Counter-Currents
2,135 words
Elizabeth Gillespie McRae
Mothers of Massive Resistance: White Women and the Politics of White Supremacy
New York: Oxford University Press, 2018
It is unlikely a book titled Mothers of Massive Resistance would have been published at all except for the fact that white women voted against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election in enough numbers to sink her election chances. In the ensuing Leftist weep-festival, a sizable number of Leftists threw women out of the “women and minorities” coalition that had been their staple since the mid-1960s. Elizabeth Gillespie McRae decided to investigate and found that in the past, a great many women were, in fact, ferocious in their resistance to “civil rights,” and their actions revitalized the conservative “New Right” of the 1970s and helped bring about the Democratic Party’s realignment in the South that occurred in the late 1960s.
Mothers of Massive Resistance suffers from two typical Leftist flaws. First, it is written in the snowflake-speak of contemporary academia. For example, on page 218, we find that “[a]ll along the political spectrum, white women invoked their gendered identities . . .” This sort of writing style occurs throughout, and it causes the book to come across as less serious than it should be. Second, the book offers no real summation of the basic beliefs of these women. They are merely “white supremacists.” By ignoring these women’s actual motivations, the book is just propaganda masquerading as scholarship. As written, the women in this book are “Beckys” who go about fighting for “white supremacy” for no apparent reason. McRae doesn’t ask why exactly women, often with little means, would engage in political activism which runs counter to the fashionable narrative and which brought them no material benefits. Indeed, many of these women embarked on political crusades that went completely against the conventions of their time and place. There is not much on the JQ in this book; instead, the study sheds light on those activists who sought to maintain segregation between whites and Congoid sub-Saharans.
As a “white supremacist” author, I’d like to offer the likely reasons why these women resisted the “civil rights” agenda that metastasized in American culture in the 1930s and then further expanded in the 1960s:
- As a group, blacks are dangerous, and they are dangerous from a young age.
- No black society can maintain white levels of civilization. Under stress, such as during a hurricane, black societies degrade into lawless, animalistic primitivism.
- All liberal movements that originate in the Jacobinism of the French Revolution – i.e. Bolshevism, neoconservatism, Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple, etc. – come to blood and tears when they attempt to actualize their ideas in the real world.
- Interracial marriages are bad for whites and bad for the mixed-race children who come from them. Nobody white wants their grandchildren to be pulled into black culture. Why throw away a European inheritance to join a group with so many known problems?
- The “civil rights” movement ended in burning cities. It failed to uplift blacks to white levels, while allowing blacks to act on their lower impulses.
- Other issues, such as American participation in the UN and the tax and spend ramifications of the New Deal, had an impact on American whites, and the negative impact needed to be recognized and discussed.
It logically follows that resisting “civil rights,” which is not about rights but is rather a racial attack, is something that white women would want to resist. I’d also like to add:
- Transmitting one’s culture is a rewarding activity for women, and Anglo-American culture is very much worth preserving and transmitting.
McRae found that “[w]hite women were the mass in massive resistance.”[1] The narrative anchor of this book is the public lives of four extraordinary women: Florence Sillers Ogden (Mississippi), Nell Battle Lewis (North Carolina), Cornelia Dabney Tucker (South Carolina), and Mary Dawson Cain (Mississippi), although she begins her story by describing the clerks who implemented Virginia’s pro-white Racial Integrity Act. These women worked in government agencies, and enacted reforms which caused mixed-raced individuals in the Old Dominion’s hinterlands to become categorized as black rather than white.
There are also other women named in the book who I found remarkable but who weren’t a major part of the narrative. One is Margaret C. Robinson of the Massachusetts Public Interest League. Robinson was married to a Harvard professor, and was both an anti-feminist and an anti-Communist. Mrs. Robinson even published in Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, so she is very much a Yankee participant in the Yankee-Jewish conflict in North America, and her activism included alliances with northern Irish Catholics as well as Southerners. She often reached out to both Catholic and Protestant religious leaders. The other is Mildred Lewis Rutherford, a Southern educator who focused her work on ensuring that school textbooks weren’t – to use modern parlance – anti-white, politically correct beatdowns. Rutherford brought the Southern point of view to history texts. McRae finds this shocking, but ignoring the Southern point of view in the Civil War is historical malpractice. After all, why would more than a million Southern men wake up one morning in 1861 and embark on a risky crusade for no apparent reason?
Florence Ogden was a Mississippian and a lifelong fan of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. She would remain a Democrat throughout her life. She had no children of her own, but was a devoted aunt. She was a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) and wrote a column called Dis an’ Dat. In her column, she communicated pro-white messages. She supported the House Un-American Activities Committee and disliked immigration. She wrote that “[a]ll of the isms of Russia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia rolled into one” could not compare to the democracy crafted “by men who rode horses, fought Indians, hewed forests, tilled land, and marched to battle so that America might be free.”[2] Of course, the -isms to which she was referring weren’t invented by Russians, Poles, or Czechs, but by Jews, but it did help to communicate the idea to white Americans that Communism was a foreign virus that had no place in America’s heritage. Ogden didn’t like the United Nations, and predicted – accurately – that an independent black Africa would fall apart.
North Carolina’s Nell Lewis had a philosophically inconsistent career. Like the other Beckys involved in “massive resistance,” she was from a prominent family. Initially, she was something of a Leftist. Her early career included activism on behalf of two black men who lost their feet to frostbite while in police custody. She was also a suffragette, a feminist, and a writer. Lewis felt comfortable with the minstrel-show version of black culture, with mammies, songs about pickin’ cotton, and such. She felt blacks had a place in America, but that their place was in the sharecropping industry, and that it was the duty of whites to protect the blacks who worked in such humble jobs.
Her views went further towards the Right, however, as the “civil rights” movement made gains in the 1930s and ‘40s. She feared that her fellow Southern whites were apathetic to the dangers of creeping “civil rights.” Lewis accurately predicted that public schools wouldn’t genuinely become integrated and that private, segregated academies would develop. By the 1950s, Lewis had gone from concerns over “police brutality” to apathy in response to Emmett Till’s murder. Lewis also correctly predicted race riots as the natural end of “civil rights,” and believed that “you can’t get Negroes to work at all.”[3] Nell Lewis’ ideological transformation probably had two causes: First, as black self-assertion increased, Lewis’ place as a white liberal supporter of blacks evaporated. (It is important for white advocates to recognize that whites involved in non-white uplift can become disillusioned and switch sides.) Second, she saw the danger in Communism, as well as in black crime and militancy.
Mary Cain was an anti-New Dealer. She lived in Pike County, Mississippi, and ran a newspaper called the Summit Sun. She didn’t like Prohibition, Social Security, and other forms of federal intervention in the economy. Cain reached out to Republicans in New England and the Midwest, and helped lay the groundwork for the party’s realignment in the South for the 1968 Presidential Election. That was an extraordinary thing: The Democratic Party had been the party of the South for more than a century. But the South needed a change after the “civil rights” revolution, and Cain had a ready answer.
The most extraordinary woman in this bunch is Cornelia Tucker. She was widowed with four children, and then got involved in politics following Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s court-packing plan.[4] Tucker also realized that the Democratic Party had undergone a considerable ideological shift during its 1936 convention in Philadelphia. The party changed the rules so that Southern delegates couldn’t vote as a bloc in order to overturn a nomination. What’s more, the party began to allow black delegates to be seated, and had a black minister deliver the invocation. Thus, Tucker became a Republican in South Carolina at a time when there were no white Republicans there. She also reached out to people outside of the South. Tucker worked tirelessly to get South Carolina to adopt a secret voting ballot, and carried out several suffragette-style stunts to raise awareness of her causes, such as grabbing the microphone at events and wearing a dress made out of newspapers.
The latter two women were incredibly farsighted. They recognized early on that the Democratic Party had hitched its wagon to the “civil rights” movement. All of the women mentioned above recognized that “civil rights” would become a disaster. Tucker and Cain paved the way for Southern whites to assert their interests in a different political party after the transformations of the 1960s. Indeed, “civil rights” happened in part because Democratic men in the South could do little to head off the problem during the 1930s and 1940s: Too many Southern whites were dependent upon patronage jobs, were serving on committees, were awaiting a judicial appointment as a Democrat, and so on. They had to ignore the rise of blacks within the party because they had families to feed and careers to advance. The women, on the other hand, were free to state the truth.
Mothers of Massive Resistance likewise portrays the difficult relationship that white advocates have with Christianity. Florence Ogden organized a petition drive to cancel the appearance of a minister, Alvin Kershaw, at the University of Mississippi, since he was a supporter of the NAACP. “For white Mississippians adherence to segregation trumped Christian service, devotion, and education,” McRae tells us.[5] On the other hand, Cornelia Dabney Tucker believed that protesting the Supreme Court’s 1962 ban on public prayer in schools was a way “to unite ‘the Hillybilly and the city dweller, the Southern Bible Belt and Quaker New England, the Washfoot Baptist and the aristocratic Episcopalian’ in a unified conservative movement.”[6]
All segregationists predicted that Northern whites would come to the same views as Southerners after they experienced greater exposure to blacks. Florence Sillers Ogden’s prophecy was the most specific. She stated that “when racial integration came on a yellow school bus and threatened to reorder the daily lives of northern and western urban white women, these women would”[7] come around to her way of thinking. Indeed, “the outrage over busing could be understood as the moment when massive resistance when undeniably national, becoming truly massive.”[8] The final part of the book is an in-depth discussion of the resistance in Boston to the policy of busing blacks to white schools.
McRae is utterly hostile to the worldviews of the women she profiles, but her book can be seen as something of a manual for anti-whites. She points out that female activists are free to challenge the direction a male-dominated institution is headed in a way that men cannot. She shows how ordinary data entry clerks can help whites. She also explains that women can influence society through teaching, textbook discussions, and in other areas that aren’t initially noticeable. White advocates must be inclusive of women and put them in positions where their strengths are best suited. Probably the most important thing we can do to help our women in the short term is to support their natural drive to prevent interracial marriage.
Finally, although these women were all over the map on various issues – pro- and anti-suffragette, for and against Christian values, for and against the New Deal – they were nevertheless united in defending their people. We should follow their example.
Notes
[1] Elizabeth Gillespie McRae, Mothers of Massive Resistance: White Women and the Politics of White Supremacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 20.
[2] Ibid., p. 85.
[3] Ibid., p. 208.
[4] In 1937, Roosevelt attempted to expand the membership of the Supreme Court so that he could appoint his own judges to overrule its conservative judges in support of his New Deal. It was blocked by Congress.
[5] Ibid., p. 204.
[6] Ibid., 244.
[7] Ibid., 34.
[8] Ibid., 270.
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
23 comments
A good piece, and an eye-opener. And even if it weren’t, it would be worth a nod simply for the subject matter. I didn’t know the book at all. Meld this with Spencer’s advertising piece, and you have The War Against White Women.
Two very important messages to take away from this article: The first message, women are essential for any meaningful degree of success in any political movement, that should be obvious, but just in case it isn’t, it’s well illustrated by theses women, despite the fact that their political movement ultimately failed to achieve it’s political objectives in their lifetimes. Secondly, concurring political beliefs should not be allowed to interfere with the pursuit of any one political objective, like the ethno-state project, for instance, and that’s a very important thought to keep in mind for anybody outside the political mainstream, and also on that note, being a real, as opposed to fake, commie, it would be nice to get a little less red-is-bad stuff on CC, bad PR in a fertile plot, but, of coarse, it’s not the women this article is about that this criticism is for. I can’t help but respect and sympathize with anybody who dares to stand up to the long coming tide of thoughtless propaganda mediated public opinion in America, and these women are certainly examples of that, and in that regard, if only that one regard, they are examples that anyone can follow to a positive end for humanity.
Thank you so much for this breath of fresh air.
I especially appreciated the story of Nell Lewis. I can see myself advocating passionately on behalf of the black man who lost his toes, but of course it is one thing to believe that black prisoners should be treated humanely and quite another to support full racial equality. One thing I think men often don’t understand about women is that we do in fact make these sorts of distinctions, and I suspect that without intense egalitarian indoctrination, most White women would settle on a kind of arms-length but benevolent patronization of blacks (and now Hispanics).
The most important point in the article:
Transmitting one’s culture is a rewarding activity for women, and Anglo-American culture is very much worth preserving and transmitting.
Transmitting our culture is not a rewarding activity for women; it is in fact the single most rewarding activity for women, especially elite women.
Israel is an exception to the general rule of low fertility among highly educated women, and I believe this is precisely because they are not culturally demoralized as White women are.
” I’d like to offer the likely reasons why…”
welp, copy and paste again!
“It is important for white advocates to recognize that whites involved in non-white uplift can become disillusioned and switch sides”
I’ll say!
These women sound like something out of a Margaret Attwood novel!
It’s not enough for white people to be non-racist, they should be anti-racist! In a sense the only hope for the ‘Beckys’, is to stop producing more white males.
That means more resources need put into steering vulnerable young white girls away from the patriarchical white supremacist default of the white nuclear family, and towards diverse relationships and gender identities.
As Greta Thunberg reminds us, the Planet is in peril until the toxic culture of ‘whiteness’ is abolished.
This comment is a sarcasm, right?
It is imperative to attract white women to the right side.
If even not to WN causes, then certainly to counter these “progressive” charlatans:
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a Puppet: The Brains Behind AOC
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-a-puppet-the-brains-behind-aoc/
White advocates must be inclusive of women and put them in positions where their strengths are best suited. Probably the most important thing we can do to help our women in the short term is to support their natural drive to prevent interracial marriage.
No No No No 3000 times No
Women have no place in politics. End of discussion. No place in right-wing politics at the very least.
First and foremost, the nature of right-wing politics inevitably makes it unappealing to modern women, for whom the current status quo offers everything most women want : thousands of male orbiters, an unearned social status, affirmative action, Yes means Yes, social support etc.
The only women that get involved in right-wing politics tend to be very weird and have some kind of issues. Most times those women are trad-thots who are boyfriend hunting. The more you poke the more you find they are RWINO (Right Wingers in Name Only).
On top of that, those women tend to cause drama and infighting, right wing politics should stay an exclusive male space. Women wreak more havoc than any good things they bring on the table.
Moreover, legitimizing the idea of women in right wing politics leads to male simping and p***y worshiping. On top of that, in the modern climate, most right wing males are tired of the gynocracy we live in and are tired of female empowerment forced down their throats and want nothing to do with anything were women are involved. I know since I am one of them.
Moreover, there isn’t much a woman can do that a man can’t do better. Women in right wing politics are BAD BAD BAD.
The 1 in a million magical unicorn doesn’t change this. We all would be better off if women just kept their mouth shut, were pleasant and servile and made sandwhiches.
The best way a woman can serve the White cause is to cheer on the sidelines, be pretty, have a nice attitude and make sandwhiches. End of.
First and foremost, the nature of right-wing politics inevitably makes it unappealing to modern women, for whom the current status quo offers everything most women want : thousands of male orbiters, an unearned social status, affirmative action, Yes means Yes, social support etc.
Note the assumption that women would only be interested in right-wing politics to secure some benefit for women as such. I suspect he is projecting his own gender-based priorities onto dissident women.
In any event, if women have “thousands of male orbiters,” I don’t see why they would need to go looking for a boyfriend in pro-White circles. It seems they could find men with better prospects in more conventional conservative movements.
And White women hate affirmative action.
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-white-women-affirmative-action
Note the assumption that women would only be interested in right-wing politics to secure some benefit for women as such. I suspect he is projecting his own gender-based priorities onto dissident women.
This has been the pattern of all women, even based ones. Scratch the surface and you realize that they are just pushing a different form of feminism.
Women who become right-wingers tend to invariably do so because they think that the right offers them more benefits than the left. I expect more to join as they realize that in the current progressive milieu women have lost their status to LGBT and immigrants.
The thing is, right-wing feminism is not in any way better than left wing feminism. It’s henpecking.
Find me women that agree with removing women’s voting rights, state benefits, abortion on demand and so forth in the so-called “Right-wing women” category. They don’t.
I remember very well the trad-thot saga debacle where Roosh talked to different self-proffessed “traditional women” and found the same pattern all over :
1) they all had multiple sex partners, sometimes even outside their race, not different from liberal women
2) they did not agree with removing women’s voting rights or banning the free divorce that plagues us today, nor did they believe in removing alimony
3) they all were all pro-abortion and contraception
https://www.rooshv.com/tradthots-are-not-trad
Even Lana Lokteff, the magical unicorn lots of people pointed to supports abortion, and not for eugenic reasons, but for female right’s to choose reasons.
Anyone who has been around women long enough knows their nature very well. We are being taken advantave off by women who are boyfriend-hunting and see the right as a platform to push feminism cloacked in right-wing rhetoric as well as find a beta male who will marry her used assets up and then get hen-pecked by other men and told he needs to “man up” and “treat that Aryan Princess right”. All their words are just a chameleon’s way to get you to lower your guard and of course men will step on each other like simps and sabotage the unity to please the magical Aryan Princess they think they found.
They also love to claim that “if you think women shouldn’t vote or get divorced for no reason you are just like the muslims”
I have a litmus test for testing so-called right wing women :
1) Do they support removal of women’s voting ?
2) Do they support no free divorce ?
3) Are they willing to submit to their father’s or husband’s authority ?
If they pass the above test, than ok. But then they would be smart enough to know not to mess with men’s affairs.
The men who insist on inserting women in politics are typically blinded by thirst or by mommy issues where they need female validation. Women rarely contribute anything of value to right-wing anything, and they always always always cause infighting, drama, promote p***y worship and cause men to fight each other to prove who is the bigger simp. Moreover, they bring the whole “it’s men’s fault” mentality and men start bullying each other, in an attempt to look manly and win her favor, but really just being simps.
Frankly, I will much sooner accept the idea of gays in the right-wing (not without reluctance) than the idea of women in it.
The house is burning down. We need everyone to form a bucket brigade. And you are all about turning away volunteers because you live in your head.
@Fabian:
“The Athenians called the Spartan women fainomérides (‘those that show the thighs’) as a reproach of their freedom of dress. This was because the Spartans were still using the old Dorian peplos, which was open in the waist side. It was part of women’s fashion, more comfortable and lighter than the female clothing in the rest of Greece: where fashions flourished of extravagant hairstyles, makeup, jewellery or perfumes. It was a fashion for healthy Spartan women.
But the rest of Hellas, as far as women are concerned, was already infected with Eastern customs: which kept them permanently locked up at home, where their bodies weakened and their sick minds developed. The Athenian poet Euripides (480-406 BCE) was shocked at the fact that the ‘daughters of the Spartans… leave home’ and ‘mingle with men showing their thighs’.”
(Passages from one of Evropa Soberana’s essays in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).
What you are promoting is neither Aryan, nor Western, nor even practical. Insofar as it is Right Wing, its a failed, inferior form of Right Wing morality that pretty much every single White person has rejected. Forever.
White men and White women thrive when they are free to naturally become who they are on the inside. If they are good on the inside, they will reap the fruits of their character, and if they are bad on the inside, they will suffer the natural consequences. But either way, White Sharia isn’t needed.
Piss off
Yes, I think the embittered types fretting over their 1-10 scores, digit ratio and jaw lines are not helpful. Women are the fount of new life and not only that: Socrates learned his philosophy from Diotima.
But the rest of Hellas, as far as women are concerned, was already infected with Eastern customs: which kept them permanently locked up at home, where their bodies weakened and their sick minds developed. The Athenian poet Euripides (480-406 BCE) was shocked at the fact that the ‘daughters of the Spartans… leave home’ and ‘mingle with men showing their thighs’.”
As a counter-point I will have to mention Romans demanded wives wear veils. One Roman politician demanded a divorce when he found out his wife exited the house without a veil.
Roman women were expected to wear veils as a symbol of the husband’s authority over his wife; a married woman who omitted the veil was seen as withdrawing herself from marriage. In 166 BC, consul Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see.
Were Romans muslims and did they not have the European spirit ?
Male authority in marriage was unquestionable in all the successful cultures. No Roman politician during the height of the Roman age would believe women had any role in politics.
The idea of women in politics is very modern. Either way, I am not arguing over history, but rather practicality.
Moreover, unlike another poster implied I am not one of those guys who measures jaws or is ashamed of having a small penis or whatever, that is not a serious argument.
My experience with women in politics has been highly negative and I have seen them only bring disarray, the destruction of male spaces, a culture of over-valueing of women were criticizing them gets you labeled as a mysoginist, men bicker and white-knight and all kinds of issues.
If you find the magical unicorns that manage to be useful, sure, whatever. But typically, the quest for shieldmaidens makes people look for them where they aren’t. If women were so interested in saving the White race you would see them pop up everywhere, you would see a much larger ratio of them and so forth, yet that isn’t the case. Moreover, as I mentioned, many are very very subversive. That’s the nature of male spaces, invite women and you get baby mama drama.
That said, if a woman who is so good she obviously deserves to have a spot appears, like say Ann Coulter (one of the rare specimens) then sure, let her do her thing. But going around looking for magical shieldmaidens is a waste of time at a best. If there a woman like that she will appear on her own.
Giving women special status in order to attract more of them into our thing is a bad idea. We all compete on equal footing, which means not many women will pass the mark, and trying to fix that will bring issues. And in my experience talks of searching for “the good ones” is typically followed by talking about changing the culture to accomodate them, which alienates existing much worthier constituents.
But then, since we have different branches in the pro-White thing, let some branches choose to involve women and others not, as they wish. Time will tell who is right. I will just let my word be said I am always weary and skeptical of female involvement. And the fact that people attack by calling you a loser in mama’s basement just shows how emotional and irrational people get as they move from rational arguments to white knighting, a consequence of trying to overly-appeal to women.
That’s my opinion. I don’t run this place or any other so everyone can do their thing. That’s the best. Forcing to ban women or accept them on any group is a bad policy. Let each group figure on its own. But I preffer to be involved with groups that follow a “male-only space” policy.
In Hungary more women than men vote for the right. I think the same is true for Poland.
As it is in France.
3) Are they willing to submit to their father’s or husband’s authority ?
Won’t happen. Ever again. It is high time everyone just grew up. Adult women don’t need to submit to a relative’s socalled authority any more than men need to submit to government’s authority. Of course you men do so because you no longer have the gumption to rebel and change the system which oppresses you. It is easier to just push for the revival of some long-lost tradition of bossing women around no matter how wrong you may be on whatever it is you are dealing with.
I guess no one told you that going back to tradition doesn’t mean going back completely.
Even Lana Lokteff, the magical unicorn lots of people pointed to supports abortion, and not for eugenic reasons, but for female right’s to choose reasons.
Not to mention that she blames virtually all our woes on baby boomers. See – it’s our (boomers’) fault that we were born at a certain time in history. We had a choice, right? We all must think exactly the same because of year of birth. We made a conscious decision to bring the western world to wrack and ruin.
Oh, she makes a hasty little concession to our prominent thinkers who got themselves born after the war and before 1965 – but that’s just a little aside. Can’t wait to see her generation in 20 years – hated by the ones sometimes called Gen Z. I thought she was too smart to fall for this nonsense. S.M.H.
So I’ve never liked Colin Liddell of the old Alternative Right site that turned into Radix, as he always came across as an elitist douchebag. But, credit where credits due, he was ahead of the curve back in October 2014 when he warned everyone about the dangers of Andrew Anglin and his philosophy. I myself sided with Anglin in that flamewar because I thought his stated positions were reasonable whereas Liddell had already established himself in my mind as an unreasonable charlatan.
That was a mistake.
While there’s always been a strain of anti-women attitudes in the Movement, it was usually relegated to impertinent comment sections whining about how White women have been seduced by feminism and how Asian women are more pliant and submissive, therefore making better housewives. But thanks to Anglin and Weev and their retrograde values, the hatred of White women has reached levels that, as the kids say, shouldn’t be possible.
Pal, your positions are that of a social outcast who turned to the WN Movement for friendship and camaraderie because he was incapable of making friends anywhere else. White women do not need to be brutally subjugated in order for the White Race to survive and thrive. Contrary to the trash philosophy preached by William Pierce that people are “Lemmings,” or “Animals,” the White Race in fact has vastly superior levels of self control and discipline than Arabs, Blacks, or any other group that treats its own women like chattel. We are not Lemmings, and we are not Animals. We are the crown jewel of creation, and we don’t need the inferior rules of third world peoples in order to govern ourselves. Screw White Sharia
Even per capita, right wing women are responsible for far less divisiveness than men are.
Just look at all the arguments unhinged cretins coming from the manosphere are causing. The gall of these virtual nobodies literally demanding what position the movement should take on an important issue should be annoying to anyone, *regardless* of your opinion towards women.
Just give it a rest already, we’ve all heard your boilerplate enough to be sick of it.
Interesting review about a time when White activists openly organized in their own interests.
I’d like to see more on the Massive Resistance and anti-busing movements: their ideologies, their tactics, what worked, what failed … and what can be done to win next time around.
There are plenty of lessons to be learned for today’s struggle.
St Giles fair in Oxford just ended. It’s the traditional fair for Oxford as the new academic year begins. It’s been a feature for a long time. Generally it’s a two day event where the people of the came to look at the freak shows, rides, eat floss, box, test their strength etc. it’s the biggest street fair in the U.K. It’s not an event for the students but many do show up. It’s always been the big event for the commoners around in a 30 mile radius. It was convened by the Bishop who gave a prayer next to him was Oxford’s Muslim Mayor. The rides have various white poople and some gypsy types running the machines and stalls. During the day it’s mostly white children and the old who are being nostalgic and in the evening the entire area arrives and parties until the late hours. Sadly it was overrun by blacks and South Asians. Lots of white teenage girls. A smattering of students. If it’s turned into this mess, a middle earth Notting Hill Carnival then we are all fucking doomed. It’s held right outside the Eagle and Child, Balliol, St John’s and Blackfriars, Lamb and Flag…It was unreal watching the crowd this year.
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.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment