940 words
Editor’s Note:
It gives me great pleasure to introduce Counter-Currents’ new “advice column”: Ask A. Wyatt Nationalist. The name, of course is an affectionate tribute to cartoonist A. Wyatt Mann, who approved the idea.
As part of our new Commission an Article feature, A. Wyatt Nationalist will give a White Nationalist perspective on your questions for a donation of $100 or more. New Paywall subscribers can also commission one article per year. Just send in your questions to [email protected].
A. Wyatt Nationalist can be any Counter-Currents writer, depending on your question and which writers are available. Our first question comes from Alexandra O. and is answered by Cyan Quinn.
Greg Johnson
Editor-in-Chief
Dear A. Wyatt Nationalist,
I’m not at all sure how many women consider themselves White Nationalists, and you don’t have to reveal the numbers if you choose not to, but I’m wondering how we can attract more women? It seems to me that most of the posts and verbal discussions are by men, and many of the topics are over my head at times, reflecting a masculine perspective.
I’m especially interested in how women can have an income and have children at the same time. How can we convince women that college and career can be ‘put off” until their early 40’s, after they have had kids? I’m especially thinking of women who have work-at-home income, which allows them to stay home and homeschool their kids.
The other problem with women and WN is that we are so conflated in the press with White Supremacy, which no right-thinking woman would want to be associated with. How can we make known our ideology and how it differs greatly from ‘supremacists,’ and how can we help women fight many of the problems they are seeing with school curricula for their children, and other current social problems affecting children?
Sincerely,
Alexandra O.
Dear Alexandra,
I recently discovered actually that around 34% of our readers are women! Kathryn S. wrote about this in “Perilously Fair: Ladies of the Lake.”
At our event with Dr. Roger Pearson, I was pulled aside by a young man who asked me, “Why Counter-Currents over AmRen or VDARE?” For me, and I think this also appeals to other women, Counter-Currents claims all of western culture as our own including the arts and literature and places an emphasis on appreciating this culture through literary reviews like this one, histories like Kathryn S.’s “A Tale of Two Fires & the Fall of Old Rome” or Alex Graham’s “Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence,” and birthday commemorations of Right Wing figures like William Butler Yeats and Filippo Marinetti. (Do you need an excuse to throw an Italian Futurist New Year’s Party?)
Also, Greg Johnson is unique among new right thought leaders in that he is the only one who I’ve heard actually recommend a practical policy proposal to encourage high IQ young women to have families while they’re young. Although he hasn’t written about this yet, in an “undercover” interview he gave at the London Forum in 2017, he proposed that women earn one year of free college for every child they raise in the home until age 6.
I remember when I heard this, I had recently abandoned my own pre-med major in favor of having a family before 30. I think this is a practical pro-natalist policy proposal, and I admire Greg Johnson for his consideration and appreciation of women and their challenges in modern society.
Back in 2017, I briefly joined a Nationalist women’s group that met in person and was part of a larger men’s group. After Charlottesville, the men decided to ban the women from discussing politics in our chat as well as from any discussion on the direction of the group or organizing strategy. This was very weird to me since women historically have always played a large role in social and volunteer organizing. So I quickly realized this was not the environment for me.
Women have always had an aspirational role as primary educators of their children, social organizers and promoters of virtue in society. For example, women are the primary on-the-ground organizers against CRT in schools. Phyllis Schlafly managed to have six children and an outstanding political career. Michelle Malkin is another example of someone who manages to balance homeschooling, social organizing, and journalism. And we can’t forget these Women of the far Right.
We desperately need to solve the immigration issue which would improve the labor prospects for young men who want to support a wife and family but can’t generate the income necessary. (Not to mention the demographic bit!) The first step is to impose an immigration moratorium and mandatory e-verify. We need to deport all illegals, abolish birthright citizenship and impose heavy taxes on remittances. That alone would encourage voluntary re-patriation of recent immigrants and dramatically improve the labor and housing market for US citizens.
Regarding White Supremacy/White Nationalism, I simply think there need to be more calm, rational people in the public sphere who identify as white nationalists and promote ethnonationalism for all peoples.
For example, I had a wonderfully interesting conversation with a supporter in Hawaii who suggested we might get along well with the Hawaiian Nationalists. They want what we want: separation and self-governance. While I don’t think we need people of color to argue our positions to make them legitimate, it’s so nice to find allies of color who recognize there are irreconcilable differences between the races and also want a peaceful solution. People who want to come to the negotiating table and lead their people the other way when we agree to separate peacefully.
Sincerely,
Mrs. A. Wyatt Nationalist
11 comments
I think this concept of an “Advice Column” for White Nationalist women from all groups is brilliant, and you have introduced the ideals perfectly. I am happy to read of the people — men and women — who are already on board and agreeing with our concerns.
I am also pleased that women can work on issues such as closing the borders, which has always been one of my main concerns; as well as the need for taxation of remittances; both are another angle women can work on without being labeled ‘racists’ or haters’. And I agree totally with all the other issues you’ve raised for our attention and for us to become involved in. I’ve also felt that Home Schooling is a perfect project for all White Nationalists, as is creating an in-home library with books that present our views to our children — ideas that might not be included in the classroom or libraries of our contemporary schools. I’ve found important European history and literature books on sales shelves, including college libraries. It’s amazing what is being thrown 0ut of (read ‘Discarded’) libraries today.
Also, the idea to have regional get-togethers once a year or so, is marvelous. We women work best over tea and crumpets.
Thanks for all your organizing ideas and efforts. This is a great shot in the arm for everyone in the WN World.
Alexandra, you seem to have accepted the premise that women’s behavior is the problem and needs to change. In particular, you want to convince women to put off college until after they have children.
You are very much entitled to your opinion, of course, but I can’t help but notice that the two women you offer as role models for conservative mothers both went to college before starting a family. Indeed, Malkin actually met her husband in college, and this is not uncommon. She went on to have 2 kids.
https://www.businessinsider.com/28-people-marry-attended-same-college-2013-10
Mrs. Schlaffly started and finished college early, so she was only 21 when she earned her master’s degree. Still, she didn’t marry until several years later, when she was 25. Yet, she had six children.
The portrait you paint of the ideal mother as politically active and culturally aware, with an intentional approach to their children’s education, assumes, at least, a liberal arts education. If there is an expectation that a woman earn money from home, more will probably be needed beyond that.
Lexi, part of the problem is women going to college in the first place. Women being hypergamous thus narrow their prospects that much more. Getting Masters and PhDs worsens the prospects further, not to mention the ravages of Father Time.
The examples given by Alexandra O are exceptions to the rule, in my humble opinion.
Unfortunately, women’s behavior and life choices are the number one cause of our ills when it comes to family formation, but I blame feminism for this, as women have been brainwashed to cherish the brass ring of corporate drudgery over husband and children.
The whole diversity racket has made adversaries of white women and men, grouping the former in the coalition of victims that includes non-whites and the alphabet gang.
La-Z-Man,
Women being hypergamous thus narrow their prospects that much more. Getting Masters and PhDs worsens the prospects further, not to mention the ravages of Father Time.
I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to explain this, but “female hypergamy,” to any extent it exists, is not responsible for “our ills” as you claim. Women who get a college degree are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce than women without a college degree. Women with advanced degrees are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce than women with only a bachelor’s degree.
Higher birthrates among less-educated women are not driven by lower expectations in the dating market; they are driven by out-of-wedlock births. Of course, recent fertility declines are concentrated among the lower-class, because birth control has become more reliable and user-friendly. This trend may change, temporarily, as a result of Dobbs, but it won’t change the fact that birth control, not college, is the cause of lower fertility among educated women.
The examples given by Alexandra O are exceptions to the rule, in my humble opinion.
This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. The more highly-educated a woman is, the greater the likelihood she will marry and remain married.
The most highly-educated White women also have more children than White women with an Associate’s degree only. I presume this is because we are the most capable of attracting highly intelligent mates who can support a stay-at-home wife. I suspect it also has to do with the most highly-educated women being less conformist and more countercultural about family life.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08/19/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married/
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/05/07/childlessness-falls-family-size-grows-among-highly-educated-women/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1238603/total-fertility-rate-us-education-ethnicity/
That it is less-educated women who are not marrying suggests that lower-class male dysfunction is the problem, not female hypergamy. Competition for minimally acceptable mates in the lower classes is intense, simply because so many men are drug addicts, criminals, or even just unemployable in a post-industrial economy.
The first chart on the Statista page you linked shows that my assumption that non college educated women have more children is correct. The stat of additionally degreed women outbreeding the simple BAs is a surprise to me, I admit. However, when did these MAs and PhDs have these kids? I suspect many of them got those degrees after they had their kids, again nobody today knows a Phyllis Schlafly type. So, my observations are still likely to be correct: these women put children and family first, and having married a successful guy in college, they were able to not have to chase the brass ring which allowed them to pursue higher studies.
Anyway, I won’t be celebrating women with MA who have 1.5 kids vs the BAs’ 1.3. I lament that we have gone from non-degreed women with 4 kids to what we have today, which is almost entirely sub-replacement level among our credentialed classes.
Female hypergamy was not a problem before women were brainwashed into pursuing college degrees and career to the detriment of family formation. Nature is done well. Female hypergamy didn’t let us down in the past.
The blame for young men’s addictions and other dysfunctions I lay squarely at the feet of our elites, as I do for female dysfunction and family failure (feminism). The elites gutted men’s employment prospects sending good jobs overseas, not to mention flooding the labor market for what remained with tons of new cheap labor, ie. Women and immigrants, among other attacks on the prospects for family formation.
The first chart on the Statista page you linked shows that my assumption that non college educated women have more children is correct.
Yes, it is correct. Your error is that you believe women with college degrees have fewer children because of the degree. Women who are able to complete a college degree necessarily have above-average foresight and conscientiousness, as a result of which they are far less likely to have unplanned and/or out-of-wedlock births. They aren’t having more children because they have an easier time finding a husband or because they are more focused on finding a husband; they are having children without finding a husband.
That WW with advanced degrees are having more children than women with two or four year degrees “only” rather decisively refutes the idea that women are having fewer children because they are “wasting their fertile years” on college and career, thereby narrowing their marriage prospects. Therefore, other factors must be causing fertility declines.
I suspect many of them got those degrees after they had their kids,
I suspect the opposite, but it doesn’t really matter in any event. If women are choosing to have families before grad school, then women’s education isn’t the catastrophe that reactionaries claim it is.
again nobody today knows a Phyllis Schlafly type.
Go to a homeschooling fair or convention and you’ll meet tons of advanced-degreed women with large families. They are not PS types, of course, because they’re not fabulously wealthy. One of the things about PS that particularly outraged radfems was that she lived a feminist lifestyle to a certain extent, but unlike them, she understood that her situation was radically different from other women, as she could afford help and support that other women cannot. Derided as a “hypocrite,” she chose to use her position of privilege to advocate for less-privileged, traditional women who were still fortunate enough to have husbands who could support a family.
Female hypergamy was not a problem before women were brainwashed into pursuing college degrees and career to the detriment of family formation.
You still haven’t established that female hypergamy is in fact a problem, nor that women are pursuing education and career “to the detriment of family formation.” You are just assuming as much. Another assumption you make is that women are in charge of deciding how many children a couple will have. This is a particularly bizarre assumption. It appears, in fact, that women are occasionally compelled to file for divorce because their husbands refuse to agree to quit birth control.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3700123/Rise-biological-clock-divorce-s-one-craves-baby-doesn-t-HILARY-FREEMAN-knows-cost-destroys-marriages.html
The blame for young men’s addictions and other dysfunctions I lay squarely at the feet of our elites,
And you are right to do so, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are unmarriageable. Of course, if a woman decides to roll the dice on a marginal prospect, she is derided for her folly in choosing the wrong father for her children.
Women and immigrants, among other attacks on the prospects for family formation.
Outsourcing and immigration have been tremendously destructive. Women’s labor, less so. Women tend to specialize in fields and subspecialties that are less appealing to men, anyway. Even when they don’t, they tend to be less ambitious as men continue to dominate the most lucrative higher ranks. Of course, competition from women cannot be entirely without consequences for men, but then it’s not clear what moral justification exists for men’s historical reservation of lucrative employment to themselves only.
The two-paycheck family does create certain practical challenges, and I have ideas about dealing with those that I won’t go into at length here. For now, I’ll just say that a more progressive household income tax, together with strong alimony protection, would encourage women with high-earning husbands to stay at home. This would, in turn, reduce upward pressure on the cost of living, which would in turn enable more families to live on one income… Here again, though, all of these questions may be irrelevant over the long term as it’s not clear that the industrial separation of work from household will persist.
Lexi, you make some very compelling arguments. Is it safe to say that you are at least a college graduate AND sympathetic to White Nationalism? If so, I’d be interested to learn how you innoculated yourself from the Leftist propaganda and hive mind of modern college campuses. If you graduated with your Right-wing sensibilities intact (or strengthened), you have a lot to teach our young women (and their fathers).
Well said, Lexi.
My mother, as did so many in her generation, went to college and married and had children in her twenties. Although she later confessed to wishing she had waited a few years before marrying and starting a family– she would have enjoyed a period of independence. I’m enormously proud and happy I had an educated mother. Among other things, she introduced me to Greek myth when I was a child, which has enriched my life immeasurably.
Among other things, she introduced me to Greek myth when I was a child, which has enriched my life immeasurably.
Always remember King Alfred’s mother, who sparked the true philosopher-king’s lifelong love of learning with a little healthy sibling rivalry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osburh
This is very nice. Should be continued with the same light touch. The dialogue has too long been skewed to the dismal precincts of the Red Eye Saloon, where most of the men are lowlifes, and the only women they see are employed in the sporting house and/or dance-hall.
Humor must always be a component. I remember before C-ville in August 2017, a few of us were seriously talking about setting up trestle tables to hand out sammiches and snacks. A joke few people would get today, because the Enemy has so seized the narrative.
Not to seem fawning or anything, but I’m glad you folks are here.
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.