WN conference

Below, the first paragraphs of “After the Fall,” a recent American Renaissance article:

The National Policy Institute (NPI) held its second national conference in Washington, DC, on October 26, with a very interesting lineup of speakers. The meeting was held in the Ronald Reagan Center, a federally operated facility, which resisted all “anti-racist” threats to the conference.

Spencer-Dickson

The speakers were introduced by Richard Spencer, director of NPI, and the conference began with Piero San Giorgio, a Swiss author and survivalist. Mr. San Giorgio argued strongly that current population and consumption trends can lead only to economic and social collapse. We may have already reached “peak oil,” and in 15 or 20 years, the energy it takes to extract oil could be greater than the energy we can get from burning it. We are also running out of copper, zinc, bauxite, and other metals while we pollute, deforest, and overfish the planet.

Mr. San Giorgio predicted that what he calls “the religion of perpetual growth” will come to a crashing end as governments default on debt and nations go to war over resources. The result will be widespread poverty of a kind now found only in the worst parts of Africa.

Only organized groups will be available to survive this collapse, and the best organized groups for that purpose are criminal gangs, which are well armed and used to getting what they want by force. Those of us who do not want to be slaughtered by gangs will need what Mr. San Girogio calls a “sustainable autonomous base” with its own food supply, energy source, and armed defense. Mr. San Giorgio believes we should build such bases for ourselves but that no one will survive in isolation. We are social animals who need a tribe and social links. In the mean time, Mr. San Giorgio recommends getting out of debt, converting financial assets to gold, and learning how to lead the simpler, pre-industrial way of life that is coming.

Mr. San Giorgio elaborates on these themes in his book Survive–The Economic Collapse.

Sam Dickson’s lecture, “America: the God that Failed,” seems to have been also very enlightening. He argued that “America’s great failing has been an excess of individualism that has destroyed the organic ties of community. The British were already the most individualistic people of the Old World, and those who settled North America were the most individualistic of the British.”

But what I liked the most are the above-quoted paragraphs on the doomsday. At last, for the first time—as far as I know—survivalism has found its way into a mainstream racialist conference.

Alex Kurtagic and Tom Sunic, who also delivered lectures, are still clueless about the coming convergence of catastrophes. Kurtagic, while speaking on “the end of the world as we know it,” pointed out that sometimes collapse “can be slow and that its beginnings may be recognizable only in retrospect.” As always, Kurtagic ignores that the collapse of the dollar will unfold very rapidly (for my latest entry on this subject see here).

Sunic “does not believe in the inevitability of collapse. Even if there is a large-scale collapse, we cannot be sure that it will give rise to a healthy consciousness of race.” Fair enough: we cannot be sure at all. But energy devolution, which will unfold very slowly after the financial crash, is inevitable (see e.g., my blog posts on Chris Martenson, here).

The NPI conference also passed the mic to out-of-the-closet homosexual Jack Donovan. Can you imagine this guy trying to deliver a speech in the 1930s Germany (cf. Himmler’s views on this, here)? As I said in “National Socialism replaces White Nationalism,” my ideological differences with the American White Nationalist movement are huge. I cannot even imagine myself attending any of such conferences without making a scene…

P.S. of November 1:

In this transcription of Tom Sunic’s speech I don’t find Sunic’s words that the AmRen author quoted above.

Christianity’s secular offshoot


Alex Kurtagic said…

The so-called “universal declaration of human rights” is a Western concept, developed by Westerners, and only genuinely believed in by Westerners—so what makes them human and universal?


Commenter responded

I have been struck by the extent to which this UN Declaration mimics the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount.

WDH’s recent focus

I have been asked why the recent focus of The West’s Darkest Hour on Nietzsche. I replied that my intention is to explain (1) the “transvaluation of all values” (Nietzsche’s ultimate philosophy) and (2) “poisonous pedagogy” which goes together with the “trauma model of mental disorders” (illustrated in Nietzsche’s life).

As to #2, I believe that one of the ingredients of the witches’ brew that is killing whites is the toll of child abuse in the adult. In the white nationalist movement no one has suspected this. A few months ago Alex Kurtagic wrote on The Occidental Observer that the engulfing behavior of Jewish mothers towards their male children explained the haughty behavior of the grown-up Jew. But Kurtagic and the rest of writers of the pro-white blogosphere have failed to ask what could the engulfing behavior of white mothers cause on their white children.

I am the only one in the movement who has written on the implications of the trauma model on white pathology. See for example my seminal article, “A body-snatched Spaniard.” I even plan to translate to English the rest of my book Hojas susurrantes, the most didactic and comprehensive explanation of the model under a single cover.

However, since that kind of literature is very strong meat indeed, and since pro-white advocates are uninterested in the subject, I better start introducing it by means of baby steps, like my next series of entries on Carlo Collodi’s novel for children.

Pinocchio

The original Pinocchio tale by Collodi is must reading. A 1880 magazine series (Disney’s 1940 film is a betrayal of the original Italian tale), Collodi projected his feelings for his abusive parents onto the characters of the very manipulative Blue Fairy and Geppetto.

In chapter XV Pinocchio is hanged in front of the Blue Fairy mansion and the motherly Fairy didn’t help him at all. The wooden puppet exclaimed Jesus-like words on the cross:

The editor asked Collodi to rescue Pinocchio in the following issue of the magazine.

As a child Collodi had been tormented in a Jesuit school (incidentally, as a child my father was also tormented in a Jesuit school). Since Collodi (like my father) never settled accounts with the perpetrators, he later identified himself with them; hated the children, illustrated boring school textbooks for them and always lived with his manipulative “Blue Fairy” mother.

The original Le Avventure di Pinocchio is poisonous pedagogy at its worst. The parents and the school system are idealized at the expense of the child’s true self. (Later in my series on Nietzsche you will see the relevance of the Prussian pedagogy applied to the child Nietzsche by his mother and other female figures and his adult breakdown.) A major bestseller, Collodi’s novel was used to manipulate and socialize children in the early 20th century.

In future entries I will show that together with the German biographers of Nietzsche I will be quoting, Alice Miller is the obliged reference to understand “poisonous pedagogy” and ultimately my interpretation of both Pinocchio and many people who have suffered mental breakdowns.

Egalitarianism is evil

Or:

Equality, the immovable object that stands in our way


Now that I am following Tom Sunic in that an egalitarian mindset is behind the empowerment of the Jews, the article “Moral Barriers to White Survival” by Alex Kurtagic published in American Renaissance (reproduced below) makes much sense, in spite of the fact that Kurtagic has been very reluctant to blame Christian axiology directly. He rightfully blames Enlightenment values though, but does not go as far as the European New Right which seems to perceive the root of our woes in our parents’ religion.

Kurtagic

Many race realists are frustrated by liberal resistance to empirical truths. They would like to think that any rational person will study the facts, reflect upon them, and modify his beliefs accordingly—not immediately, of course, nor without a healthy measure of skepticism, but surely over time. Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations. In this essay I will explore the reasons why liberalism, though rooted in the scientific revolution and coming from the rationalist and empiricist intellectual traditions, has proven so impervious to the science of race.

Any facts or arguments that are brought into a discussion about race and race relations are nearly always subordinated to social considerations. Some of these are the need to be liked by family and friends; the desire to be liked by those one likes and admires and by whom one wants to be liked and admired; the need for social status; and ethnic identification. These considerations, because they are important sources of essential human needs, may cause the same set of data to be interpreted by people in radically different ways, including ways that fly in the face of evidence and make no objective sense.

We have an obvious example in the liberal/Left’s assertion that race has no biological basis, when the senses tell us otherwise and there is even race-specific medicine. A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements. Those who accept this convenient data are embraced by whites in Western societies as morally sound, while those who accept inconvenient data are marginalized as moral defectives.

Such bias is not exclusive to liberalism or the Left; it is everywhere. What changes according to ethnic identification and cultural context is the value assigned to a morality based on universal abstract principles: For whites in the West this is very important, for other groups, in the West and elsewhere, it is less so, as their moral systems tend to be particularist and ethnocentric rather than universalist—the good is what is good for them.

In Western societies, whites who hold unconventional views, even views that fall outside liberal morality, are not exempt from such bias either.


Critique of pure empiricism

Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.

Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.

Liberal morality

The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Critiques of liberalism and its effects

During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.

Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil. Marxism was partially absorbed by modern liberalism because of its egalitarian morality, thus tipping modern liberalism even more heavily toward egalitarianism. As a result, modern liberalism is distinct from classical liberalism.

The triumph of liberalism has, in turn, made it invisible. Russian theorist Alexander Dugin claims that it has long since ceased to be political, and has gone on to become a taken-for-granted practice. We have certainly seen liberals branding critiques of liberalism as “ideological” without any sense that their own worldview is ideological.

Opposition of liberty and equality within liberalism

The triumph of liberalism, and the triumph of equality within liberalism, has meant that now, even liberty is subordinated to the requirements of equality. As communism and the multicultural experiment have demonstrated, liberty and equality are incompatible, so the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty. A commitment to radical equality results in the proliferation of laws, state surveillance, police enforcement, prosecutions, incarcerations—and bureaucracies to administrate all of the above, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.

This is nowadays always justified with the argument that unlimited freedom leaves the field open to “fascism” (i.e., inequality), and that liberty must be curtailed in order to protect, guarantee, and maximize equality. We end up with a circular argument, then, whereby equality is good because it increases equality.



Immovable object?

Therefore, the single biggest impediment to the cause of Western man in the West is not lack of knowledge about race, but lack of a moral justification for valuing whiteness and everything it entails. Obviously, to value whiteness gives it a special status, which means inequality. In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.

In addition, modern liberalism incorporates a Marxist historiography in which whites are an oppressor class and people of color an oppressed class. This is explicitly the historiography of the postcolonial theory that is taught in Western universities, which privileges the voices of the colored “oppressed.” These voices subject whiteness and the West to radical deconstruction and criticism. Whiteness is, in fact, allowed recognition only when it is linked to oppression; in any other context, a black person has the specificity of his blackness, but a white person has the unspecificity of being simply a human, who is no different from or more special than anyone else.

Thus, belief in the moral goodness of equality is the seemingly immovable object that stands in the way. If politics is the art of the possible, then any campaign predicated on values outside the perimeter of what is morally acceptable—i.e. outside liberal morality—will not be politically possible.

The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.

Time horizons

Critics of this view may object that while it may be true that a change of politics will require a change of moral system, the time necessary to achieve this is too long and no longer available to us.

This objection assumes that challenging liberal morality is an entirely new project that must begin from zero. In fact, liberal morality, like all ideological moral systems, is merely a transient phenomenon, whose present dominance conceals the long tradition it once successfully challenged. Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality. Consequently, there is a vast philosophical canon to draw from, recover, reinterpret, and adapt to the modern world. Indeed, this has been the project of the European New Right, and The Fourth Political Theory, by Dugin, is an important contribution to this effort that outlines possibilities for a way forward, though any fourth political theory towards a post-liberal West would necessarily need to be home-grown and have a uniquely Western formulation.

The objection also partakes, inadvertently, in liberal cosmology, which conceives historical processes as linear progressions. In fact, as communism demonstrated, when power changes hands, the transition is not incremental but abrupt, with dissent gestating almost invisibly at first, under the surface, before growing exponentially, achieving critical mass, and producing a sudden change in state. This is also the way transformations occur in nature and the universe.

Liberal morality will eventually collapse. The question in the West is whether it will give way to another, autochthonous morality or to the morality of our conquerors. If the former, historians of the future will probably not see us as a rupture, but as yet another reinvention of European man within his wider metacultural tradition; they are likely to see liberalism as a political-moral-philosophical paradigm that came and went, the way others had come and gone before. Historians of the future may mark the periods of history differently from us, and by tracing the origins of our ideas, may decide that this reinvention was the culmination of a process that had begun centuries before.

Conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, blame the multicultural society in the West on the Frankfurt School of Social Research and other such Freudo-Marxist subversion, and place the watershed moment of social transformation in the 1960s. Mr. Buchanan is, however, a liberal, albeit of a more classical or archaic sort than his critics, who are also liberals. We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment, of which the United States (but not the colonies out of which it was organised) is an expression. European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.

The question in the West is how much territory we will lose before we can successfully discredit liberal morality. Curtailing those losses will require the artificial precipitation within liberalism of a moral and intellectual crisis that puts current morality on the defensive, generates doubt and loss of confidence in its principles, and leads eventually to panic, overreaction, and loss of credibility. The speed at which this can be achieved depends on complex factors, not to mention a measure of good fortune, but modern technology enables us to communicate and disseminate ideas more rapidly, more widely, and more cheaply than ever before.

Theory into practice

In any movement there are five planes of operation: the intellectual, the strategic, the organisational, the activist, and the man in the street. The first four are the movement proper and the latter is its target, which can be divided into three categories: the committed, who cannot be persuaded either for or against; the persuadable, who are the primary target for recruitment; and the conformist, who is apolitical and will follow whomever looks like a winner.

The activist will be useless, even counter-productive, unless his message and his arguments are informed by a sound, appropriate, and articulable moral theory; unless he is organised to operate credibly and effectively; and unless his organisation has strategies that can translate abstract theory into a pragmatic, results-oriented program of action.

The discrediting of liberal morality will need to be a process that begins with theoretical tracts and ends with protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, and a pattern of establishment compromises and capitulation. The general theory will need to find its way into an endless barrage of narrowly defined, single-issue, winnable campaigns. It will be up to each individual to decide his preferred tactic and field of operation, based on his own strengths, weaknesses, experience, and areas of expertise. In this sense the opportunities are endless.

In the battle for the West the main obstacle in the Anglo-American world has been its aversion to theory. Anglo-Saxon man is pragmatic by nature, not given to philosophical speculation. He prefers to deal in the concrete and the factual. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States—the world’s dominant power—is an Enlightenment project, whose founding documents were formulated by classical liberals in accordance with their philosophy. United States institutions may have fallen into the hands of hostile elites, but the liberal values of liberty, equality, democracy, and progress remain strong, and are, in fact, exploited by these elites to advance their interests. Theory is important. A way around this is to focus on morality, because Anglo-Saxon man is deeply preoccupied with morality.

The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.

Caveats

The destruction of liberal morality will cause the collapse of liberalism. However, the collapse of liberalism will not necessarily mean that the individual values that comprise it will henceforth all be beyond the pale. It may be that not all of liberalism is bad and some of its constituent parts can be repurposed within a different set of value relations. If so, they will not be recognized as part of liberalism.

Also, while theory is important, this does not mean that everyone reading this should become a theoretician. For the Marxist, his theory is everything, but the anti-racist thugs who disrupt conferences and other events, while a product of Marxism, are unlikely to have ever read Marx, for they can hardly read their own names.

Final words

Ultimately, the problem of race realism is reducible to a single idea: that it is not the facts, but how people feel about the facts. The barriers that have limited or prevented the communicability of our proposition will only start to fall away when the value of whiteness can be expressed in righteous tones.


___________________________



See also The liberal axiom,”
which could be used as a corollary to Kurtagic’s piece.

The roots of ethno-masochism

By this time the single Jewish causers ought to have taken note that even well-known pro-white bloggers, who are either Christians or married to Christians, are openly saying that the root causes of our predicament are to be found in our most cherished traditions: religion and the ideals of secular liberalism.

The following are a couple of passages from “Death to Modernity—American Perspectives.” Alex Kurtagic responds to what some angry Christian commenters had said (in italics):

1.-

Saying that Christianity started liberalism is like saying the existence of truth is to blame for the distortion thereof.

Tracing the roots of an ideology to a religion’s metaphysics is not the same as blaming the ideology on the religion, or saying that the religion ‘started’ the ideology. The American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (Introduction and Preamble) also have roots in Christianity, yet no one would reasonably ‘blame’ the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on Christianity or claim that Christianity ‘started’ them. Though known for their pagan outlook and critiques of Christianity, in the Manifesto the ENR merely points out the irony of Christian metaphysics’ having supplied—without that having been the intention—liberal theorists with the means to ‘liberate’ the individual from Christianity (along with anything transcendent or external to the individual).

2.-

What a crock!—blaming the evils of liberalism and the Leftist destruction of the U.S.A. on true Christianity. Liberalism sprang from secularism and both are ‘Jewish’ in origin.

Prior to emancipation, Jews were confined to ghettos and lived under civic and legal restrictions in Europe. By the time Jewish emancipation began in the 1790s, the Enlightenment (associated with secularism) was already in decline and giving way to Romanticism and the Counter-Enlightenment. In most places of Europe, Jews were not emancipated until the mid-1800s. On the other hand, Liberalism, like the Enlightenment, dates back to the 1600s. John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government was published in 1689, over a century before the first Jewish emancipation. Of the thinkers we associate with classical liberalism or the Enlightenment—John Locke, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and Baruch Spinoza—only Ricardo and Spinoza were Jews, but both were disowned. The rest were Christians.

What we can say is that many Jews since emancipation have seen the obvious benefit to Jews generally of their host societies being as secular as possible, and have accordingly campaigned in various ways to accelerate and maximise a process of secularisation that had already been begun by lapsed, indifferent, or apostate Christians. The idea of separation of Church and state is not Jewish, but, as Henry Ford describes in The International Jew, Jewish activists—who, obviously, were either preoccupied with real or perceived anti-Semitism or who wished to advance the interests of their ethnic group—used this idea to further their aim of removing Christianity from the public square.

Liberalism does not reject Christianity or religion tout court; indeed, the Founding Fathers of the United States, though liberals to a man, were Christians—not anti-Christian atheists, like the Marxists who subsequently critiqued liberalism—and conceived the United States as a Christian country intended for Christians. What liberalism attempts to do is to ‘liberate’ the individual from anything transcendent or outside of the individual. The existence and the will of God is then ascertained by rational means, and the process of ascertaining is left to the individual, who becomes the measure of all things. Dogmatic belief and subservience to tradition and authority are abandoned.

One must not conflate anti-Western Jewish intellectual movements with liberalism just because the former marshalled liberal ideas to serve Jewish ethnic aims. The abovementioned Jewish movements were of a liberal character because they originated in a liberal context. Had they originated in a non-liberal context, we would have seen Jewish movements of a very different kind. That these movements remain influential highlights the dominance of liberalism and the need to dismantle it, for, once dismantled, these movements will become unthinkable. And depending on what replaces liberalism, ethnic subversion, Jewish or otherwise, may or may not become more difficult. Ultimately, it depends on how we reshape the intellectual landscape—nothing is predetermined or guaranteed.

And this is Hunter Wallace’s latest entry at
Occidental Dissent, Derb on Ethnomasochism”:

Derb is trying to understand the roots of White ethnomasochism at VDARE and Takimag.

Seeing as how this is a historical inquiry and intersects our particular fixation on the American South, we can unequivocally say that evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment ideology are the roots of this phenomena, and that the anti-slavery movement was its first major flowering.

It doesn’t take much time wandering through what Europeans were doing in the Caribbean in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to figure out that they were operating in another moral universe.

By the late eighteenth century/early nineteenth century, you have your Abbé Raynals and John Browns who are fine specimens of this deranged type.

If I had artistic skills, I would draw a cartoon of a tree labeled “anti-slavery” with fruit hanging from its branches labeled “anti-racism” and “civil rights” and “feminism” and “free love” and “white guilt” and “communism” and “decolonization” and “white genocide.”

Alt Right did not pass a “shit test”

Savitri Devi once said that she could never love a man who loved her more than he loved his ideals.

—Greg Johnson


My family was destroyed when my father became mentally and emotionally as codependent with my mother as a medusa attached to a snail (see the first comment below this article). My father never had any physical or mental illness: he simply chose the most abject form of marital codependence toward his spouse as his lifestyle. I mention this because these days at the blogsite Alternative Right the admins, contributors and some of the commenters behaved if not like my father, at least like typical feminized western males.

Of the article “The Woman Question in White Nationalism” by Greg Johnson, a reply to a feminist article, and a couple of feminized article follow-ups at Alternative Right authored by males, I only want to quote Karsten’s comments:

(Gentlemen’s club)


There are some very good things at Alt Right, but Janelle Antas’s feminist article [here] was the worst thing at that site in a while. It smacked of the worst kind of entitlement and stereotypical female self-centredness: “This movement isn’t to my liking, so it has to change to suit me.” That is standard, shopworn feminism, and the author’s defenses were laughable—saying that she’s not a feminist, even though she uses a standard feminist stratagem. “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,” as the saying goes.

If anything, her article gave an indication that if there is a lack of women in WN [white nationalism], that’s a good thing—or rather, if there is a lack of women such as she (i.e., self-centred women with a sense of entitlement that a movement must change to suit them), then that’s a good thing.

How predictable that rather than thinking that the absence of women in WN indicates something lacking in the majority of women—no, she sees this as evidence that there is something lacking in WN!

Focussing on attracting women (or any minority) is the standard recipe for how a movement kills itself. It’s how traditional conservatism was distorted into the abomination known as “neoconservatism.” First, it too asked, “Where are the women?” and became pro-feminist. Then “Where are the Jews?” and became philosemitic. Then “Where are the blacks?” and became “anti-racist,” and so forth, until this more “inclusive” conservatism had nothing conservative about it, and was just another kind of leftism.

It was the Janelle Antases and their equivalents among Jews, blacks, and other minority groups that destroyed the Old Right, because they whined and whined and wanted the Right to change to suit them, and sure enough, it did, until all of its principles were gone.

A great society is not founded by women or run by women. A great society is founded by men and run by men, and women are the wives and mothers. That is simply the nature of the species—men are concerned with principles, with ideals, with the race, and women are at their core shallow materialists concerned above all with their own personal gratification and security and well-being. (I speak generally, of course—just as one speaks of any minority in general terms. There are always statistically irrelevant outliers.)

The national socialists understood this, as they did everything else. That’s why there wasn’t one, single youth movement. There was one for boys, and one for girls, owing to the fact that the genders are different and have different interests. But the leadership of the movement was, and had to be, male.

That this is even a question for debate is a measure of how far left, even “radical traditionalists” have drifted. “Misogyny”? That is simply the modern slur for a clear-eyed recognition of gender differences, one that the majority of the public, from king to peasant, would have clearly understood in past centuries.

Don’t focus on attracting women. Win power, and the women will come, as they always do. That one famous line in the movie Scarface is as true in general political terms as it is in personal terms: “First you get the power, then you get the women.” Which is not to say that you get women by power; rather, simply that once there is power, women come of their own accord. That’s basic biology.

Miss Antas may do good work in her roles as Mr. [David] Irving’s secretary and in whatever admin she does for her imprint (although what really has she done?). But the narrow-minded ideas in her essay would be poison for radical traditionalists to adopt, for the reasons that I outlined in my [previous] post.

Someone can “do good things for the cause” as a secretary, or whatever, but be utterly ill-equipped as a thinker.

Let’s not indulge in affirmative action here and give any special consideration to Antas, or any other woman, just because she’s a woman. I recall a previous essay by Antas at Alt Right that basically consisted of her saying that she felt bad because people were insulting her and hurting her feelings, but she would make lemonades out of lemons. (I’m not even making that up—that was the tenor of her article.) If a male writer had submitted a piece as trite as that, there’s no way it would have been published, likely not even at Alternative Right.

If there is a place for women in the cause, then they must earn their place by merit (e.g. Leni Riefenstahl). For example, there was a female author who published a poem here recently (I can’t recall her name) that was a powerful and beautiful lyric. She could have a place as a bard of WN. But I doubt she would publish a self-serving, myopic essay like Antas’s.

And that’s the point. When women come along who, on the basis of merit, can contribute something to the movement, let them. Antas’s piece (and I would decry it just as much if it had been written by a feminist-leaning man) is an example of the familiar ploy by which feminists get weak-willed men to change a movement or a society or a culture to suit women’s wishes and tastes—to the detriment of that movement or society or culture.

Antas wasn’t calling for a place to be made for Joans of Arc. Joans of Arc need no special provisions made for them to enter. Antas’ essay was saying that the structure of the movement must be feminized. It’s no different from a Jew saying that the movement must be made more Jew-friendly. It’s a self-centred agenda that poisons the movement.

In fact, when a movement or society rejects the kind of affirmative action approach that Antas advices, that’s when women do emerge who legitimately have something to contribute—like Riefenstahl as a director, or like the Brontës as writers. No special privileges for either, just because they were women.

If Antas wants more women in WN, then let her help influence more women to be worthy of WN, not try to tell WN that it needs to distort itself to mollycoddle women and make them feel appreciated. Let her tailor a WN society/publication specifically to women’s tastes, as a supplement to what already exists (that would be constructive), rather than taking cheap shots at the current elements of WN and its members (which is merely a destructive act).

I would like to add two things.

1. I do not agree with Citizen Renegade on everything (certainly not with his anorexia fetish), but he’s absolutely right in pointing out that women, or at least a certain kind of immature women, (which is to say, the majority of women today), perform what he calls “shit tests.” In other words, such a woman will make an unreasonable, petty demand on a man, and paradoxically, if the man concedes to her whim, he loses the test, because she loses respect for him for being a pushover.

But if he does not concede to her whim, but stands his ground and points out how silly she is being, he actually passes the test, because he has proven his manhood to her, his ability to stand up to her when she knows she’s being unreasonable.

In essence, Antas’s article (and more broadly, its premise) is like one big shit test for the entire radical-traditionalist (or WN) movement. No exaggeration. The men who governed Western society in its times of greatness would pass this test, by telling her “No, you’re being ridiculous,” and going on and running society how it should be run. It will be a measure of WN’s ability to restore a great Western culture if it likewise passes this test and doesn’t bend to a petty female whim, or if it becomes a pushover to her whining and scolding.

2. Here’s the poem that I referenced earlier. This is the kind of woman we want in the movement, the kind who expresses such sentiments.

Note the difference. One emancipated, modern woman whines and scolds the men in the movement that she supposedly wants to join—but only on her terms, and which must alter to suit her wishes. But a very different woman pens a splendid lyric extolling the glory of her European heritage.

Which type of woman do we want in the movement? The answer is the poet, of course.

And actually, we will welcome the emancipated, modern woman too, once she expels the entitlement poison that modern society has infected her with and becomes a true ally, not a de facto fifth column for feminism.


Alex Kurtagic replied…

My thoughts on this issue can be found in my article for Alternative Right, Women as a Measure of Credibility.


Karsten replied:

I’ve been a fan of much of your work, Mr. Kurtagic, and your “Wanted: Something to Dream” essay remains the best thing Alt Right has ever published. My praise for it likely still exists in its comment section. But on this point, you’re as wrong as wrong could be. Amazingly so.

I never thought I’d see a worse litmus test for what constitute a worthwhile ally in the first for radical traditionalism than Jared Taylor’s “no anti-semites” rule, but this may indeed have reached a new bottom:

This means that defectives will also most likely be male. Said defectives poison the discourse through their cathartic (and often anonymous) expressions of bitterness toward women.

Egad. “Defectives”? Amazing. This is a classic example of a proposition that would divide an already tiny movement.

After all, who isn’t a “defective” these days, eh? Now we hear that someone who isn’t properly deferential to women is supposedly an undesirable “defective.” But then, AmRen implies that any anti-semite is an undesirable defective. The general Right believes that anyone who is “racist” is a defective. And so on.

So the position of Alt Right is that all of those cheap methods of pathologizing traditional outlooks are wrong, but this one, no, this one is true; this one really is a pathology.

How arbitrary. After all, many would decry a big chunk of the essays at Alt Right as “cathartic expressions of bitterness toward blacks” or “”cathartic expressions of bitterness toward Muslims” or “”cathartic expressions of bitterness toward Hispanics,” etc. But while we’re supposed to realize that those are mere facile, ad-hominem, leftist put downs, in this sphere (i.e., on women) suddenly the pathologizing tactic has validity? Please. Again, how arbitrary.

Rather, isn’t is possible that just as Alt Right has pointed out that some of the harshest criticisms of Hispanics, Muslims, black, etc., are true and valid, that the anti-feminist evaluations of women, in the grand tradition of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and the Greeks, are traditional outlooks that are valid too? If a writer is not a “defective” for criticizing Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics, or Muslims, then perhaps he’s not a “defective” either for criticizing women, right?

It’s another appalling example of a phenomenon in our movement that many have lamented, and that still needs a name: the impulse to scorn anyone to the “right” (i.e. more traditional) of the person doing the scorning. To the Republicans, the paleos are the defectives to be shunned. To the paleos, the national socialists are the defectives to be shunned. And so forth.

Meanwhile, on the left, everyone more progressive than the speaker in question is usually valorized as a purer, nobler leftist, almost envied as a better progressive.

I think we, in our movement, would do well to exhibit the same kind of solidarity.

Let me try approaching this a different way.

I think that where people are running into problems is that they have, for some strange reason, the idea of a unisex movement. This is where the problems start.

It’s is like asking for a unisex armed forces. It’s fundamentally wrong, and it leads to a weakened, schizophrenic entity. Such an unnatural hodgepodge results in appalling situations where, for example, a fine soldier might be kicked out of the unit just because he doesn’t treat women with due civility—despite the fact that he may have been the best warrior!

Talk about skewed priorities—instead of evaluating the soldier as a warrior, the soldier is evaluated for his ability to “get along.” It’s lunacy, and it cripples the unit and deprives it of its best talent.

That’s what this absurd, no-badmouthing-women litmus test would foster.

In a healthy society, when women participate in war, it’s not on the battlefield (Joan of Arc aside). It’s as nurses, or in their own women’s auxiliaries—in their own sphere. They participate, they contribute, but in organizations that are specific to their strengths and weaknesses. But the men do the leading and the fighting.

I could easily see a women-oriented WN site. (Think of a secular version of the fine website, Ladies Against Feminism, which is a Christian project, but has some fine material.) But that’s what it would be: It would a WN site where a majority of the writers would be women, applying the tenets of WN to women’s issues and concerns, speaking in their language. It would look like half of what Takimag publishes these days, the things that the male readers of the site groan at and ignore (e.g. celebrity gossip, or reviews of chick flicks).

Think of it as the difference, in aesthetics, between the Sublime and the Beautiful. Women-oriented WN projects would conform to the aesthetic of the Beautiful. But most current WN or radical traditionalist publications today are quintessentially masculine enterprises, embodying the aesthetic of the Sublime. And that’s their strength. This characteristic shouldn’t be diminished, but fostered. It allows men to write as men, to express warrior values.

And yes, that includes a few buddy-like put-downs of women. There’s nothing wrong with that. That builds male solidarity.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 235 other followers