, schizophrenic entity. Such an unnatural hodgepodge results in appalling situations where, for example, a fine soldier might be kicked out of the unit just because he doesn’t treat women with due civility — despite the fact that he may have been the best warrior (!).
Talk about skewed priorities — instead of evaluating the soldier as a warrior, the soldier is evaluated for his ability to “get along.” It’s lunacy, and it cripples the unit and deprives it of its best talent.
That’s what this absurd, no-badmouthing-women litmus test would foster.
In a healthy society, when women participate in war, it’s not on the battlefield (Joan of Arc aside). It’s as nurses, or in their own women’s auxiliaries — in their own sphere. They participate, they contribute, but in organizations that are specific to their strengths and weaknesses. But the men do the leading and the fighting.
I could easily see a women-oriented WN site. (Think of a secular version of the fine website, “Ladies Against Feminism,” which is a Christian project, but has some fine material.) But that’s what it would be: It would a WN site where a majority of the writers would be women, applying the tenets of WN to women’s issues and concerns, speaking in their language. It would look like half of what Takimag publishes these days, the things that the male readers of the site groan at and ignore (e.g. celebrity gossip, or reviews of chick flicks).
Think of it as the difference, in aesthetics, between the Sublime and the Beautiful. Women-oriented WN projects would conform to the aesthetic of the Beautiful. But most current WN or radical traditionalist publications today are quintessentially masculine enterprises, embodying the aesthetic of the Sublime. And that’s their strength. This characteristic shouldn’t be diminished, but fostered. It allows men to write as men, to express warrior values. And yes, that includes a few buddy-like put-downs of women. There’s nothing wrong with that. That builds male solidarity.
In one of his essays, David Lane put forward a graceful answer to the polygamy question in the context of the three Nordic Castes. It is natural and genetically beneficial that the highest Elite or Jarls have more than one wife. For the ordinary man or Carls monogamous marriage is best. And for the slaves or Thralls, no marriage or at least limited progeny is best for society. This accords with Feminine Psychology: most women would rather be the second or third wife to a Hero or Billionaire as opposed to a pauper. In any case it balances out, rougly anyway. More females are born and most don’t want to marry down. So most cultures will have a fair number of male losers who never marry. This creates a surplus of elligible women even if the ones who don’t want to marry are subtracted. Also it could help increase our numbers more rapidly.
Sure, the Jarls can have more than one wife. Just make sure it’s done serially and not simultaneously, same as the Carls. Have a look at old order Mormon communities who’ve been in the news over the past couple of years. Some bigshot leaders had several wives; ultimately a few of these wives had had enough and took off, went to the outside world and rejected all the BS.
Here’s a Big Secret, boys, and I won’t charge you a cent for it: no sane woman (i.e., a woman worth having) wants to share a man, irrespective of his high status. Y’all are fooling yourselves.
Reading the comments following this article tells me why this movement has been going nowhere. Instead of building up the movement and broadening the base, some of you are
indulging in juvenile insults and driving away “normal” people who could have been your allies in creating a white nation.
The hour is late. The white race is sinking into oblivion, but some of you seem more interested in maintaining an exclusive (little) boys club, congratulating each other on your brilliance
(all 25 of you) and complaining about how small your numbers are. Someone reading these comments could get the impression that you have more of an affinity with Islamic mud people than your own folk. Some of you talk of the importance of solidarity – yet you yuck it up
with a sand monkey and throw half the white race under the bus.
Twenty years from now, you “warriors” will still be sitting at your keyboards (hopefully not still in your mother’s basement), plotting your male supremacist takeover and wondering why the Cause hasn’t moved forward. This is no time to be fighting amongst ourselves and attacking each other publicly. I get it that some of you have resentments towards women; plenty could be said about the flaws of men as well, but this is something that should be dealt with privately. (And by the way, feminism didn’t create misogyny, it was a reaction to it. The most misogynist cultures are ones where women have the least power and status.) I won’t get into the absurdity of men-who-despise-women pontificating on “woman’s nature” and “what women really want”.
Your vision of the ideal white society and homeland is going to be different from mine, or other people’s; if you get hung up on having it be exactly the way you want it (a return to the 19th century or earlier? Abolishing the vote for women, locking women in their houses? Dream on.), the odds of success drop dramatically. We’re all going to have to loosen up a bit and make the tent bigger to hold a much larger group with differing views, if we’re going to make
a white homeland a reality.
@ “you are indulging in juvenile insults and driving away ‘normal’ people…”
What you call normal are in fact Body-Snatched Pods, like in the 1956 film The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. We are but the few remaining humans who haven’t been snatched (alas, two of the best male intellectuals in the movement are on the brink of being snatched on this issue, as you can see in their Alt Right articles).
@ “…a return to the 19th century or earlier? Abolishing the vote for women, locking women in their houses? Dream on, the odds of success drop dramatically.”
You must have been snatched, man. Women are already being locked in Europe (tell me, who lived for a year in England) and since Muslims breed like rabbits the subjugation of the women in Europe can only escalate in the coming decades.
There are only two ways, so-called Europhile: either the Muslims take over Europe later in this century due to elemental demographics (cf. Mark Steyn’s America Alone), or a strong nationalist movement arises from the ashes of 20th century nationalism and Europe suffers a metamorphic rebirth, like the phoenix.
The queer alternative is continuing to complain, as women and feminized western males do, against this movement. If the few remaining non-Pods follow the lead of Janelle Antas at Alt Right the West will disappear as a historical civilization. The opposite stance to Antas’s petty demands on men is what I said above: “We [men] have to unite, increase exponentially our ranks, and eventually fight like the men in Covington’s novels”.
Do yourself a favor. Reread Karsten’s comments above (I collected them here).
Well said sir!(as have been all of Karsten’s comments) I am highly suspicious of this, “you guys are driving away “normal” people, blah, blah…” business. You hit the proverbial nail right on the head – it is all this “normal” thinking that is dragging the White race into oblivion!
Sir James Donaldson, the great Scottish classical scholar of the Victorian era, thus described the condition of the fairer sex in Ancient Rome:
In the early stages of Roman history there is reason to believe that the Roman wife was completely under the control of her husband. The Roman idea of a family made the father a despot, with power of life and death over his children, who could do nothing without his consent. This was the case in regard to male children, even after they had reached a consider- able age. Women, according to the opinion of the early Romans, were always children. They required protection and guidance during their whole life, and could never be freed from despotic control. Accordingly, when a Roman girl married, she had to choose
whether she would remain under the control of her father, or pass into the control or — as it was called — into the hands of her husband. It is likely that in the early ages of the city she always passed from the power of her father into the hands of her husband, and the position she occupied was that of daughter to her husband. She thus became entirely subject to him, and was at his mercy.
Roman history supplies many instances of the despotism which husbands exercised over their wives. The slightest indiscretion was sometimes punished by death, while men might do what they liked without let or hindrance.
“If you were to catch your wife,” was the law laid down by Cato the Censor, “in an act of infidelity, you would kill her with impunity without a trial ; but if she were to catch you, she would not venture to touch you with her finger, and indeed she has no right.” Wives were prohibited from tasting wine at the risk of the severest penalties. The conduct of Egnatius was praised who, surprising his wife in the act of sipping the forbidden liquid, beat her to death. The same sternness appears in the reasons which induced some of the Romans to dismiss their wives. Sulpicius Gallus dismissed his because she appeared in the streets without a veil ; Antistius Vetus dismissed his because he saw her speaking secretly to a freedwoman in public ; and P. Sempronius Sophus sent his away because she had ventured to go to the public games without informing him of her movements…………
At the time when Christianity dawned on the world women had attained, as we have seen in our chapters on Roman women, great freedom, power, and influence in the Roman Empire. Tradition was in favour of restriction, but by a concurrence of circumstances women had been liberated from the enslaving fetters of the old legal forms, and they enjoyed freedom of intercourse in society ; they walked and drove in the public thoroughfares with veils that did not conceal their faces, they dined in the company of men, they studied literature and philosophy, they took part in political movements, they were allowed to defend their own law cases if they liked, and they helped their husbands in the government of provinces and the writing of books. .One would have imagined that Christianity would have favoured the extension of woman’s freedom. For Christianity itself was one of the most daring revolutions which the world has ever seen. It defied all past customs, it aimed at the overthrow of the religions of the world, it overleapt the barriers of nationality, and it desired to fuse all mankind into one family and one faith, Necessarily, such a movement was accompanied by much excitement and agitation ; but when enthusiasm sways any association of men, and they live in a state of ferment, they break in pieces the bonds of custom — those very bonds which most firmly chain women down to a slavish position of routine. Accordingly, at the very first stage women take a prominent part in the spread of Christianity and all the activities of Christians, But in a short time this state of matters ceases in the Church, and women are seen only in two capacities — , as martyrs and as deaconessess.
Clement of Alexandria prescribes for her : ” She is to exercise herself in spinning and weaving, and superintending the cooking, if necessary.” He adds : ” Women are with their own hand to fetch from the store what we require ; and it is no disgrace for them to apply themselves to the mill. Nor is it a reproach to a wife — housekeeper and helpmeet — to occupy herself in cooking, so that it may be palatable to her hus- band. And if she shake up the couch, reach drink to her husband when thirsty, set food on the table as neatly as possible, and so give herself exercise tending to sound health, the Instructor will approve of a woman like this.” During the only occasions on which she may quit her own house — namely, when visiting the sick or going to church — she must be veiled ; not a portion of her face must be seen, and when she is in church she must remain covered. ” These are the injunctions which occur repeatedly in the Christian writers.
Yes, absolutely, a 1000 times yes. I agree with you on this issue of the “women question” more than I disagree, especially with the point quoted above. The movement needs to include as many people as possible, and as many women as possible, and should not limit itself to advocating for White men only.
It is important to be very cautious, however, when using labels like “defective” and “misogyist,” because silencing people with emotionally loaded labels is the preferred technique of the enemy for suppressing debate.
Reasonable people can disagree of course, but I view the minority of genuine defective misogynists in the movement as a subset of a much larger group of misanthropes in the movement who repel both women and men in large numbers with their noxious and often anti-human discourse. The focus needs to be on creating a positive, welcoming vision for everyone, not just women.
However, the absence of all but the most exceptional women in the movement does expose a fundamental weakness in the thinking of many women that does not appear to exist in most men.
For one thing, the presence of a vociferous minority of genuine kooks, cranks and misanthropes hasn’t stopped normal and well accomplished men from gravitating toward the emerging movement of the “alternative right.” Men, it seems, recognize the kooky minority for what it is, a small minority, and the men who care about racial preservation seem to have the ability to look past the kooks in way that most women either cannot or will not — even though what’s at stake is the preservation of the race.
I myself am not a Christian, but I am very sympathetic to Christians because 1) they make up most of my friends and family, and 2) because for 1000 years Christianity was the adopted myth of my civilization and the inspiration for some of my peoples’ highest cultural achievements, and 3) because there are many White Christians or nominal Christians in the world that I would like to persuade.
Now, many people in the movement who oppose Christianity limit themselves to rational, founded, and sober criticisms of Christian ideas. A relatively small minority, however, often spews gratuitous bile such as “let’s get rid of the dysgenic morons who worship a dead kike on a stick.” So if I and the other other men in the movement who sympathize with the Christians can put up with this particular vocal and noxious minority, why is it so hard women put up with statements like “a White woman’s most important job is to have babies and leave the politics to men”?
The lack of movement credibility is not a good explanation in my judgment for the lack of female participation.
This movement for racial preservation has substantial credibility right now as an intellectual movement. The writers here, at TOO and at Alt Right are doing groundbreaking subversive work with credibility right now. Granted most of the world including men does not view the work as credible because of barrier #4, but of the perceptive few who are perceptive enough to find it credible, they are mostly men. So if women naturally gravitate toward the credible where are they?
The explanation that most women just don’t care for politics cannot be the explanation. Nationalist writers across the Internet discuss many topics in addition to politics, including culture, anthropology, sociology, biology, science, film, art and literature. Yet the audience for this highly credible work remains overwhelmingly male.
This is why I advocate for the Northwest Republic, and the Northwest Republic Analytical Model – it encapsulates everything worth fighting FOR, from the personal, familial, extended familial, national and racial levels.
The participating audience is overwhelming men, and masculine men, at that.
The women are watching, waiting, hoping that WE solve the problems.
Covington had it right – we are trying to do the ONE THING all of the society at large is opposed to.
If we are right, their lives have been squandered.
The women will follow.
What’s In YOUR Future?
Yes, Fourmyle and you know? I would have been labeled “misogynist” by the feminist who casually hit my comments in this thread. But in fact my religious belief is that only the eternal feminine would lead the white men to the Absolute.
In any marketing competition with Oprah Winfrey, we lose, and we lose badly.
LOOK at the “women” in Oprah’s audience; SEE the joy in their eyes and laughter as she criticizes us.
SEE them buy her magazine, buy the books she recommends, put her first.
And WE are fighting for the THEIR approval?
THAT is the hallmark of the Kali Yuga, THIS is the moral inversion of the end of an Age.
What’s In YOUR Future?
Ward Kendall et al,
“Where are the women?” is the wrong kind of question. Have you read Gore Vidal’s Julian? It’s an insightful tour de force that, just as Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose, transports us to the 4th and 14th centuries respectively.
Where were the woman during the other major catastrophe in the West, when Constantine handed over the empire to the bishops? Although I read Julian in 1992, if I remember correctly only men tried to fight the inevitable: the traitorous paradigm shift from classic Greco-Roman culture to the dark ages. It’s a novel: but in real history only male intellectuals tried to challenge the cult of the Galileans (e.g., Celsus and Porphyry). Roman women of the upper classes were not only clueless, but actively pursuing the “progressive” Asian cult.
Where are the women 1,600 years afterwards? Wrong question. It is not in their nature to lead the intellectual or warlike movements behind the resistance against the assaults from an outside enemy that threatens the whole civilization (e.g., the Battle of Poitiers in 732; the 1683 Battle of Vienna) or from the enemy inside (replacing classical culture with an Asian cult in the 4th century; or presently replacing whites with immigrants / traditionalism with judeo-liberalism).
For a non-Pod who has not been snatched by liberalism, the right kind of question is where are the men? This is the question that Covington asks almost every other week. And the answer is that presently we are very few (fortunately, with the sh** hits the fan–see this video of 2029 Europe–more of our kind will come for sure).
This is not about any WN “organization,” as they have all failed, spectacularly, by accepting the Enemy’s Terms, Definitions, and Frames of Reference.
By “masculine” I mean first, Adult MASCULINE Individuation, and second, meaningful Achievement – actually DOING SOMETHING that proves you have earned, and deserve, respect.
Women are ALWAYS watching us, and taking our measure.
Finally, the “N” word is not the one that matters, for WNists.
It’s the “L” word – the other “L” word.
People you would not want to be in a room with.
That pretty much sums up WNism post-Rockwell, with precious few exceptions, such as Covington (forming a new Nation) and the team at counter-currents (developing perspectives, philosphy, and the foundation of a new Culture).
Everyone else is playing in one convenient sandbox or another.
Remember, power without effectiveness is Form without Substance.
Uncle Adolf would wear Hart, Schafner and Marx three-pieces, wearing the brownshirt uniform only on special Party occasions.
We can learn from this.
What’s In YOUR Future?
It seems revolutionary activity has historically been a male dominated enterprise and I see no reason why that would or should change. Women who are committed white nationalists and who have the talent to further the cause and attract more people should be welcomed with open arms. Otherwise, it’s completely nonsensical to implement an affirmative action type program simply to assuage the consciences of some confused male white nationalists.
The one thing white nationalists need from white women and that they receive little of is moral support. Women don’t necessarily have to take an active role in the movement to add value but they should understand and support men who have pro-white political beliefs. Black and mestizo racists enjoy broad support from their womenfolk but we don’t. And no, the fault doesn’t lie with white nationalists past or present but with the Jewish secular religion of anti-racism that gets instilled in whites at an early age.
Well reasoned criticism of modern women isn’t misogyny and I’m getting especially annoyed at the anti-misogyny police squads and Dr. Phil types that keep popping up on various white nationalists blogs.
Skip down to the comments of Troll King.
If you do not put The Work first, foremost, forever, the women who associate with you will do so for the most temporal and fleeting of reasons, at best. At worst, but also at their most honest, they will hold you in open contempt, and rightfully so.
What’s In YOUR Future?
Schopenhauer’s argument for polygamy appears in his essay “On Women.” Unfortunately, the most commonly circulated translation of this essay is an abridgment that apparently leaves these remarks out. This is from the T. Bailey Saunders translation:
Greg, I remember having read this in the Penguin Books edition (which is one the most popular).
Polygamy is de facto legal – the government simply will not look too closely at the many Muslims in America, and their Constitutionally based argument – freedom of religion, and religious expression – simply, easily, carries the day.
The larger issue remains: to destroy a Culture, destroy the Warrior Caste, at all points, from conception forward. De facto gelding works almost as well as the real thing.
What’s In YOUR Future?
Monster indeed. The meaning of the word Gentleman includes many shades of civility and upbringing, not least of which is gracious treatment of women. The connotation of Lady has none of these social benefits – rather it connotes someone who dresses well, looks good, and has an air of extreme entitlement. One is a giver and the other is a taker.
I will be “manning up” by marrying a beautiful white woman in Eastern Europe. No thanks to American women. They had their chance 5-15 years ago.
The first episode of Star Trek/TNG had the Enterprise’s crew experience a small part of the vast universe, and, after scaring them, told them, in effect, “It’s a great adventure out there, but it might hurt, and you might die. If you want to run to Mommy every time you get punched in the nose, stay home.”
We must “take the golden key from beneath Mother’s pillow,” (a Jungian expression), and most won’t – CAN’T – do that without harnessed fire to carry them forward.
It’s time to consider Pagan Masculinity’s role in redeeming Christianity.
What’s In YOUR Future?
This is a good article that shows Greg understands a lot of things that others do not.
The irony of the socalled “women in wn” is exactly what Greg is getting at– it doesnt matter because a) politics is for men, and b) win and they will come.
Meanwhile dont make yourselves sound like a bunch of betas. You know what a beta is? First and foremost a man who doenst have a woman and he whines to other men about it. If you dont have one you should never whine about it because whining is unmanly.
It is the oldest trick in the book at a party or bar. If you want to leverage up to the hottest girl in the room do not start with her. Start with the ugliest. Be nice and talk to her. Then ratchet on up. And talk to men along the way and win them over little by little. If you actually ignore the hottie you will build her tension up as she notices you are ignoring her. That is the moment of truth when the woman is conquered. When she knows that she is incomplete without this man.
If you are jawboning to other men about manly topics that is different for it shows you to be what you should be, that is, a man concerned with manly things. Pining over women is unmanly.
By the way and the signficance of this will not be lost on anyone. Part of the reason women find themselves attracted to out of the closet homosexuals is that gays ignore them in a way that straights do not . And yet I have heard from more than one woman that a man who gets a lot of women will oftentimes seem like a gay guy not just for his positive grooming skills but for his nonchalance about gaining women’s attention. Anyhow you have to understand this in the context of woman’s innate fixiation on a man’s biological fitness.
Biological fitness of humans is based not only on their bench-press, nor waist nor bicep circumference, nor peen length, nor IQ; it is also based on a man’s facility in social settings, his attractiveness in a group of people, his capability to function effectively in society. That will often correleate directly to wealth and oftentimes run opposite directions from objective physical beauty. I mean just look at a guy like Bill Gates. A nerdy geek, but, not just a high IQ but you can be sure a socially capable alpha male of the first order to claw and cajole all his employees all those years and make MSFT into what it was. Steve Jobs is more handsome perhaps but the point of this is social control ie social POWER is what makes them wet not your physical statistics.
Another thing that helps pull women along is wealth. As mentioned this is correlated to social fitness more oftne than not. If you do not have it they wonder what is wrong with you. This is not bad about them, actually it is another reflection of their innate fascination with biological fitness.
So if Wn is just populated with the socially inept and poor, then it is going to be a ghetto for “losers” and a women will see it as a dysgenic gene pool in spite of all the yapping about “eugenics.”
WNs need to have jobs and work them intelligently and develop sources of income and pools of wealth that prove WN fitness. And if you are going to go WN full time then you need to pursue it with some acumen. Greg shows that too. Greg is not perfect but look at his diligent measuring of his own results. That is a really positive trait in a leader– someone who measures his own performance. Another positive trait is someone that promises certain things and deliveres. Here Greg has been delivering a consistently high level of intellectual product and books in print and generally showing his level of committment and also his competence at publishing.
Others who think they are capable of matching these positive attainments in other endeavors should get busy. Otherwise quit typing all this bullshit on the internet and make some money and you will be getting all the female interest that you will need or be able to service when you are not making money.
Thanks for your kind and encouraging words. It means a lot coming from someone I respect and with whom I have also had some pretty passionate disagreements.
The above, done correctly. Thanks.
WNism’s last fifty years – “The dysgenic gene pool providing entertainment instead of effectiveness” – seems manufactured to that end.
Why is that, Charlie Brown? Why does Schroeder ALWAYS get Lucy?
Covington has defined the temporal framework for the greatest achievement imaginable, which, thankfully, terrifies the dysgenics amongst us.
What’s In YOUR Future?
I’m a black woman , and my boyfriend is a white nationalist . I’m being to think he’s confused about his ‘white pride’ . So is it possible for a white nationalist to be with a black girl?
Or is something suspicious going on…
I think he is confused too. We are absolutely opposed to race-mixing. It destroys both races. I suggest you dump him.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment