Counter-Currents
1,254 words
I received this question from a Counter-Currents reader:
Andrew Marantz’s Antisocial tells the story of “Samantha,” who got involved with Identity Evropa and the Alt-Right, rose through the ranks, became disaffected, and then left the movement and talked to the enemy. In view of Samantha and other doxings by ex-scene groupies like Katie McHugh, should the movement simply ban women?
The short answer is: No.
First, what does it even mean to ban women from a largely anonymous online movement, which lacks any barriers to entry or standards of membership? We can’t ban women from the internet. We can’t ban women from reading our websites, listening to our podcasts, watching our YouTube videos, etc. We can’t ban women from writing for our websites, commenting on our websites, or donating to them if they simply use pen names. (For all I know, the person who sent in the question is a woman.)
Of course some parts of the movement can exclude women. I don’t think we should accept the essentially feminist assumption that all organizations and realms of society should admit women, much less aim for male/female parity. I also think that it is quite natural for radical politics to attract more men than women. And just as combat units and police forces function better without women, so might some White Nationalist political organizations.
But even if it were possible to entirely exclude women from White Nationalist politics, doing so would be dumb and self-defeating. If women want to contribute their money, ideas, time, and social capital to the movement, that makes us stronger, not weaker. Beyond that, we are never going to actually win unless we can convince a substantial percentage of the female population that we represent their real interests. And we will never do that if we allow the tone of the movement to be set by embittered misogynists, to say nothing of people who proclaim “White Sharia” and “Islam is Right About Women.”
Leftists love to dismiss realism about racial differences as racial hatred. But that’s not necessarily true. Feminists love to dismiss realism about sexual differences as misogyny, the hatred of women. But that’s not necessarily true either.
However, just as there really are people in our movement who hate other races, there are people in our movement who genuinely hate women.
Just as the goal of our movement should be to drain the swamp of diversity in which race-hate breeds, we should also try to address the underlying causes of hatred between the sexes.
And just as we will not achieve our goal in the racial sphere if we allow simple race hatred to define our movement, we will not achieve our goals in the sexual sphere by allowing misogynists to set the tone either.
White Nationalists are mature enough to recognize that hatred between the races and sexes is the inevitable product of the current system. We also need to be mature enough to recognize that indulging embittered haters will destroy any chance to rectify our problems.
Second, talking about excluding all women because of doxers like Katie McHugh makes no sense. Should the movement also exclude all men, because some men are doxers as well? That would put an end to 100% of doxings, but it would also put an end to the movement itself. Surely we can be a bit more surgical about excluding certain types of people to minimize such problems in the future.
Third, the very same people who want to blame women for problems in the movement also often deny that women exercise any moral agency. But if women have no agency, then they bear no responsibility either. But clearly somebody is to blame for these operational security and public relations disasters, and by their own logic, misogynists would have to blame men.
And in truth, men bear a lot of the blame. By all accounts, McHugh, Samantha, and another unnamed woman who doxed Coach Finstock were not ordinary women. They were Alt-Right scene groupies. Like rock groupies, they were attracted to an overwhelmingly misogynistic subculture. Women who are drawn to such environments are surely high in masochism and low in self-worth. They then worked their way through the scene, passing over nice guys until they ended up with manipulative sociopaths. But when they realized that masochistic self-indulgence was not making them happy, they bailed out.
Then, once they had become sufficiently embittered to feel justified in harming innocent people, they went to the enemy and started doxing people, including people who had only been kind to them. This is the sort of pure evil that makes people dream of the eternal fires of hell to restore justice to the world.
What makes such evil possible? I think a good part of it can be explained by bitterness. Bitterness takes root when someone is wronged and does not receive justice. Bitterness turns into a kind of neurosis. Embittered people vent their wrath not on the people who wronged them, but on people who didn’t wrong them but merely remind them of the people who did. And if such people have any pangs of conscience, bitterness easily silences them: “Why should I care about these people’s suffering? Where were they when I was suffering? Who cared about me?”
So how do we lessen the likelihood of such disasters in the future?
First, we really need to dispel the atmosphere of misogyny in the movement, which attracts damaged people of both sexes. Race realism–yes. Race hate–no. Sex realism–yes. Hatred between the sexes–no. Our movement will never win unless we treat such hatreds as social problems to be solved. And we cannot credibly promise to solve them in society as a whole if we allow them to run rampant in our own ranks.
Second, we need to exclude groupies. But we also need to exclude the kinds of sociopathic males they gravitate toward. If we stand for the restoration of Western civilization, then we stand for monogamy, not polygamy. We stand for fidelity, not adultery. We stand for healthy relationships, not pathological ones. Which means that playboys, sluts, adulterers, and abusers are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If someone you know is playing the field, using and discarding movement groupies, he is playing with fire. He is putting his own short-term gratification ahead of the health of our cause. That’s a problem, and you need to say something.
Third, we need to drain the swamp where bitterness and wrath breed. We have to do something when people in our movement wrong one another. We need to have some sympathy for victims of injustice, even for victims who are not entirely innocent. And the best form of sympathy is to give them justice, which means there have to be punishments for wrongdoers. People who dox others are evil and deserve no sympathy today. But if they had received sympathy and justice when they were wronged, things may have worked out differently, and we would all be better off.
The Alt Right in America crashed and burned because it was run by a mafia of drunkards, druggies, sociopaths, and buffoons, as well as swarms of remora-like fanboys, sycophants, and enablers. I fear that we are going to be hearing a lot more such stories from Samantha and people like her for years to come. But the movement for white survival will not falter as long as we treat such disasters as opportunities to learn rather than excuses to quit.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
77 comments
It’s obvious people like Samantha were never one of us by the way she misrepresented our points. I would’ve probably taken her a lot more seriously if she maintained at least some of the beliefs she proclaimed to have when she was a ‘member’.
As I suggested in my Antisocial review, Samantha alias Norah was probably neither a groupie nor an opportunist. She was a normal, sound, based person caught in the cold terror of being persecuted and disgraced.
She reached out to Andrew Marantz at The New Yorker because he seemed to be fairly reasonable and empathetic, and there might be a book contract in here!
She missed that bet . . . but take a look at Fast Filly in the sixth!
What I’m saying is that most of us can be bullied into saying or doing anything. When people like Marantz target young women, and groom them into telling stories about giving “Hitler salutes”—there’s a sickness abroad in the land that can’t be cured with clever tweets.
I think she is a groupie. She was sleeping with Eli Mosley, and the scuttlebutt at the time was that she was dragging on more than Richard Spencer’s cigarette while he was still married, and while she was with Mosley — or at least pretending publicly to be with him.
What makes any of you think she was a groupie, opportunist, afraid, bullied, etc. Maybe she’s just one of those people that gets into a relationship expecting another person to bring her happiness and when that doesn’t happen she burns the house down. More than anything, she sounds like an attention whore.
I think she’s a groupie because that is the pattern of her behavior. Never said anything about her being afraid or bullied.
I knew Eli in this era, and of course “Norah” was going to interview me for IE. What we have from Marantz is just twisted, spun, groomed, horseshit that he’s written and put into his book to make it more salacious.
As I pointed out in the review: Marantz’s stuff is not fact-checkable. That’s why the Samantha story never appeared in The New Yorker.
Based on Jason Kessler’s statements, the Hitler saluting stuff was real.
I’ll take a different approach:
This behavior is no different than what I’ve seen in my personal observations of young adults.
Stupid, emotional, abusive, and masochistic behavior, but instead of it being a frat or sorority, it’s a WN group.
This isn’t anything new – sadly. It just shows that we haven’t shed the abnormal behavior we are trying to change. Even among ourselves.
And the men are to blame. Just as the JQ is a problem of White apathy, complicity, or ignorance.
This too shall pass.
Internal drama never ceases to exhaust and kill motivation and cohesion. Surely some of it is intentional. I remember far too many accounts of things like that between reporters, pundits, faux supporters etc. at Trump events in 2016. It would be wise to be quite skeptical with a healthy dose of paranoia given the anonymity of the internet.
If something someone said bothers you perhaps take a step back for a bit. Scorched earth on your own side is not a solution.
I think its well worth noting that the stoking of extreme misogyny by the likes of the Daily Stormer is well within the goals of the enemy, who especially since the Toronto van attack last year have doubled down trying to equate the Alt-Right and the incel “movement”, thus making being Alt-Right into looking like something for pathetic men lacking in social skills and masculinity.
I find it hilarious when Andrew Anglin calls for normalcy and rails against “wignats” like the Traditionalist Worker’s Party and the National Socialist Movement for looking dumb and cringeworthy parading around unironically with swastikas and fake SA uniforms along with tattoos, piercings and beer guts, yet doesn’t see the problem with courting another demographic of cringey losers.
Read the Hunter Wallace’s posts on Anglin. That is really all that needs to be said about him. http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/09/15/affirmative-right-the-history-of-daily-stormer/
He has a few articles about Anglin and Weeve that are enlightening.
No, that is not all one needs to know. Anglin is a mixed bag. But Wallace is attacking him not for what he gets wrong but for what he gets right. Wallace associated with Cantwell, who is a doxer and federal informant unmasked by Anglin and Weev. No good deed goes unpunished by the wignat crew.
What’s the deal with Anglin’s beef with Jayoh De La Rey? The guys at TRS all vouch for him as far as I know.
Just do a search at The Daily Stormer.
Oh, and don’t forget all the glee the Stormer is showing when an otherwise unassuming white woman or little girl is killed by a savage sub-human.
@ Crom Cruach:
“thus making being Alt-Right into looking like something for pathetic men lacking in social skills and masculinity.”
There’s an old internet meme going around for years now that I’m going to appropriate here for WN Movement. This is what everyone thinks of us:
What society thinks I am: (inset picture of marching Nazis and Klansmen)
What my parents think I am: (insert picture of stoners and gang members, only they’re wearing swastika patches)
What I think I am: (insert picture of Aragorn or Jon Snow charging his enemies)
What I really am: (insert picture of super thin or overweight, dork faced young men, sitting at their desktops in dimly lit room, typing with their left hand)
I’ve attended four Amren conferences, two NPI conferences, and several small events/gatherings since my awakening/redpilling in 2012. I can count on two hands the number of young, White men at those events who were married and had kids.
I hate to say it, but the WN Movement is overwhelmingly composed of social outcasts. To most of them, this Movement is the one place where they’ve been able to find friendship and belonging. What does it say about a young man that he has to turn to the most despised, reviled group in the entire world in order to find acceptance? Is it any wonder that White Nationalism has a reputation for being inherently toxic when it naturally attracts social outcasts and Arthur Fleck types?
The media didn’t need the Toronto incident to tie Inceldom to White Nationalism. That connection has always been a natural one. I don’t say that to pile on the Movement. I say that because, while I disagree with the CC writers on several core beliefs (I’m a Classical Liberal who is woke on Race), I’ve come to share their passion for driving losers, haters and other broken individuals out of the Movement entirely. The White Race needs a movement of normal, regular, functioning people. We don’t all need to be married and have kids, but we do need to talk like normies, act like normies, and, without compromising ourselves, think like normies. The big tent has failed once and for all.
“I don’t say that to pile on the Movement.”
Perhaps that is not your intention, but it is the impression one gets. WN does not primarily attract social rejects – its principles are as reasoned as the others of the Founding Fathers.
According to the “groupie” herself:
“People need to understand that…it’s not the kid in Wyoming who grew up with gas station beer and a toothless father who becomes [involved in a hate group].” Samantha said. “It is your mailman, it is your surgeon, it is your doctor, lawyer. It is everyone.”
You will see more social rejects at WN gatherings, because young whites with careers in law, academia, business, etc., and families cannot risk making an appearance. I myself am in academia and I can assure that my life would be ruined, reducing me to the state of a social reject, should I attend such an event. If however you are older, have a family, own a small business, and do not run a risk in attending such events, then you should really go.
I have never posted on CC, but I found your post so disheartening that I subscribed to the site simply to do so. There are many young men and women, who will go forever unrecognized and perhaps only shake hands with a few WNs in their life, because they are doing the yeoman’s work, effecting positive change for whites slowly but surely, in their own way. Don’t forget that!
@Cato Elder:
Samantha also said at the 4:20-4:27 mark of the ABC News video that she “can’t really argue” against the assertion put forward by the Black interviewer that “you’re making it sound like if you’re a member of one of these groups, the qualifications are: Be white, and be a loser.” So while it may be true that the WN Movement doesn’t necessarily attract “losers” in the sense that they are unemployed NEET’s living in their moms basement, even the ones who are employed and perhaps have good jobs are still social outcasts, in the sense that they are viewed as toxic, and that no one normal or serious would want to be friends with them.
I think the way we can square these two circles is this: Samantha apparently ran in Richard Spencer’s clique, and if there’s one thing I know about NPI, it’s that Spencer was trying to attract the patrician crowd. This was always delusional on Spencer’s part since old guard patricians like Madison Grant don’t exist anymore, but that being said, I did meet two rich investment bankers at an NPI event, and another guy who personally knew Peter Thiel, so it makes sense that Samantha would have run into doctors, lawyers, and surgeons during her time in her particular sect of the Movement. Still though, she clearly saw them as losers, and while she herself was probably never one of us, she isn’t wrong to view them that way.
I do need to ask your opinion about my own life experiences, which I’m going to share in response to what you said here:
“There are many young men and women, who will go forever unrecognized and perhaps only shake hands with a few WNs in their life, because they are doing the yeoman’s work.”
I’ve wanted to believe for the last seven years that there indeed normal White people like you working quietly behind the scenes to effect positive change for our race. However, I’ve also spent most of the last seven years in the company of those normal Whites, and never once have I seen any indication that any of them share my beliefs or my convictions, even when I use dog whistles and coded language. WN seems to me to be entirely an internet phenomena that doesn’t exist in the real world outside of Pro-White conferences, meetings, and gatherings.
To be more specific, the Normies I was surrounded by all lived in the suburbs, and the ones I knew personally and became friends with all were from the non-denominational, Evangelical Protestant Church I used to attend before I abandoned Christianity altogether at the end of 2017. I do not like this guy as a writer or as a person, but one thing Greg Hood was correct about is that White Evangelical Christians are basically the only True Believers in racial egalitarianism. Is it possible that my personal experience with these true believers is causing me to assume that all White Normies must be true believers as well?
I wish I could say that I’ve had secret conversations and hush hush talks with normal White people in important positions such as yourself, but the closest I’ve ever come to it is when I heard through the grapevine that this woman from my old Church once told an interracial couple (BM-WF) that if they don’t like the lack of diversity at our church, perhaps they should look for a church in a more diverse neighborhood. Basically, she was telling the interracial couple, “what did you expect?” For whatever its worth, this woman was in her 40s and is married with two well-behaved White kids, so she’s not some old single spinster.
Again though, that’s the closest I’ve come to seeing race realism or a sense of racial identity from Normies. My understanding of them is that, at best, they want nothing to do with WN, and at worst, they view it as pure evil. That, along with my disgust for Loser Nationalism and some important changes in my personal life, is what caused me to back away from movement activism entirely and to stick to just reading CC and two other sites. I would like to know what you think of all this.
In the scope of any real movement or cause 7 years isn’t much. And given the increasing censorship and crack down on “racism” I doubt you’ll see many people willing to risk themselves in public.
“…this woman was in her 40s and is married with two well-behaved White kids…”
I tend to see this as well among older Boomer types because they just don’t care. They’ve lived their life they’ve made their money and they feel entitled to speak however they wish. But among young people whom still have a risky future ahead with their generation being watched with fire and brimstone inquisitors of diversity I don’t think many of them are willing to voice anything in their circles.
I believe a lot of people “in this movement” are like myself; disillusioned college students whom still have that youthful energy but can’t express it and it’s aggravating. Along with the fact that it is our future that doesn’t exist.
The most I’ve ever been open about my views in public is when I was in a business class and for some reason the professor kept talking about racial discrimination and I was dumbfounded as to why she was doing it. Another student a few rows behind me spoke up with some standard points about race and crime and the whole room became awkward as we finally transitioned back to information regarding business communication. After class I chased the guy down shook his hand and we talked for a few minutes. That’s the furthest I’ve gone with it.
I’m not willing to voice my views in public because I don’t want to jeopardize my future. I’m not 40 with kids and a comfortable income, I’m scared to death of saying something wrong to the wrong crowd. Naturally this coupled with everything else can certainly lead people to depression. The person who got me into this “movement” was Millennial Woes. Young white men’s burdens are enough today without having National Review types throwing us to the dogs. I don’t want to be doxxed or stalked like Millennial Woes or Laura Towler or the American equivalents who’ve had the same done to them. But yes, I like many young White men am having trouble adjusting to diversity. Older White men never had to deal with what we are now, and Gen Z will be even worse.
This stonewall basic Conservative ignorance I see time and time again on Counter Currents certainly does the trick to piss me off. It’s the same kind of incomprehension why Conservatives are so unpalatable to so many. If I’ve learned anything from Millennial Woes it’s that every action has a consequence. Normally I’d say don’t you belong on Breitbart or National Review but it’s probably me who doesn’t belong here. Kudos to you Cato for at least understanding what some of us have to deal with.
@DP84:
My experience with Evangelicals has been similar to yours. Particularly rigid in their political beliefs, they often refer to themselves as classical liberals, and I’ve heard them cite Locke so many times that I wonder if he is not preached from the pulpits.
I’ve encountered a handful of people in academia who, if not WNs, are reactionaries of some sort and thus sympathetic. Not too long ago, I met someone at a conference who suggested to me Jean Raspail’s Camp of Saints. These are people who would vote for a WN party, but who do not participate in WN at the moment. I have become very good friends with a few. When we talk over drinks for instance, we typically discuss what work each of us might undertake in our respective domain to advance white interests or to red-pill people, as it were. Rarely do we think on a bigger scale, and if we do, we quickly disabuse ourselves of the possibility of this or that scheme succeeding. I think WN has a future, but it is still early, and we need to lay the groundwork first, and get sympathetic people into the right positions of power. The famous legal scholar Carl Schmitt saw the NSs as losers at first, but soon thereafter wrote papers defending them. Patience is the most difficult, but also most rewarding virtue.
I can assure you that many WN talking points, that would have had no purchase among normies five years ago, are now welcomed in polite conversation. A friend who called Trump revolting in 2015 told me recently that she is worried how her son will fair in a world that “treats white males like shit”. I haven’t had a single poor reaction yet to my thesis that white guilt is the new original sin.
That being said, you don’t have to be a WN to be pro-white and pro-tradition. You might have to abandon your dreams of living in an idyllic Tocqueville-Charles Murry classical liberal society, and pursue some other avenue to securing your values. This is what I do. Remember too, if you are ever feeling that things are hopeless, a little stoic “that which does not depend on me does not concern me” does not hurt.
Hopefully this helps.
Why should “normal” people be interested at this point? Things are still going relatively okay for them. And most of them believe in their dear little pea pickin’ hearts that there will never be any ruinous, catastrophic changes in our country, culture or society, at least nothing that will affect them negatively.
As if all those successful, neat ‘n’ tidy folks are just going to come flocking to us. Just keep your pants on. What matters is what people do when this morally gone-up-in-smoke country goes for the high jump big-time.
In any case, it bothers me not one bit that this crusade apparently has, and is seen by those precious Normies to have, its share of NEETs and socalled losers. Sure beats the characters described in Kerry Bolton’s The Psychotic Left hands down.
DP84:
It sounds as if being what you describe as a “Classical liberal race realist” is too value-divergent from White Nationalism for you to be adjacent to or allied with, much less a part of, the White Nationalist movement.
This obviously affects how we should weigh your critique.
Dissident movements by definition attract those who are not happy with or within the current social order. It’s a Faustian issue we’re always going to face.
That said, we’re seeking to lead normies, not follow them. We’re not going to save our people by being trapped inside an Overton frame defined by modern largely cucked Fox evangelicals and CNN neo-liberals.
As Mark Collett recently noted at Scandza and in recent pods, we’re having increasing success in weeding out the hobgoblins and bringing in healthy people, includng many women. I think he has a more informed perspective on the state of our movement than someone who sounds like a better fit for the shallow leftward side of the “Intellectual Dark Web” than the deeper waters in which we swim.
@Steven JW
“It’s the same kind of incomprehension why Conservatives are so unpalatable to so many.”
I speak only for myself here, but what makes conservatives unpalatable is two fold: 1. With the exception of Tucker Carlson, none of them stick up for their principles. They’re all pussy boys like David French and Eric Erickson. 2. Conservatives are truly on the wrong side of history when it comes to social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and above all, premarital sex. I’m going to expound a bit on this second point:
I was born in 1989, which means I grew up in the 90s and came of age in the early 00s. I was there when Republican politicians were in the death grip of conservative Christians and their sexual/moral puritanism. It remains the most cringeworthy thing I’ve ever seen in my life. Robert Hampton nailed it in his recent article on CC about being a secular movement: We should not be lecturing others on personal sexual standards. That’s pretty much the No.1 thing that would drive any sane young White man or woman away from White Nationalism, and rightfully so.
“Normally I’d say don’t you belong on Breitbart or National Review but it’s probably me who doesn’t belong here. Kudos to you Cato for at least understanding what some of us have to deal with.
The reason why I don’t belong on those sites is because the writers and commentators are in unanimous agreement that they don’t need to conserve the White Race in order to conserve the values and principles they hold dear. In their arrogance and delusion, they’ve convinced themselves that conservative values and policies will survive and thrive in a non-white America. I myself came to the opposite conclusion back when I was a conservative-libertarian hybrid like Mike Enoch: In order for my own values, principles, and policies to triumph, and in order for the Left/Radicalism to be crushed, the White Race needs to be conserved.
Thus it was that I abandoned conservatism and have considered myself a White Nationalist ever since. But, as I will explain in another comment, my understanding of what WN is differs greatly from commenters like yourself who incorrectly conflate it with other philosophies, most notably Traditionalism and Populism. What I will say for now is this: There’s no reason why a person can’t be a Conservative (Classical Liberal) and Pro-White at the same time. Classical Liberalism itself can only survive within a White society.
@Exile:
“It sounds as if being what you describe as a “Classical liberal race realist” is too value-divergent from White Nationalism for you to be adjacent to or allied with, much less a part of, the White Nationalist movement.”
Only if your values are steeped in Traditionalism and/or the resentful form of Populism that the Left is so known for.
White Nationalism, boiled down to its basic premise, is this: The White Race is under attack, and we as White people have the right and the duty to protect ourselves and defend ourselves. I went looking for Pro-White websites in the first place because I saw during the course of 2011 that vicious anti-white critiques were rising. My alarm wasn’t raised when the Left was smearing the Tea Party as racist in 2009 and 2010 because I assumed they were just running interference for Barack Obama and the Democrats, but the nature of these anti-white critiques was different. It ripened my mind for White Nationalism.
Basically, everything that Morris V. de Camp described in his book review of “The Madness of the Awokened Crowds” is exactly what I saw happening: The Left, specifically the Socialists and Communists, had completely failed to convince most of the White Race of the validity of their ideas using economic arguments and appeals to Class Identity.
So, over the course of several decades, they shifted their rhetorical strategy. The anti-white attacks that so alarmed me were part of a larger strategy known as Cultural Marxism, in which Whites are the “oppressors” that must be overthrown and destroyed, while non-whites and other minorities within the White Race are the “oppressed” that must rise up and take over society. For years, the Left denied that it was pushing Socialism, but as we can see in this Politico article from August 2018, they have pulled off their “Predator” mask and have shown their true face:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626
Populism is fine if it’s the Trumpist variety. I think we can all agree on that. BUT, populism itself is by no means the same thing as White Nationalism, even if the effects of certain populist policies are to the benefit of White people. Populism in its economic leftist form is something that, at best, belongs in Europe and not America, and at worst, is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing that only benefits (((the elites))).
I saw for myself from 2009-2011 that a totalitarian impulse fundamentally drives the Left, and when I discovered what drives that impulse – anti-white hatred – you can see why I get a little suspicious of populism qua populism.
Now then, about Traditionalism:
I wasn’t converted by anyone coming to me. I instead went looking for answers and found them. Specifically, my attitude was, “what if those racists and segregationists were right all along?” The first website I went to, which is also the one that redpilled me, was “The Political Cesspool,” run by James Edwards.
Within a month of reading that website, he posted two articles that were eureka moments for me: 1. An article from a rabbi in which he brags about how his people control the media. 2. An article from an old Stormfront link which told the other side of the story about Martin Luther King Jr, and how he was a plagiarist, a filthy deviant, and a puppet of the worst form of Leftist ideology.
This mentality of, “if I was lied to about X, then what else was I lied to about?” has its merits, but unfortunately, it’s a double-edged sword. It can easily transform into, “if I was lied to about X, then I was also lied to about Y,” which leads to the logical assumption that “Y must be correct.” I think that’s how we get to conspiracy theories like Chemtrails, the Moon Landing being fake, 9/11 being an inside job, etc.
Or, in this case, we get the false assumption that because Traditional ways of living and Traditional morals have been abandoned by the world, then surely those ways and morals must have been correct all along.
WRONG.
The fact that we were lied to about Race does not mean we were lied to about other issues like sexual morality or economics. I reject this mentality that we’re being lied to about everything, which is a sure fire way to become insane and start mindlessly assuming that everything about our world must be run the opposite way of how its being run right now. Hence, the conflation of White Nationalism with Traditionalism.
You’re not wading in any deep waters if your NPC like assumptions are: Progress bad. Women bad. Sexuality bad. Technology bad. Businesses bad. Movies bad. Pop music bad. Modern food bad. Rich people bad. Normies bad.
Perhaps Mark Collett is right that some regular folks are buying into the brand of WN that you’re selling, but if my assumptions are correct, then all you’re really doing is selling them bittnerness, resentment, and a hopelessly reactionary mindset. The current social order doesn’t need to be destroyed unless you’re more like Arthur Fleck and less like Thomas Wayne, in which case, we are enemies.
The social order that I grew up in during the 90s, though flawed, was superior and preferable to what I would have had if I grew up in most other previous eras. I’m not in the business of destroying the existing order, as I consider it, for the most part, to be to the benefit of the White Race, not to the detriment. It is the Left that wants to destroy what I had when I was growing up, and they are currently succeeding at doing that.
My values are most certainly not opposed to the conservation of the White Race, but they are indeed opposed to Traditionalism, and you know what? Expect more Samantha’s to walk away from it even when you convert them at first. Most of the people you are trying to save don’t want to to return to the old ways or the old morals, of that I am very confident.
BUT, as the anti-white rhetoric increases, and as policies inevitably start to manifest that rhetoric, I predict there will be millions of White people who will wake up and attempt to save themselves, and it is our job as WN’s to push them in that direction so that we can save ourselves as soon as possible. So far, we are instead attracting bitter malcontents who have lost under the existing system and want to watch it burn as opposed to conserving it so that White people as a whole may thrive.
See the difference?
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@Exile:
“It sounds as if being what you describe as a “Classical liberal race realist” is too value-divergent from White Nationalism for you to be adjacent to or allied with, much less a part of, the White Nationalist movement.”
Only if your values are steeped in Traditionalism and/or the resentful form of Populism that the Left is so known for.
White Nationalism, boiled down to its basic premise, is this: The White Race is under attack, and we as White people have the right and the duty to protect ourselves and defend ourselves. I went looking for Pro-White websites in the first place because I saw during the course of 2011 that vicious anti-white critiques were rising. My alarm wasn’t raised when the Left was smearing the Tea Party as racist in 2009 and 2010 because I assumed they were just running interference for Barack Obama and the Democrats, but the nature of these anti-white critiques was different. It ripened my mind for White Nationalism.
Basically, everything that Morris V. de Camp described in his book review of “The Madness of the Awokened Crowds” is exactly what I saw happening: The Left, specifically the Socialists and Communists, had completely failed to convince most of the White Race of the validity of their ideas using economic arguments and appeals to Class Identity.
So, over the course of several decades, they shifted their rhetorical strategy. The anti-white attacks that so alarmed me were part of a larger strategy known as Cultural Marxism, in which Whites are the “oppressors” that must be overthrown and destroyed, while non-whites and other minorities within the White Race are the “oppressed” that must rise up and take over society. For years, the Left denied that it was pushing Socialism, but as we can see in this Politico article from August 2018, they have pulled off their “Predator” mask and have shown their true face:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626
Populism is fine if it’s the Trumpist variety. I think we can all agree on that. BUT, populism itself is by no means the same thing as White Nationalism, even if the effects of certain populist policies are to the benefit of White people. Populism in its economic leftist form is something that, at best, belongs in Europe and not America, and at worst, is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing that only benefits (((the elites))).
I saw for myself from 2009-2011 that a totalitarian impulse fundamentally drives the Left, and when I discovered what drives that impulse – anti-white hatred – you can see why I get a little suspicious of populism qua populism.
Now then, about Traditionalism:
I wasn’t converted by anyone coming to me. I instead went looking for answers and found them. Specifically, my attitude was, “what if those racists and segregationists were right all along?” The first website I went to, which is also the one that redpilled me, was “The Political Cesspool,” run by James Edwards.
Within a month of reading that website, he posted two articles that were eureka moments for me: 1. An article from a rabbi in which he brags about how his people control the media. 2. An article from an old Stormfront link which told the other side of the story about Martin Luther King Jr, and how he was a plagiarist, a filthy deviant, and a puppet of the worst form of Leftist ideology.
This mentality of, “if I was lied to about X, then what else was I lied to about?” has its merits, but unfortunately, it’s a double-edged sword. It can easily transform into, “if I was lied to about X, then I was also lied to about Y,” which leads to the logical assumption that “Y must be correct.” I think that’s how we get to conspiracy theories like Chemtrails, the Moon Landing being fake, 9/11 being an inside job, etc.
Or, in this case, we get the false assumption that because Traditional ways of living and Traditional morals have been abandoned by the world, then surely those ways and morals must have been correct all along.
WRONG.
The fact that we were lied to about Race does not mean we were lied to about other issues like sexual morality or economics. I reject this mentality that we’re being lied to about everything, which is a sure fire way to become insane and start mindlessly assuming that everything about our world must be run the opposite way of how its being run right now. Hence, the conflation of White Nationalism with Traditionalism.
You’re not wading in any deep waters if your NPC like assumptions are: Progress bad. Women bad. Sexuality bad. Technology bad. Businesses bad. Movies bad. Pop music bad. Modern food bad. Rich people bad. Normies bad.
Perhaps Mark Collett is right that some regular folks are buying into the brand of WN that you’re selling, but if my assumptions are correct, then all you’re really doing is selling them bittnerness, resentment, and a hopelessly reactionary mindset. The current social order doesn’t need to be destroyed unless you’re more like Arthur Fleck and less like Thomas Wayne, in which case, we are enemies.
The social order that I grew up in during the 90s, though flawed, was superior and preferable to what I would have had if I grew up in most other previous eras. I’m not in the business of destroying the existing order, as I consider it, for the most part, to be to the benefit of the White Race, not to the detriment. It is the Left that wants to destroy what I had when I was growing up, and they are currently succeeding at doing that.
My values are most certainly not opposed to the conservation of the White Race, but they are indeed opposed to Traditionalism, and you know what? Expect more Samantha’s to walk away from it even when you convert them at first. Most of the people you are trying to save don’t want to to return to the old ways or the old morals, of that I am very confident.
BUT, as the anti-white rhetoric increases, and as policies inevitably start to manifest that rhetoric, I predict there will be millions of White people who will wake up and attempt to save themselves, and it is our job as WN’s to push them in that direction so that we can save ourselves as soon as possible. So far, we are instead attracting bitter malcontents who have lost under the existing system and want to watch it burn as opposed to conserving it so that White people as a whole may thrive.
See the difference?
I’m curious, if the anti-white hatred stopped but demographics would remain the same, would that be sufficient in your view?
@Steven JW:
If the anti-white hatred stopped but the demographics remained the same, that would only be sufficient in my view if non-whites acted like us, talked like us, and thought like us. But unfortunately, that’s not the case. The sentiments, attitudes, and inner character of non-whites is foreign and alien to Whites. As Rudyard Kipling put it:
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
I grew up in a conservative suburban town that was 95% White. I want America to look and feel like that.
I think where we might differ is that I don’t see saving the White Race as an end, I see it as a means to an end, and my true end goal is conserving my way of life. I want to live in a country that I recognize as mine. That country doesn’t have to be America, it can be the White Ethnostate/Imperium. The bottom line is that to get what I want, Whites need to be conserved.
Furthermore, I myself am racially-biologically White. Or in any case, that’s what I’m recognized as. Therefore, saving the White Race is also about making the world safe for people like me. I’ve done nothing to harm other races, and I don’t buy the monstrous lies and slanders against my race that are spewed in order to justify our extermination.
So yeah, there’s definitely some selfishness involved, but there’s also altruism.
What Cato Elder says about why you might not see certain types of people at meetings is correct.
Thanks for commenting that.
I do think our movement has the potential to become a haven for outcasts, but likewise I think its all of our duty to internally police to keep out detrimental people and to help fellow current members steer clear of going down detrimental paths.
Before the Alt-Right or White Nationalism 2.0 or whatever you want to call it started, the tattood, boots and braces skinhead image a la Romper Stomper or American History X or the hooded redneck Klansman was largely synonymous with White Nationalism in the public consciousness. Over the course of the 2010’s, the Alt-Right quite successfully managed to dispel that image, and the perception that the movement’s ranks consist mainly of rednecks and thugs. Sure, groups like the NSM were still there, but the new online culture of the Alt-Right managed to marginalize them. The discourse surrounding these types of people was almost identical to that about incels, namely that this movement inherently attracts people from the fringes etc. and similarly, it was capitalised upon by the media to make White Nationalism look unattractive to socially functional white people. Yet we still managed to dispel it.
Now incels and the image of the “frustrated white male terrorist” have pretty much taken up the mantel of the skinheads and rednecks as the go-to strawman of our movement to both ridicule and fearmonger, for example the terrible looking movie “Cuck”, or the hysteria surrounding Joker. This negative image is arguably even worse than the old one, given how its typically portrayed in media. Despite how they usually are in real life, Nazi skinheads were often given a certain tough dangerous and rebellious elan by the media they featured in. The image of the basement dwelling loser whose politics and rage stem from male impotence is far, far less flattering.
It’s not hard to see how incels came into contact with our milieu, they share a lot of the same online spaces and broadly dislike modern, progressive society. But I recall that there was a time, around when I first became aware of incels, that there still existed a gulf between our community and theirs. In our circles, you would not have admitted to being a frustrated virgin into your twenties without fear of ridicule or being likened to Chris-Chan. In incel spaces, from what I gather, the concept of “Just be White” was a thing, wherein Indian and Asian incels (who still make up a significant portion of that community), i.e to date hot girls all you needed to be was white, a far cry from the image of incels as white men who think blacks are getting all the white girls or whatever. The media tried to some extent to draw a connection between Elliot Rodger and white nationalism because of his racist rhetoric, but possibly because of the fact he was half-Jewish half-Asian, it failed to gather much steam. In the meanwhile, Andrew Anglin and his entourage began stirring shit with other members of the Alt-Right over the inclusion of women, which progressed to the “White Sharia” forced meme, and then on to outright acceptance of incels, right about the same time as the aftermath of the Toronto incident. Considering this seemed to the watershed of widespread identification of inceldom with the Alt-Right (or whatever was left of it) and a massive uptick in attention towards the incel phenomenon generally, this could not possibly be more convenient for our enemies. The last thing we want to do is make our internal culture welcoming to incels and their concerns, and we can do it in the same way we did to negative 1.0 types.
To do this. Do we accept sex-realism? Or should this instead be an underlying assumption? DP84 makes a good point, and it seems to be underlined by the anti-manosphere tendency elsewhere here: misogyny might alienate normal folks, and might also be unhelpful for white people in general.
Should we be indifferent to sex as we are to religion?
“What society thinks I am: (inset picture of marching Nazis and Klansmen)
What my parents think I am: (insert picture of stoners and gang members, only they’re wearing swastika patches)
What I think I am: (insert picture of Aragorn or Jon Snow charging his enemies)”
Those kind of memes are akin to what the right has been calling the left for decades. A bunch of pasty losers. True or not it’s irrelevant because in the end the Left has had all their ideologies accepted by the right over time…time and time again. The outcasts in the past were always the antisocial squirrely Jewish men picked on by the ‘chad’. In time the Chad has accepted every fucking thing that squirrely merchant has said though.
To be so affected by name-calling shows someone’s actual dedication or lack of it.
Create the trend stop adhering to it.
The Alt Right in America crashed and burned because it was run by a mafia of drunkards, druggies, sociopaths, and buffoons, as well as swarms of remora-like fanboys, sycophants, and enablers.
So, I had to look up “remora”. Here is a bit of info from wikipedia:
“Although it was initially believed that remoras fed off particulate matter from the host’s meals, this has been shown to be false; in reality, their diets are composed primarily of host feces.”
And now you know… the rest of the story.
Whenever you see a sycophant like Evan McClaren or Chris Dulny, I want you to think of a tiny fish that clings desperately to a big fish for the ride — as well as for the privilege of eating its shit.
I don’t know anything about Samantha or even Identity Europa but it just seems to me that white people in general are too worried about playing by the rules; oh my someone might get offended.
I think you made a very good point about always playing by the rules. If the rules are made to guarantee that one fails when they don’t follow them, then what, etc. It’s like U.S. border security. There isn’t the slightest doubt in my mind that it’s set up to fail..lol
This Samantha is one woman out of millions. I don’t understand the concern? In a movement as large as the alt-right isn’t things like this expected to happen. BTW the alt right didn’t crash and burn because of anything it did. This is the essence of victim blaming.
There aren’t millions of people in the movement.
And the Alt Right did crash and burn because of bad decisions made by bad leaders.
If you believe that a substantial portion of modern white women can be “red-pilled” and join our cause, you are severely deluded. Women follow the crowd, and the crowd is against us. Only when fascist dictators came to power did women get in line out of necessity. If it’s not a necessity, they will simply tow the line of the predominant cultural narrative being set by our enemies. Trying to win over white women to white nationalism is about as futile as trying to win over jews or blacks to it. It is a wasted effort and energy better placed elsewhere, such as in obtaining political power.
If you believe that a substantial portion of modern white women can be “red-pilled” and join our cause, you are severely deluded. Women follow the crowd, and the crowd is against us.
In many European countries a substantial portion of women already support national populist parties, even when these are branded as “far-right” by the MSM. Some of these parties also have female leaders.
In the same way a substantial portion of women will follow white nationalist movements if they find that they are in line with their interests.
It would be nice if someone would assemble a study of the percentage of female votes going to National Populist parties across Europe.
“Women follow the crowd, and the crowd is against us.”
As opposed to most white men, I presume who are independent Kantian thinkers.
Why is it that most manosphere cretins in the movement come off as stupider, shallower, and a lot more bitter than positively any woman I’ve seen around? Why is it that they are the most easily discernible group within our ranks who is prone to bitching, whining and making unreasonable demands from the rest of us? I’ve lost track of how many times I heard one of these pieces of troglodyte shit demand we exclude women from this and that group but honestly never witnessed a woman actually behaving like these less-than-worthless parrots keep on yammering that they do. I don’t doubt there are enough women who fit their extremely narrow description, and maybe a majority of women around them are like that. Actually, I’m pretty certain that’s the case, but you know why that is? Because shitty, assholeish people tend to be around others like themselves. The fact that manosphere types tend to hold lowly jobs despite being part of an ostensibly middle class movement is highly significant here. The fact that they make no distinction of class and educational level about women and in general is equally so. They are the bottom of the social barrel and manosphere cant might very well be accurate when it comes to hair dressers and housewives. After all, Roisy & co were all writing for an audience, and they knew these to be 90 to 100 IQ, poorly educated mediocrities and sub-mediocrities towards whom a 120 IQ female wouldn’t even glance — so how the hell are these hapless halfwits supposed to know that there are quite a few decent women out there and the crap they swallow whole about “all women” barely applies to a plurality of the gender?
The entire female sex is indicted because some women send love letters to serial killers.
The entire male sex is somehow not indicted because of the serial killers, however.
I’d have to disagree with the comments regarding the manosphere. For me personnally the breaking of the Narrative was provided originally by game and the PUAs and the success it provided morally dubious or not. This opened up other chinks within the Wall of propaganda’s armour. Other horizons became visible and idea’s previously considered unthinkable ( race realism ) become plausible. Roissy himself started that journey as a debonair rake turning into an explicit WN. It’s easy to detract from Game but ultimatley it works. I was in a pretty bleak place for a while but stubborness lead me to game, which lead me to noticing, and truth is only uncomfortable temporarily. I’d class myself as fairly normal middle class late 30’s guy happily married with kids, not unlike the iq 100 types disparaged above. High Ideals and morals have their place but they have to be able to engage with uncomfortable reality if they are to have a use.
Agreed. The manosphere was the gateway for many.
“Manosphere”, name calling, bitching about people bitching… Good god calm down dont take it so personally….
“Why is it that most manosphere cretins in the movement come off as stupider, shallower, and a lot more bitter than positively any woman I’ve seen around? ”
Because YOU are a feminist, it’s really that simple. Then again Kantian thinkers aren’t prone to simplicity, regardless of their sex, aren’t they ?
Your entire peroration wreaks of dyed-in-the-wool feminism.
As Shane, Josh and Orloff note, the tone of this comment unintentionally states a case for banning women. You reacted with similar vitriol to my comment about women in leadership roles in a previous thread.
White Nationalism is hostile territory for feminist entryism and man-hating, and I hope it remains so. If you find some like-minded souls & start a pro-White Amazon thing, perhaps we can be chilly allies, but having a seat at this table calls for more respect than you apparently have for the men you should at least respect as peers.
As long as WN remains the sort of hostile territory you crow about, it will attract rather than repel drama queen narcissists and masochistic groupies, not repel them. It will simply repel normal sensible women.
Greg, are you saying that you want White Nationalism to be open to feminist entryism and the kind of anti-male rhetoric she’s engaging in?
Only male masochists and drama king narcissists stay for long in a movement dominated by feminists – see the DSA.
Clearly a good number of us don’t share your reflexively anti-manosphere sentiments and don’t care to have Three’s sharp rhetorical elbows and stompy boots slicing into our ribs and bruising our backs as she strahng wahmen’s her way up the White Nationalist ladder.
I think you may be living in a paranoid fantasy world, to be perfectly frank.
You must be a woman, throwing insults at awake men who don’t buy the fairy tale that females are anything but mindless robots who follow anything that suits their temporary interests in society.
Only a small percentage of women can actually think for themselves. The rest are just parrots of the established set of ideas that society tells them is correct.
And your claim that the majority of white women vote for “populist” parties is a laughable hoax. Prove it.
If only white women voted, I’d venture to say that not a single nationalist party would come to power ever again.
The only language that women understand is brute force.
Only a small percentage of women can actually think for themselves. The rest are just parrots of the established set of ideas that society tells them is correct.
Replace the word “women” with “men,” and the statement still stands.
The only language that women understand is brute force.
Again, the statement could apply equally well to men, and perhaps even more so, since force is hard-wired into us on a fundamental level. But it is probably meant to contrast with the ability to rise above the world of brute force. If so, it is curious that a gender intended for nurturing should only have an understanding of brute force. And I have a hard time believing that all the European myths, novels, and poetry that feature love as the theme were solely intended for “in-house” consumption by men, women of course being unable to understand anything but brute force.
I agree with Greg that an outright ban on women is both impossible and self-defeating. The headline “Dissident Right Bans Women” would be the best news anti-Whites have seen since Charlottesville.
Single women who become attached to the movement primarily through their attachment to a man may require more vetting and time to prove their own commitment, but good women will follow the lead of a good man, so that’s not a 100% thing. It’s always a judgment call.
On the other hand, a woman with White children to protect is likely more reliable and committed on average than a single man.
Roles matter as well. I’m on record previously here stating that with some rare exceptions ala Coulter, leadership is a male thing while women are better in support roles than many men are. More than one woman I’ve heard speak in Our Thing have acknowledged that they became leading activists for lack of men stepping up, and would prefer a supporting role.
A similar approach is discussed in the early portion of this podcast from John Q. Publicus (recently published on Occidental Observer & Unz) regarding “opsec” and the role of women. JQP regularly features women on his pods & is definitely not on board with MGTOW or Anglin-creepiness. For an idea of where I’m coming from I recommend listening to this as well as a number of the women on the show including Laura Towler (Episode 56) and Pikachu (several including 57).
https://www.spreaker.com/user/johnqpublius/cocktailhour23_1
Women should have their own organizations within the movement. There should be no fraternization between the sexes until the movement goal is achieved. If we are in a war, and we obviously are, then we must behave the way an effective military behaves. There should be discipline, clear leadership, and a willingness to sacrifice. We know that mixing the sexes together will lead to relationships, breakups, and attempts at revenge. It is pointless to blame people when these things happen. The key thing is to arrange things so that they cannot happen.
Well, if there is no proper organization, and there isn’t one, you can’t separate nobody from nobody, war or no war.
I guess Greg Johnson is right about the men in the movement just living up to the ideals of WN and leaving their pants on.
After all you might need a based woman, but no female activist for procreation.
Yes, I agree – sociopaths are the problem. But remember any woman who joins a dissident right movement is fighting against a system which privileges and rewards her sex. Logically therefore, sociopathic women should be more likely to renounce us than sociopathic men.
This is true. But male sociopaths like Christian Piccolini can also get golden parachutes out of the movement.
The “Islam is right about women” meme is a troll on liberals, and it’s a very good one. It’s bound to make them angry, in a way they can’t excuse, without revealing the incoherence of their stances on women and Islam. If Islam was as gynecocratic as they are, they’d simply agree. But, everyone knows it’s not. They know it’s a troll on them, but they can’t help but fall for it. It’s concise and brilliant. As far as people who actually suggest things like “white sharia”, they’re obviously being stupid. Gynecocracy makes civilizations inviable, but Islam makes women into chattel slaves. Neither is conducive to the wellbeing of white people.
A meme that needs a paragraph to explain its meaning . . . is a lousy meme.
Well, this meme actually doesn’t need explanation to the target audience: it is not directed at normies and is not there to advertise for WN. It simply disturbs the leftist coalition and might get onlooking normies to wonder what kind of freaks run their country, when feminists grapple with explaining how Islam proper and criticism of Islam are wrong at the same time.
And it is not in any way a statement of WN. Just a mockery of the enemy.
Again, if you need to explain who the target audience is and what it really means, it is a bad meme.
I’m not convinced that most good memes can be or need to be easily condensed. But even if that were true, I can explain the ‘Islam is Right about Women’ meme rather simply: leftist cognitive dissonance.
Now explain it to everyone who sees it, so there are no misunderstandings.
I don’t see why we care about what the “normies” think of us. The basic position of White Nationalism is that the society we live in now is a “loser society” for white people. Normies aren’t going to come over to our side because they like us, they’re going to do it because we are right about the increasingly negative situation for whites in our country. Our role as a movement is to articulate what is wrong with the current system and envision a new one that will work for white people. It’s idea based, not personality based.
The problem I see here is that people are complaining that attractive successful people under the current system are not coming over to our side. Why would they? The system as it is now is still comfortable for them. But it won’t be for long — certainly not for their children an grandchildren.
I have no problem with “losers in their mama’s basement” being in our movement. These are the white people who, in addition to whatever faults they might or might not have, have been systematically discriminated against as whites (particularly as white males) and systematically demoralized and even made mentally ill by the sick anti-white indoctrination that they have received from the schools and the media.
If we can’t embrace and help these people — welcoming them while recognizing that the abuse they have suffered will have affected their personalities and character, then what are we here for? I know what I’m here for — to defend myself and my fellow white people, especially my fellow white males who have suffered the double whammy of being demonized and discriminated against both as whites and as males.
I don’t share your assumption that the existing system must be destroyed in order for the White Race to be saved. In fact, I think the system we have, though in need of changes – such as abolition of the 1965 immigration act, not to mention a new type of people running institutions like the Federal Reserve – is fundamentally a sound system.
Sure, it has its losers, but so does every system. Ours is a meritocracy in theory if not in practice, and in the cases where it’s not one in practice, it should be made to be one. That doesn’t require destruction of the system, it simply requires the system living up to its promise and ideal that “The Best” shall be in charge of things. I don’t see how that doesn’t directly benefit our race.
There will always be turncoats. Some are induced by money, others by the transitory media attention and social credit that flow from ‘rejecting hate’. Yet others simply have a score to settle.
Discipline is essential to minimise the damage caused by such persons: the movement could learn from the Leninists in this regard
If we eschew drama and endeavour to be high-minded we will not attract narcissists and misfits and we will be able to connect with the masses of ordinary white people struggling with real-life issues. Let us leave exhibitionism, self-flagellation and lunacy to our enemies.
This woman clearly has a narcissistic drama queen side. She wasn’t doxed. She had money. She could have just ghosted people and gone back to normie life. She did not have to talk to Marantz or seek other press coverage.
‘Normies’ don’t create sweeping trends, they adopt them after it becomes socially acceptable. If you want to cater to normies be the modern woke Conservative who loves to say he’s race blind, or be the Liberal who sees race only if it isn’t white. They’ve already adopted the sweeping trends.
I assume the goal is to create the trend, not dumb it down enough that normies can hop onto it sooner. They’ll get there eventually. Conservatives are late blooming Liberals and I believe you want to be ahead of Liberals.
What great thinker in history wasn’t seen as some kind of eccentric outcast at some point?
Women will be welcomed and honored in the movement when they take seriously their roles as respectful daughters, faithful wives, dignified mothers, and wise matrons. I assume male hostility is caused by the lack of these feminine roles in a man’s life. And I am not upset or offended by male hostility. How can it be otherwise? Men react to women. Ladies, know your place, in the home and on the farm, not in the office or at the ballot box.
Ladies, know your place, in the home and on the farm, not in the office or at the ballot box.
Well, apparently at one time some farm women were treated worse than any slave, worked like animals, raised children, and then the old man dumped them for a newer ‘n’ better model. And so they were left with $0 and the clothes on their back when the husbands could still get away with it, dragging their children with them.
We are not going back to that. We may be dependent on men to do the heavy lifting and maintaining a civilization and things may have swung over to the other extreme, but by God, we will not go back. Everybody, men and women, has to learn how to behave without laws.
This is the most uplifting view of women I have seen in many a year. These ideals once ruled, and they are the basis of what we are attempting to recover and build upon. And this is why White Nationalism must reach out to women, those that are intelligent enough to listen, at any rate. WN cannot run a one-legged race of men only.
Groupies? There are groupies???
First, we really need to dispel the atmosphere of misogyny in the movement, which attracts damaged people of both sexes. Race realism–yes. Race hate–no. Sex realism–yes. Hatred between the sexes–no.
Sounds good, but where shall we draw the line between misogyny/misandry and sex realism? While many sex-realists wouldn’t hesitate to call Islam a misogynist religion, others believe that “Islam is right about women.” Are they necessarily misogynists?
Women thrive on drama, it allows them to weaponize emotion and push an agenda. Starve them of emotion, and they have nothing to fight with. A woman starved of emotion will become desperate to sustain her psychological onslaught. As such, she will attempt to pry it from the dead, exaggerating observations and manufacturing issues in order to sustain the indignance necessary to maintain her psychological assault.
Games people play
Night or day they’re just not matchin’
What they should do
Keeps me feelin’ blue
Been down too long
Right, wrong, they just can’t stop it
Spendin’ all day
Thinking just of you
The question shouldn’t be, “Should we ban women?” It should be, “Should we ban defective people?”
Next… ban from what exactly?
You can only “ban” people from an organization or event you have control over- not a website or network of random grassroots organizations.
Overall, the best thing you can do is live your life above reproach. In the internet age, nothing is done in secret. We’ll all have to answer to someone eventually whether it be god, your attorney, or the IRS.
So like… “be excellent to each other” n stuff. ;D
The problem is not what to do with all the female aspirants anyhow. I dont blame them, considering the comments abow. Hopefully some day the manosphere types will reflect on feminisms impact on their own behaviour.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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
Lost your password?Edit your comment