There Is Nothing the Alt Right Can Do about the Effeminacy of White MenRicardo Duchesne
Some white men are identifying with the Alt Right as they realize that the goals and norms celebrated by our social order are underpinned by multiple deceptions, suppression of debate, anti-scientific notions about human equality, and unjust opposition to white identity in the midst of outright celebration of minority group rights.
But it is not easy to dissent. The playbook of the establishment is very simple and very effective: claim that questioners of diversity are driven by plain hatred, that they are poorly-educated hicks who can’t stand losing their white privilege, and are too parochial to understand the progressive cosmopolitanism marvelously spreading through the West.
Nevertheless, the establishment is having difficulties keeping men away from the Alt Right due to the widening gap between its ideals and the sickening realities engendered by these ideals, between the ideal of equality and black crime statistics, between the ideal of multicultural harmony and the reality of Islamic terrorism, between the ideal of freedom of expression and the suppression of criticism against Islamization, and between the ideal of gender equality and the feminist acquiescence to migrant sexual assaults.
Still, one can’t help wonder why the vast majority of white males are still entrapped in these ridiculous ideals. The standard answer is that whites have been brainwashed since birth and the media still has a near-monopoly over the news. The establishment controls the narrative concerning all those realities that don’t square with their ideals. They know how to narrate black crimes as instances of discrimination and enduring inequalities. They know how to portray Islamic terrorism as acts committed by a minority rather than by “most peace-loving Muslims.” They know how to portray the shortcomings of diversity as “challenges” that can be minimized through further sensitivity training and the education of children against xenophobic feelings. They know how to ignore countless stories that run against the narrative while playing up stories that demonstrate its success.
This argument is lacking. Many whites know what’s going on and yet they prefer escapism, secure careers, or a comfortable network of politically correct friends and family members, even when they have a chance to take risks. The majority seem to welcome their own demise. One has to wonder if Alt Right men even have the vigor, vitality, and commitment of the 1960s generation. Everyone knows that contemporary White men are emasculated. Feminism is blamed. My view is that white men are the weakest in the world today because they inhabit the most comfortable, easygoing civilization. Prolonged luxurious living, where food is easily obtainable, as the ancient Greeks understood, breeds indulgent men, malleability, and softness. This weakness is a natural consequence of the cyclical nature of history.
Chateau Heartiste and Return of Kings abound with articles of accusations against feminism. The current article by Heartiste is The Innocent Victims of Feminism are Boys. But feminism is a symptom of a wider decline in Western civilization. Western decline has long been written about. Oswald Spengler’s interpretation is the best-known. But even though Spengler spoke about the rise of pacifism, loss of youthful vitality, senescence, and the dissipation of strong identities and moral values in large metropolitan centers, many have a hard time making sense of his biological metaphors; specifically, his talk about the youth, maturity, old age, and eventual death of civilizations, as if they were organisms.
Giambattista Vico (1668-1744), writing when the West was still rising, and taking the decline of Rome as his main example, identified three main cyclical phases in the trajectory of civilizations:
- Anarchy and savagery
- Order and civilization
- Decay and a new anarchic barbarism
Vico’s novelty was to suggest that the underlying mechanism behind these recurrent cyclical phases was the changing psychological state of human beings in response to different realities facing them in civilizational development. When humans face anarchy and savagery, they accept the necessity of behaving in ways that are useful for protecting themselves. They achieve this by creating order, which leads to civilized behavior. But once they achieve comfort through civilization, they focus more on amusements, growing dissolute in luxury and incapable of the discipline and seriousness required to sustain a civilization.
These underlying psychological dispositions were long understood by the ancient Greeks and Romans as common-sense observations about how the demands of survival and living without comforts nurtured strength of character, whereas a life of luxury and easy acquisitions encouraged effeminacy and licentiousness. Ancient Greek literature is full of objections to the pernicious luxury of the Orientals, the older civilizations surrounding them: their harems, eunuchs, and their corrupt intrigues. The very concept of the “Orient” came to mean opulent meals, indulgence, wantonness: effeminacy.
But the thinkers of the modern era, the ones who came up with a lineal view of history, starting with the Scottish philosophers Adam Ferguson, John Millar, and Adam Smith, rejected this cyclical view, and argued instead that all societies pass through a series of “progressive” stages: from primitive savagery to agricultural civilizations to a final stage of commerce. It was their view that the last stage of commerce would bring peaceful relations among nations and commercial riches, and thus the necessary conditions for the full development of human potentialities.
The logic of this idea was accepted in varying ways by most modern European thinkers. Marx’s innovation was to reject the idea that commercial capitalism would be the last stage. The subsequent rejection of the unilineal theories of cultural evolution that Franz Boas initiated – the celebration of primitive ways of life, which is currently a cornerstone of multicultural thinking – remains a variation of progressivism, since it asks Westerners to treat less-developed cultures with equal respect while calling for everyone to be integrated into a liberal modern world order dedicated to the elimination of poverty, warfare, and inequalities. All these arguments, from Adam Smith to Marx to Boas, are of the view that humans can be improved through changes in cultural development. Even the environmentalists have been unable to escape supporting innovations that cut back on pollutants and create nature-friendly technologies.
We have underestimated the cyclical argument and the simple truth that prolonged comfort, peacefulness, relaxation, and a lack of stress and tension weaken the human character. I am going to leave the theory of historical cycles for a future post, and here show that long ago, before the age of feminism, there were some astute observations about the emasculating effects that luxurious living had on the male character. I already alluded to the Greek association of Persian or Oriental luxury with effeminacy (which academia now dismisses as part of a “racialist discourse” intrinsic to the origins of Western civilization).
Greek and Roman Effeminacy
The Greeks themselves were later to be viewed by the Romans as over-intellectualized and over-refined in their tastes. As the Romans began to enjoy abundant wealth for the first time following their victories over the Carthaginians, with the upper classes developing an appetite for the refined tastes of the Greeks, and wanting their male children to learn about Greek rhetoric, art, and philosophy, Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) warned Romans of the weakening effects that Greek ways would have on their traditional toughness. Cato, although a Roman noble, was known for his “rusticity, austerity, and asceticism.” He hated the permissiveness and hedonism that came along with luxury. Plutarch observes about Cato:
His enemies hated him, he used to say, because he rose every day before it was light and neglecting his own private matters, devoted his time to the public interests. He also used to say that he preferred to do right and get no thanks, rather than to do ill and get no punishment; and that he had pardon for everybody’s mistakes except his own.
The Greek historian Polybius (200-118 BC), who bore witness to the ways in which Imperial plenty affected the lives of young Romans, noted how:
. . . some of [the young Roman men] had abandoned themselves to love affairs with boys and others to consorting with prostitutes, and many to musical entertainments and banquets and all of the extravagances that they entail . . . infected with Greek weaknesses.
Sallust (86-35 BC) would attribute the collapse of the Republican form of government to the corrupting influence of wealth and the resulting abandonment of traditional values:
When toil is replaced by an attack of indolence, and self-control and fairness by one of lust and haughtiness, there is a change in fortune as well as in morals and behavior.
By the time of Livy (64 or 59 BC-AD 17), we have a historian who believed that the decline of Roman morals was irreversible, lamenting in the Preface to his monumental history of Rome that:
. . . with the gradual decline of discipline, morals slid, and then more and more collapsed, and finally began to plunge, which has brought us to our present pass, when we can endure neither of vices nor their cures.
Don’t Blame Feminist Women
Some years ago, Chateau Heartiste had a post with the strange title Feminism Responsible for the Fall of Rome. It was strange in that no one has ever spoken about feminism in ancient times, but this post, which consists essentially of a long quote from a comment by some unknown person, could find no other way to account for this commentator’s observations about the dramatic changes that took place in the relation between the sexes in Roman times following the arrival of luxurious living. The commentator goes overboard in his efforts to draw parallels between our times and Rome, but is correct in noting that relations between men and women changed drastically, going from a very patriarchal culture in which family life was revered to a situation in the first century AD in which women had more say over financial and family matters, and the upper classes were uninterested in children:
~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.
~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax,” to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.
Blaming feminism for this change in Rome is anachronistic. Feminism is an ideology that emerged in the contemporary West as an expression of decline, but in Rome the decline happened without this ideology. Feminism has accentuated decline in our times, and celebrates it. But blaming feminism, or Cultural Marxism writ large, independent of any other factors, misses the fundamental cyclical nature of history. The Great Depression raised the vitality of men, and produced the “greatest generation” and the baby boom, but this was a temporary check on an otherwise declining trend that began in the nineteenth century.
Rise and Decline of Europe
When Rome fell apart, Germanic barbarians revived the West and brought in new blood, vitality, aggression, and expansionism, culminating in Charles the Great’s empire. This empire broke apart with the intrusion of new barbarians in the ninth century, combined with the decentralizing dynamic of vassal-lord relations. While the more brutalizing aspects of the nobility were “civilized” with the spread of chivalry and the Christian “Truce of God” after 1000 AD, Europeans were still full of zest for glorious actions, testified in their Crusading marches from the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries, the Portuguese rounding of Africa at the end of the fifteenth century, and the Spanish crossing of the Atlantic, culminating in the Industrial Revolution.
Through these major epochs, Europeans came to de-emphasize the martial virtues associated with feudalism, and as they turned to commerce, new virtues came to gain precedence: commodious living, orderly existence, and the Protestant emphasis on hard work (notwithstanding the excessive brutality of the religious wars and the interstate rivalries resulting from nation-building during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries).
David Hume, in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777), noted this transformation from the martial temper of medieval times to the “sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficent” qualities of the moderns. This was a relative contrast; the eighteenth century was hardly merciful and soft by today’s standards; this was the age of worldwide colonization and the imminent brutal Napoleonic wars. The point is that the violent aggressiveness of earlier centuries, which still prevailed in the religious wars and found its expression in Hobbes’ pessimistic view of human nature, was declining and being replaced by a new form of civilized vitality, industriousness, and an intense desire to master the laws of nature.
In 1836, just a year before the great Victorian Age began, when Britain was known for its military vitality and its consolidation of the greatest Empire in history, John Stuart Mill was already lamenting the fact that:
. . . there has crept over the refined classes, over the whole class of gentlemen in England, a moral effeminacy, an ineptitude for every kind of struggle. They shrink from all effort, from everything which is troublesome and disagreeable . . . They cannot undergo labor, they cannot brook ridicule, they cannot brave evil tongues: they have not the hardihood to say an unpleasant thing to any one whom they are in the habit of seeing . . . This torpidity and cowardice, as a general characteristic, is new in the world . . . it is a natural consequence of the progress of civilization, and will continue until met by a system of cultivation adapted to counteract it (“Civilization – Signs of the Times,” in Prefaces to Liberty: Selected Writings of John Stuart Mill, [Boston: Beacon Press, 1959]).
One wonders what J. S. Mill would have said about the preoccupation of our current manosphere, such as Return of Kings, with clothing, color, fabric matching, and complexion. Victorian men cared about clothing, but with the intent of reinforcing the ideal of the proper British man as being self-sufficient, an adventurer, and scientifically-minded, which they felt was damaged with clothing of rich color; only dark colors, straight cuts, and stiff materials could project hardiness and endurance.
The key in J. S. Mill’s observation is that “torpidity and cowardice” are a “natural consequence of the progress of civilization” and of the comforts brought by bourgeois affluence. The expectation recently articulated in a Counter-Currents article that reading about Rome’s glories can teach current White men to regain their valor and heroism is pure wishful thinking. White men today will never build up their “resolve as great as that of the Romans” by reading about the Romans. The Romans built their character, before and during the time of Cato the Elder, by living at a point in the historical cycle when anarchy and savagery demanded hardness, by working extremely hard as farmers, by living in a very patriarchal culture that had harsh laws and expectations, and by undergoing intense military training and warfare. The Rome of Cato was a civilization at its peak; the West today is senile and childless, its families in decline, preoccupied with appearances, and overall too lazy and comfortable.
Decline is irreversible. The relentless occupation of the West by hordes of Muslims and Africans is an expression of White male decadence and effeminacy. Only out of the coming chaos and violence will strong White men rise to resurrect the West.
This essay was originally published at the Council of European Canadians Website on March 28, 2017.
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 6, Part 2: Conclusion
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 6, Part 1: Conclusion
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 5, Part 1: Democracy Against the People
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 4, Part 2: The Post-War Consensus
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 4, Part 1: The Post-War Consensus
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 3: The Anti-Political US Constitution
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 1: How Western Elites Thwart the Will of the People
Nice Racism, Part 3
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 164
Good to see some “black pill” which might motivate more men to choose the more difficult path. Manosphere as a movement with individual in focus, necessarily has to reach the conclusion that the collective is the problem as well, that is, that a sole man is ultimately facing what can be properly described as an avalanche.
Great points Luka! I completely agree!!
Ricardo states his case well, but he should have begun by making it clear that he is using “effeminacy” in the Classical sense, i.e., a moral weakening that comes from luxurious living and lack of challenges. That is how Julius Caesar used the word when he said in his Gallic Wars that the Belgae who lived near Roman settlements became “effeminized.” The usage is unfortunate because it implies that there is something feminine about weakness, or that women are somehow to blame. The new slang term “pozzed,” with all its associations, is much more appropriate. If men, or a society as a whole is “pozzed,” then they have themselves to blame. It’s both distracting and counterproductive to suggest that problem is caused by people of this sex or that sex.
Likewise with the suggestion (echoing Caesar) that advanced civilization weakens the survival instincts of a people. It creates more opportunities for distracting us from those basic instincts, but temptation is not the same thing as sin. The fact is, we haven’t agitated and propagandized enough for our side.
This piece gives great prominence to the male or military ideal of Victorian times, but doesn’t go into why it was there in the first place. It was there because it was actively proselytized in popular style and culture. Men were given really great clothes, and wonderful uniforms. (Women’s clothes were basically crap, 1850-1900.) The attention to details of fabric and styling that Ricardo Duchesne seems to carp about when talking about the present-day manosphere—well, these things are neither feminine nor “effeminacy.” They are a blatant, outward advertisement of your personal ideals and your cultural soul.
Of course there is nothing the “Alt Right” can do about the effeminacy of white men..
.. Except constantly tap them on the shoulder and show them how much better they can be doing.
Change comes only from within, and the struggle to overcome ourselves is a choice. Everything else is just external pressure, and chaos and violence are just as prone to induce defensive apathy as last-ditch “courage”.
Whites are the only branch of the sapiens tree to escape the Malthusian trap. We are masters of innovation and technical systems, and mobilising metaphysics into social actuality. In a laymans terms, Nazi Germany *really was* Nazi. Their ideals informed every aspect of society, just like liberal self negation pervades ours. When the ideal of mashalling all our efforts to halt and break free of social decline takes root in white societies, they will readjust and be renewed from top to bottom to express this.
It’s entirely possible for us to escape the cycle of civilisational birth and collaspe, not by pie-in-the-sky mastering the laws of race with social engineering, but by mastering ourselves and regaining control of our own society. It isn’t chaos and violence that create this, that is just an impetus.
A society steps out of decline by choice – Our job is to help enough whites make the right personal and political choices that our decline is reversed, and social collaspe averted, through ‘a supreme act of collective will’.
(kudos to Colin Liddell for the handy phrase).
Once a civilization is on the decline stage, which involves declining fertility rates, there is not much one can do to get the fertility rate to go up. Every attempt at increasing the fertility rate in the West in the last decade has failed, and it failed in Nazi Germany as well, despite the pro-family policies of this ideology and despite the lack of feminism; see the graph in this forum: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=58804&sid=307ec86a43c60d7fb4a077825d111b5d
Someone cited this passage in this forum:
“For all the public pressure, the birthrate in the Third Reich did not ever equal the rates from the last years of the “decadent” 1920s. Although recipients of marriage loans bore 360,000 babies between 1933 and 1939, it is not clear that these births resulted directly from government rewards. Throughout the 1930s, abortion as a percentage of the total crime increased steadily, a trend that the authors of a governmental report considered “stunning!” given the strength of Nazi pro-family legislation and propaganda. Evaluating fertility statistics in a short period inevitably presents problems. In the case of Germany during the 1930s, we can tentatively conclude that the birthrate failed to increase as dramatically as social planners predicted, although, on the other hand, German fertility remained relatively high compared with other western European nations.
The most carefully thought-out pro-natalist program in any industrialized state did not significantly alter parents’ desire for children. Parents considered their aspirations for a higher standard of living, the atmosphere of Nazi Germany, the expense of raising children, and housing shortages, and they limited the number of children they bore. The trend toward small families proved intractable. Not even strict enforcement of antiabortion laws seems to have made a major impact. A staff officer in the SS estimated that in 1936 as many as 500,000 abortions had been performed. “The fact that many abortions are committed in the racially most valuable circles,” he reported, defied social planners. “If these abortions could be prevented, in twenty years we would have an additional two hundred regiments.” Little had changed by the late 1930s, when statisticians’ estimates of abortions ranged from 500,000 to 1 million annually. Even the lower figure would suggest that abortions outnumbered children born to the Marriage Loan couples….”
Claudia Koontz, Mothers in the Fatherland, pp. 186-7.
Depressing reading indeed, but seeming inevitability does not absolve one of duty.
When I despair a bit I go back to this:
Sums it up for me.
Another excellent post on this topic at Counter-Currents, this time from Duchesne. Refreshing, I have to admit, after the stream of posts from manospherians popping up on sites I frequent. Their bitterness reminiscent of old WN1.0 times when everything was “nigger, nigger, nigger, kike, kike, kike”. (Now “bitch, bitch, bitch, cunt, cunt, cunt”.) We’ve moved on as a movement from those days in terms of race, it’s time to do so in terms of feminism too.
Bravo. Much more of this approach please.
Duchesne is definately one of the best writers out there and this article is absolutely excellent, but i do think the view of the manosphere is a little skewed when talking about ROK focusing on clothing, most articles are about physical and mental training as well as about the decline of the west. Nor feminists nor jews or muslims are the main cause of the decline, they are merely parasiting of on it. The women will get in line when our men get their balls back, and the leaches will get of oyr back when we start to value our own identity again.
I couldn’t agree more with the authors conclusion, that the real problem white men have in admitting the realities surrounding them, is completely the fault of the soft lives they have been living in the U.S. , Europe, Canada, Australia, or wherever they live. It’s been the rule since the end of WW ll and now the consequences are growing. I’m not putting a feather in my hat, when I say that I have believed this for years. Even when I visited Europe, as far back as 1967, I saw the easy and comfortable life styles, relative to the ancestors of those Europeans and I knew that it was going to have a down side to it all.
Yeah, but, but…
If we replace “The Great Depression” with “World War II” in this passage, it makes actual sense, and is certainly consistent with the notions of “martial spirit” not to mention US global economic ascendancy. Otherwise, I don’t know what-all.
The Depression degraded (okay, you could say emasculated) the traditional bread-winner, following very closely as it did upon a spiking of the above-mentioned decadent trend in society, a financialized, irresponsible bubble economy. The degradation was no doubt awful, but it was a pre-agent. The Depression did not bring about a baby-boom. It might have brought about the opposite, a demographic collapse, but for the war.
Nor did The Depression produce the “Greatest Generation.” They were born in the late 1910s and early 1920s. So while the hardships of the 30s conditioned them, certainly, it was in the war that they rose to greatness, so to speak. And, as the war had gutted and/or destroyed Britain, Europe, shaken their colonial empires to pieces, and reduced Japan and many other parts of Asia to rubble, the war’s conclusion brought the US to prominence, quite naturally on its own terms — except in those regions where the USSR was able to park its own sweaty, newly industrialized martial spirit.
Decline again followed, yes… but I have always been uncomfortable with this vague, unctious label “The Greatest Generation.” Whether the writer here takes the term seriously is hard to say, but it always smacks to me of spiel, as well as of Spielberg. Was that generation somehow off the clock during everything that went south in the ensuing decades?
Consider how in the past great leaders arose to inspire White people. But who today has the stature of a Jackson (Andrew or Stonewall), a Clive of India, a Cortes, a Bismarck, an Ian Smith or even a Teddy Roosevelt? It’s easier to name a dozen great US and European generals or admirals from World War II than half that number over the last 30 years.
To put this in manosphere terms, “Where are all the White alpha males?”
It just may be that the rise of globalization has drawn many alpha types into the grand project of world domination. Men who once might have been great White statesmen, generals or philosophers are now putting their talents to use in building the New World Order. This means leaving most other Whites out in the cold.
It’s a truism of military and revolutionary sociology that a cadre of natural leaders will inspire larger numbers of men (and women) to become warriors and fighters. And without the leadership, an army or revolution will fall apart. A major strength of the Germany army in both World Wars was its emphasis on good leadership at all levels, something which kept units fighting where their opposite numbers were throwing in the towel.
On the other hand…
It also may be that among “beta” males there is a resentment of the alpha types. The betas see the alphas as overbearing and hogging the females. So the betas promote ideologies like feminism and multicultism because they are means to undermine alpha dominance, or at least they so believe. If women are liberated and the borders are opened to mass migrations, then females will switch their allegiance away from the alphas and to the betas. Of course, it does not play out this way but by the time the betas realize their error, their lands have been overrun by Huns, Arabs, Turks, gangbangers and “refugees.” And then the females upon whom they cast covetous eyes end up in the harems of the new alpha overlords.
Well, maybe that is how it works. There are all sorts of psychological underpinnings to human behavior, which is one reason the term psychological warfare was coined for agitprop operations a century ago. The ideology is often the mask for irrational drives. The wise strategist understands this and knows how to pull the strings.
This may be one reason for Trump’s meteoric ascendancy. He projects the image of the alpha leader. And it’s also a reason for the popularity of the movie Fight Club, about men reclaiming their thumos.
It’s that Return of the King.
“It’s easier to name a dozen great US and European generals or admirals from World War II than half that number over the last 30 years.” This may be somewhat off-topic, but this remark reminds me of an interesting article on the “Pentagon gong show,” linked here:
Chuck Spinney observes:
“Sustaining the money flow through the MICC [i.e., the military-industrial-congressional complex] requires ornaments of success to compensate for and distract attention from its glittering if depressing reality. The proliferation of American flags in politicians’ lapels and on car bumpers, suggesting uncritical patriotism and triumphalism, is one example. Fantasies dressed up in PowerPoint briefings about ever-emerging technical revolutions [i.e., Wunderwaffen], implying the future will be different from the past, are yet other examples of how ornaments prop up a dysfunctional reality in contemporary discourse.”
These “ornaments of success” include “the proliferation of glittering ‘been there, done that’ decorations now adorning the chests of our senior military officers.” James P. Stevenson’s comparison of the decorations worn by US generals in World War II and those worn by US generals today is quite telling. As Stevenson observes,
“the typical 21st-century American general is a walking wall of multi-colored ‘great job’ ribbons, none of which are awards for valor.
“The ribbons have spread so widely that it has become difficult to differentiate heroes from bedecked bureaucrats, assignment-junkies and dedicated self-improvement types — which, I suppose, is partly the point.”
The latter types have chosen “to be somebody” rather than “to do something.” John Boyd addressed this dichotomy nicely in the monologue reproduced below:
“‘Tiger, one day you will come to a fork in the road,’ he said. ‘And you’re going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to go.’ He raised his hand and pointed. ‘If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments.’ Then Boyd raised his other hand and pointed another direction. ‘Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won’t have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference.’ He paused and stared into the officer’s eyes and heart. ‘To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do. Which way will you go?'”
Not sure what Colonel Percy Fawcett (The Lost City of Z), the explorer Richard Burton, Byron, Edward John Trelawney and all our other heroes would make of this ‘almost nothing can be done until the crash/race war comes’ attitude. White Nationalists are the natural leaders of our people, because our priorities are right and we have the Will and the courage to put them into practice, whatever the cost. Rome declined, because of a lack of the right sort of leadership. The leaders, the optimates, the patriarchs, (call them what you will), became plutocrats and so put money and luxury and slaves before race and nation. Any decent set of leaders can deal with whatever problems endanger the people, whether the threats be usury, Jews, immigration, debilitating ideologies or vices. We are the White Race and if the Will is there we can do anything and overcome anything. Anything. Providing we focus on creating the right sort of leaders and those leaders then lead. This is what the White Nationalist movement is all about. True. our youngsters need to wise up and toughen up, so the first stage must be to inspire them and give them the right role models, as well as importantly giving them the reasons why they should toughen up. Then, like in the glory days of Rome our young men should be encouraged to serve some time in the military. Those that then feel ready, that want a real challenge, to really test themselves and seek an adventure worthy of the sagas, that really think they can handle the hardship and the danger, should serve the noblest of causes, the only real Cause, and so become full-time White Nationalist activists!
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