Two novels

Yesterday I watched a popular video with Ben Shapiro sitting beside a trans-man who claims he’s a woman. Samantha Schacher, host of Pop Trigger, said that we should expand our inclusiveness and compassion to these machos that pose as women.

This morning I had to pick up a bill from a hospital. Since the parking lot is expensive I parked the car a few blocks away from the hospital and the walking gave me the opportunity for a little soliloquy about the video in which, by the way, the muscular tranny threatened skinny Shapiro with violence as the latter said that transgenderism is a mental disorder.

But what made me think was Samantha’s impassioned speech that we should start mainstreaming transgenderism.

This is the conclusion of my peripatetic self-conversation: Women are, biologically, sexual objects. Just look at the fairest specimens of Homo sapiens and it’s all-too clear that Nature wants that we impregnate them all. Their brain is hard-wired not only to have lots of babies, but to nurture and raise them with empathy.

Once we tell women that they are not objects but ‘souls’ in the Christian and Neo-Christian sense of the term, free-will entities that just happen to inhabit a woman’s body, little women will forfeit Mother Nature by not having babies.

The psychological toll of forfeiting motherhood is apocalyptic. Feminism becomes a weapon of mass destruction not only for the fair race, but for the fair sex as well. For the liberated woman, her hard-wired sense of compassion starts to be transferred onto apparently unprotected humans that are not her own babies. That’s how the Negro and the Homo and the Tranny became like the new babies for the childless woman or even those who, like Samantha, only have one child.

I call the process pathological transference of compassion and presently it is affecting almost all western women, including those feminised males and manly females in white nationalism that are scared of the humorous ‘white sharia’ meme.

The cure for the disease is simple. Forget the white sharia meme for the moment. Use a Western meme instead. Just wait until the convergence of catastrophes makes the holy racial wars possible and the founders of a New Rome will abduct and rape the fairest Sabines as described in David Lane’s novel KD Rebel. (By the way, wouldn’t it be nice if I start publishing Lane’s novel in this site?)

And believe it or not: the pretty Sabines will be the lucky ones. Those who are not fair, e.g. fat women well after their teens and early twenties like Heather Heyer will face justice in the Day of the Rope. To quote Pierce’s novel, ‘There are many thousands of hanging female corpses like that in this city tonight, all wearing identical placards around their necks. They are the White women who were married to or living with Blacks, with Jews, or with other non-White males’.

And thus the feminist problem is solved.

Cultural Christians

In my previous post I complained that some of the finest Alt Right vloggers, however secular, subscribe the Christian morality not to hate our enemies. Today I received a follow-up email quoting what a commenter said about what Kevin MacDonald had written in the last sentence of ‘Alt Right and the Jews’, published on Counter Currents. MacDonald wrote:

In guarded optimism, we might look to the future and hope that some influential Jews will be able to look at this history without their ethnic blinders and come to see their own best interests lie with a renewed European America.

The commenter responded: ‘It’s actually quite dumbfounding, given his knowledge on the subject and what’s been articulated on his website and books’. Another commenter, this one from Counter Currents, said last year: ‘McDonald’s optimism is dumbfounding. How can someone who has so carefully and exhaustively recounted the Jewish subversion and gradual eradication of European America entertain such delusions?’

The answer lies in what a former commenter of MacDonald’s webzine told us: ‘You don’t see how two thousand years of Christianity have seeped into every atom of the white man’s bones’. MacDonald has said he is not a religious person. But he ignores that giving up Jesus not only means giving up the theology of our parents, but the Christian ideals of out-group brotherhood, love and charity.

These universal ideals are precisely behind the Alt Right’s stance against nordicism; Richard Spencer’s stupid pronouncements that even mulattos are welcomed in the ethnostate, and Greg Johnson’s definition of ‘white’ as even those Europeans of brown colour.

Let’s face it: White nationalists have failed to revalue their values back to pre-Christian mores, and they have failed miserably. As Spencer put it while discussing with nigger anchor Roland Martin, he is a ‘cultural Christian’ (watch the YouTube interview after minute eight).

Yin empire

According to the vlogger Black Pigeon Speaks, Way of the World is one of the finest channels in YouTube. But neither has revalued his values back to pre-Christian standards. This for example is a statement from the latter to collect donations:

Our movement, the alt-right, is a vibrant and growing one. We are driven by our love for our people and way of life—we do NOT hate anyone else. But we recognise that, if we do nothing to steer away from the multicultural nightmare playing out right now in our towns and cities, Western civilisation is in grave danger.

What is wrong with this statement is that only hate will save the white race from extinction. Forbidding a natural emotion is one of the features of the malware that has infected the Aryan psyche since a Levantine cult took over the Roman Empire.

A few years ago a Catholic priest mocked, before the faithful, the pictures that reproduce Jesus as an extremely androgynous male (“un Jesús bobalicón” were his words in Spanish), as if to say that the good Christian male must be ultra-feminine.

The candour of the Alt-Righters I have seen in YouTube and elsewhere moves me to get rude and ask them: Are you really gonna fuck the kike cunt with that feminine pecker? In addition to the jews there are many other non-whites that want your kind extinct—and you continue to use the Jesus archetype?

Published in: on September 5, 2017 at 2:05 pm  Comments (4)  

Richie Spence’s suicidal POV

by Jack Burton


 
I’ve heard Richard Spencer say stupid shit before like castizos are white and Persians are white. This [YouTube clip: here] would be the first time I’ve heard him say that actual mulattoes are acceptable in a white ethnostate. Uh, you’ve lost your god damn mind, Richie Spence.

The population of multiracial people in America is approximately 10 million. That’s not insignificant. Furthermore, what Spencer is saying is that we can just absorb the Hispanic population that wants to identify as white. This is insane. Why should we? There is no reason. The point is to not be a cuck, not oh well, we’ll just cuck this one time.

It’s logically nonsensical. If we have the will to separate a large portion of the population, then why can’t we separate all non-whites? There is no reason we should just absorb all the mongrels who want white women. Spencer panders too much. You’ll notice this especially with blacks. Maybe Spencer has low T and needs TRT.

Spencer does NOT represent my racial standards for America nor I would guess that is the majority opinion either. Just say no to miscegenation.

Spencer’s standard of white is Latin American not Germanic North American. Spencer needs to rethink the stupid shit that is coming out of his mouth.

Published in: on September 2, 2017 at 12:50 pm  Comments (7)  

Carolyn on Kevin

In my previous post I wrote: ‘White nationalism is an impossible chimera between truths and lies, between courage and cowardice, light and darkness’. This abridged article by Carolyn Yeager on Kevin MacDonald supports my claim.
 

Kevin Macdonald recently participated in a videocast of “Torah Talk” with Luke Ford, a non-Jewish student of Torah and Talmud, and two young friends or students of his. It lasted one hour and 50 minutes and resulted in some interesting insights into Kevin’s limitations as a leading White Nationalist voice.

MacDonald was taken by surprise with the first question asked of him: What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?

Yeah, um, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I, I haven’t seen, I haven’t seen anything that I would really, you know, convince me. And I have—frankly, I haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I, I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly [slurs some words] and all that is something that I don’t think uh is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Hey, wait a minute! Is this the reputedly brilliant professor of evolutionary psychology speaking??? This sounds not only downright dumb but also evasive as hell.

  • I’ve never had any sympathy
  • Never seen anything that convinced me
  • Don’t think it’s really important
  • Haven’t dealt into it very much (weakening the above three comments, if not nullifying them altogether)
  • Not possible to “go there anymore”

Not possible to go there anymore? But then he adds… “third rail.” He should have added the word “comfortably”—it’s not possible to go there comfortably, without putting oneself at risk. By that he signals premature defeat: The Jews have won on this and we have to allow them their victory. It’s too late to do anything about it. The price exacted is too high. By calling it “third rail” he’s dubbing it too dangerous, too highly charged for any sensible man to approach.

Are these brave men or foolish men? Kevin clearly considers them foolish, and maybe not too bright. He’s saying that what he’s doing is important but what they’re doing is not important.

  • What’s really important is the culture of the Holocaust

But wait a minute! If the Holocaust didn’t happen, how can a “culture” of it exist? Or the trappings of such a culture be justified? So he obviously thinks the Holocaust did happen, or believes he must accept that presumption, but doesn’t want to come right out and say so. Because? Because so many listening to him would argue with him about it.

I’m afraid we have caught our evolutionary psychologist in a posture of dishonesty here. I know it has been our position to give Kevin a free pass on this subject, one that goes like this: He has shown so much courage in standing up to the accusations of antisemitism at his university; if he doesn’t want to get into even more trouble over “holocaust denial,” he certainly doesn’t have to. That was a position I myself took back when I had an Internet radio show on which he was a guest four times. I did not even bring it up.

But now he is retired and it is only his professional reputation at stake, not his job. And he is being asked these questions and he is answering them (see here). And I have revised my thinking about giving others so much leeway to think as they want about it. We need all hands on deck on this issue. In Kevin’s case though, I think it would be better were he to simply say, “I’ve made it my practice not to speak about this topic which I have not studied,” and leave it at that, rather than put forth uninformed opinions as he’s doing. Of course, that would be wimpy but at least not dishonest.

But perhaps he’s afraid that would cause his peers to suspect him of being a secret denier, which he clearly does not want. So instead he hems and haws around about “importance”—that the “culture of the Holocaust” has importance while the “happening of the Holocaust” doesn’t.

That’s an odd position. Maybe we can find some insight into his thought process in his answer to the next question asked him: What are your personal feelings toward Hitler?

Toward who? Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality—I just don’t know much about it but I think his own personality got in the way of them carrying out their strategic military [goals?] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was a—you know, that was horrible, that was a disaster. There are a lot of other things, but uh, so I think that he is not the ideal person to be in that situation.

  • Hitler was a disaster
  • Don’t know much about it
  • Interfered with military policy

His reactions toward Hitler are more vehement than toward Holocaust. They reflect the standard Anglo narrative that Hitler bungled the war, that his generals despised him, he was a flawed personality who all by himself created the disaster that occurred in Germany. No fault is directed toward Jews, or the Allied collusion with Major Jewish Organizations, or the German traitors (including in the Wehrmacht) who conspired to defeat their own country and turn as many people as possible away from their leader. As MacDonald said, he doesn’t know much about it, but the “common American wisdom”, the national narrative, is good enough for him. But then he has a few second thoughts:

But you know, having said that, if you look at the old newsreels from 1930’s in Germany, you know, the people loved Hitler and he really managed to develop a sense of sort of a very unified, culturally unified nation. Uh, they were really on page with this, and I think that was an incredible accomplishment. It’s just unfortunate how they used it, what happened in the end. Just a disaster. I-I think that is the—the, uh, the result of the Second World War is uh has essentially given us the war that we’re in now. I think the triumph of the Left is the result of WWII. I think uh is also um critically important for the rise of Jewish influence. And that is what is now with us. And can’t be undone.

  • Hitler was loved by the people
  • Unified the nation
  • Incredible accomplishments
  • The war was a disaster

Amazing. Kevin goes from admiring how Hitler unified the nation, an incredible feat, directly to the misuse of it, though he doesn’t explain how they misused it. Apparently by going to war. As though Hitler could have avoided war, with Stalin plotting to his east and Roosevelt plotting from the west (see the Potoki Papers). For some reason (we know what it is), he accepts the non-mention of the Jews behind the scenes in all this. MacDonald’s simplified history credits the triumph of the Left and the rise of Jewish influence (which are one and the same) as being brought about by Hitler’s ‘disastrous’ war. Does he have any idea how strong the Left was in Germany when Hitler started? It was an actual revolution that resulted in a communist government for a time in Bavaria!

Jews were already in a strong position since WWI. So our Kevin is not much of an historian of this period and, here again, should be answering, “I don’t know.”

The final questions in this series are:

What kind of world do you think we would have if the Axis had won?

It’s impossible to know. I uh I just don know. If the Axis had won, if they crushed the Soviet Union and then occupied Britain, um there probably would have been a stand off at that point. And then I do think it would have been bad for the Jews, in Europe, if that had happened. But I don’t think Europe would be overrun as it is now with all these non-Whites. I think Europe would have remained a White, Christian-based civilization if that had happened. I—That’s my best guess.

  • Bad for Jews
  • Europe still a White, Christian-based civilization

It sounds like he wishes the Axis had won and now blames Hitler for failing to pull it off.

Do you think there is any hope for Europe at this point, or what do you think would have to happen to fix the situation?

For Europe? You’d have to have a complete change in mental outlook, uh you’d have to have the political will to do something. They could still do something but it’s getting, you know, they don’t and it just keeps getting worse and worse. And I think everybody go—you know, the popular opinion polls do reflect anxiety about it, concern, uh, and yet they can’t seem to vote in a government that will actually do something.

So until that happens… um… they could still do it, I mean the percentages of Muslims in France and the West German countries in Europe (sic) are still pretty small. They could do something. They could just deport. Really, I mean a lot of them have no right to be there. The so-called refugees, they can go back to wherever they came from. They can repatriate these people. It just takes a political will which they are a very long way from being there.

So until that happens, it’s just going to fester and there’s going to be more and more anxiety, and more and more disillusion with these elites… But, I’m amazed at the staying power of… it did look with Brexit, Trump victory and now… but then you see you’ve got the victory of Macron in France, so… and Wilders got defeated very badly in the Netherlands, the Swedish government doesn’t seem to be going away. It looks like Merkel’s going to win in Germany, so it doesn’t look (chuckles wryly) that anything’s really changed.

  • Need complete change in mental outlook
  • No mention of removing Jews
  • No political will even for removing Muslims
  • Voters falling short

Notice he doesn’t mention anything about Jews as a problem, only Muslims. Is that a problem with mental outlook? He said later in the program, speaking of white nationalists he approves of (like Jared Taylor)—when they get together they “don’t talk about gas chambers” (said somewhat sneeringly), they talk about white interests. Understand this as: We are not “disasters” like Hitler, who did have the political will to carry out an anti-Jewish policy. For them the Jews are here to stay because there’s no will to do anything about it. They’re grappling with the Muslims now. They can live with the Holocaust.

@40 min. participant Casey said: “I had to watch Schindler’s List in 8th grade, but that was it. But I got it—Hitler’s a bad guy.” His question: How to change education to give kids a more complete historical context, for example like what was happening in Weimar?

Kevin answers by shifting to Blacks and Slavery, away from holocaust.

@46 min. Luke Ford asks: A line from an article you published was “Jews are genetically driven to destroy Whites.” Is that a fair description?

Kevin: No, it’s not. I wrote a book called Culture of Critique—it’s about culture, not genetics. How they identify themselves, think about themselves. I would like to see a cultural shift.

Luke added: Andrew Joyce wrote in an essay published at TOO: “The Jews of the middle ages did no labor—almost all lived parasitically from money-lending.”

Kevin did defend this, but said, “I don’t use the word parasite… much… I don’t think you can use that word for American Jews.”

@1 hr 44 min. Kevin: “I don’t like people who have swastikas on their websites; identify with Nazism. It’s a non starter in American context. We have to be an American party, we have to be about white people, and we have to give up the sort of National Socialist idea of the past. Which was a disaster, partly of its own making. I don’t think it was well led. So we have to get away from them. It’s just bad PR.”

Kevin MacDonald tries to act casual when it comes up in interviews, but he is clearly not casual in his feelings about it. He is incredibly careful of leaving any opening for an association with him and Holocaust revisionism. By doing so, he helps the Jewish drive to keep Germans forever guilty of “unspeakable” and unnatural crimes, and unable to rise (“on their knees” as it’s been coined); which in turn helps the Jewish drive to wield their weapon of antisemitism against all Europeans; which in turn hinders all whites from feeling enough pride to defend their race because the one who is most famous for doing so is seen as a disaster to his race by his own people. But of course, Kevin would deny all this.

If Whites could stick together and work together on Holocaust revisionism, I believe success could be had. I don’t know of a single person who, willing to really look at the evidence and give it a chance, continued to believe the official narrative of the big H. It’s always a political decision to insist that it must have taken place because too much is a stake politically if it didn’t. The entire WWII global order would be shaken to its core. This is the position MacDonald is in, it seems to me, along with so many other White activists who say they put White survival and sovereignty first. They don’t. They are afraid some element in the social fabric that they don’t like will get control, and that bothers them more than giving control to the non-White. This is incredible but true.

During this program, Kevin spoke of how some anti-Jewish material he reads “makes him sick,” he didn’t want to think he played any part in encouraging it. However, he was quite easygoing when it came to the subject of Jewish behavior—no similar strong feelings emerged. He thought some Jews were aligned with White interests and could participate well in White societies. Clearly it is a matter of culture for him.

In closing, I have seen again and again that behind the reluctance to confront the Holocaust taboo lies the stronger fear of the Adolf Hitler taboo. Many truly believe the propaganda that Hitler was a disaster for Europe, thus to keep anyone like him from returning to power, Hitler must remain the one responsible for the horrible Holocaust and the Holocaust must remain real. What they don’t seem to consider is that as Germans disappear as a consequence, Europe will die along with them. Without a genuine Germany, there is no Europe.

Reply to Spencer

Richard Spencer has said that this 2015 speech—:

—is one of his favourites. Halfway through the video he apparently accused the Judeo-Christian tradition for the calamity that fell on the West today: a sense of guilt that leads whites to seek their extinction around the globe.

It is curious that Matt Heimbach was in the front row listening to Spencer during that conference of American Renaissance. In the Q&A section, almost at the end of the video another Christian made the remark that in the Middle Ages white people did not feel guilty. Spencer replied that regarding ‘our capacity to become our own worst enemy, I don’t blame Judaism and Christianity on that. I think that goes much deeper. That might be some internal aspect of ours, that we were able to disembody shame and eat it and keep it inside ourselves or something like that. I do think that the modern guilt phenomena is a post-Christian phenomena.’

In this site I have said that Christianity is like AIDS: that whites were carriers of HIV, a virus for the white mind, since the beginning of our era but the outbreak only occurred in modern times.

Consider, for example, how the Renaissance popes were virtual generals who just went into the fields to kill their enemies in battles, and how the present pope is their antithesis: Francisco I follows infinitely more closely the gospel of Jesus. It is no coincidence that the current pope was the first in the history of the Roman Catholic Church to adopt the name of St. Francis of Assisi, the saint who tried to bring the words of Jesus into practice in all their purity. What Christians ignore is that this neo-Franciscanism so to speak or out-group altruism is precisely the HIV phase of our times.

Let there be no doubt: white nationalists, including what Spencer said at the conference and many others, subscribe the Christian ethics of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. They are perfect examples of what I call neo-Franciscanism, a secular love for the Other. Unlike Charles Darwin, Roger Pearson and other eugenicists, white nationalists wish the best for the black and the brown races as long as they thrive in their respective countries, and are even ready to help them as much as possible.

The AIDS / HIV analogy has to be true, for there is no record of pre-Christian whites having suffered from out-group altruism and tremendous guilt in the thousands of years of pre-Christian civilisations. As I recall when as a child I went with my family to Mass, I was very annoyed by the striking on the chests that, except me, all gave themselves pronouncing the words ‘Por mi culpa, por mi culpa, por mi grande culpa’ (Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa in the original Latin).

Imagine the billions of times that, over two millennia, whites have uttered these insane words while reciting the Confiteor on the par of literally striking themselves on the chest. Does Spencer and company really believe that after abandoning the religion of our parents no residue is left of that ‘malware’?

Spencer sometimes quotes Nietzsche. But he never quotes the Nietzscheans of today as we do. There is a special quote that I have been quoting over the years: a page that I stole from a Swedish blogger who is no longer active on the internet. It is worth repeating:

With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity [modern-day liberalism] each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to fulfil Christian ethics.

White nationalists do not realise the havoc caused by removing Christ from the equation: the psyche of secular whites was left with naked guilt, especially after altruistically they handed over their mainstream media and Hollywood to the subversive Jews!

When I was living in California, I once heard Charles Stanley’s sermon on television, and was very impressed that he said in front of millions of viewers that he deserved hell, eternal torture according to his fundamentalist interpretation of the Gospels (his words ‘and burn and burn…’ still resonate in my mind). But he added that Jesus could save us from the fire. I was so impressed by this sermon that I ordered the recording from his church by regular mail, which at that time was made with those audiocassettes that have since fallen into disuse.

The race realists who go to the American Renaissance conferences are clueless of the infinite harm that such ideas have caused in the Aryan psyche. It is not surprising at all that, once the millennial theology is rejected, the worm of guilt has not yet been extirpated from the secular mind. And once Christ is left out of the equation, the only way that the secularists may atone for their sins is by inviting, with the help of the subversive tribe, the coloureds into their lands.

From this point of view it is not homicide by the Jews what the Aryans of today suffer. It is assisted suicide.

I do not tire of repeating it: there is no historical evidence of suicidal guilt before Christianity, so Spencer’s response at the conference is refutable. With the exception of Revilo Oliver, the psychological sequels of the dismissal of Christianity is a subject not studied by white nationalists.

Next Sunday I will add one more passage from the anti-Christian novel Julian to this site.

Eugenics and Race, 4

Today the law of survival of the fittest no longer holds good amongst human beings and some writers even claim it has been replaced by the law of survival of the unfittest…

Today, the poorer specimens of humanity have become protected beings, and the more capable are elected by scholarships and examinations to the levels of ‘professional’ society, in which their birth-rate falls below replacement level…

Selection—the elimination before the child-bearing stage of the unfit or the least fit—acts in the natural state not only on individuals within a given population, but also by the elimination of entire species. When two animal species compete for the same living area, the weaker species is usually exterminated, and this rule applied to the earlier tribes of man, and also to the spasmodic warfare between man and sub-man which eventually resulted in the virtual annihilation of sub-man in all parts of the world…

But such is not the situation in the artificial pattern of life that has been slowly built up by man since he left the ‘primitive’ stage in which he obeyed the dictates of nature. Nature still rules our lives—we are only flesh and blood, physico-chemical organisms—but in the luxury of our own power, the exultation of triumph and pride at our own prowess, we have forgotten that we are still subject to the laws of nature, and that nature often breaks as well as makes…

Mankind has deigned to ignore the knowledge which it has acquired of Nature’s methods, and has chosen to run counter to these laws. Only a handful of eugenicists and scientists, whose voice is never heard by the masses, remain to remind mankind that we are still subject to the laws of Nature, and these scientists are called ‘inhumane’ for their pains…

According to the law of evolution, species and subspecies (evolutionary adventures which have acquired considerable physical differentiation but which are still capable of inter-breeding) compete one with the other for survival. Thus the stronger, or the best suited, survive, and evolution takes yet another step forward. But this is not the case with modern man.

History tells a very different story: it tells of the conqueror enslaving the conquered, taking the womenfolk of the conquered into his own household, to become the mothers of his own offspring, it tells of the intermingling of civiliser with savage, of the perpetuation and survival of the conquered, and the annihilation by absorption, instead, of the conqueror.

This is the story of Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Arab, Turkoman and almost every conquering civilisation the world has known. Within a few generations of the conquest the original civilising stock has been swallowed up and absorbed by those whom they conquered, so that the civilisation staggers on without direction for a few more generations, and ultimately collapses due to weakness from within—from an inadequate supply of capable individuals to preserve what the earlier generations had built.

A study of eugenics soon convinces the reader of the danger to which modern man, with his reversed law of ‘survival of the fittest’, has exposed himself, and a study of history, of the rise and fall of civilisations and nations, only too readily confirms the teaching of the eugenicist. The concepts of eugenics and evolution are young as yet, they date from the last century, but they constitute the greatest discovery of mankind.

______________________

This is a passage from the fourth chapter of Eugenics and Race, a booklet now available at 50% off from Daybreak Publications (here).

Hearken, Millennial Woes!

Millennial Woes is an Alt-Right commentator who blogs at YouTube. In his latest YT audio another ethnocentric commentator, Tara McCarthy interviews him. The case of this pair exemplifies why I differ so much from the tepidity of white nationalism or Alt-Right.

In one of Tara’s first questions, Millennial Woes says that the problem began in the 1950s. He thus omits that the zeitgeist of that decade was the direct result of the 1940s, World War II and the holocaust committed by the Allies on the Germans: the greatest crime of Western history (see the sidebar).

After minute 40 Tara, who is partly white partly Indian, asked a very important question: Who is white taking into account that in Europe there are mixed people (like Tara herself). The way Millennial Woes responded is absolutely typical of the Alt-Righters: that it was obvious and that all Europeans are white!

As I said in the most recent entry on William Pierce’s Who We Are, this is the kind of mentality that is destroying the Aryans: their complete inability to see that in Europe many ancestral Europeans have ceased to belong to that race. Unlike the logical distinctions made by the National Socialists, for white nationalists any frank discussion of Nordish and Mediterranean peoples is anathema.

This universal egalitarianism of out-group altruists is due, as we have stated countless of times, to the heritage of Christianity insofar this way of seeing the world did not exist before it. To be fair, at least Tara knew there was a problem because of her mixed ancestry; that’s why she asked the question in the first place. But Millennial Woes, who genetically is whiter than her, then said that the ‘burden of white on Africans’, that is the duty to help them, falls on whites because the ‘Chinese won’t do it’.

I caught you, Neo-Christian!

We can imagine not only the Greeks and Romans of the Ancient World but the Persians, the Germanics, the Celts, the Slavs and a number of pagan Scandinavian tribes loading upon their shoulders the burden of nigger welfare! See this article of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour to understand the axiological tragedy that has befallen upon the Aryan psyche, which includes so called white nationalists. (I say “so called” because with the burden of helping other races WNsts like Millennial Woes are heading towards extinction.)

The Christian ethic of Millennial Woes, presumably an atheist, also shows in how he envisions the ethnostate. He wants to deport mulattoes from Europe to Africa with their white mothers, not taking into account that mulattos are far more dangerous than blacks. For example, former President Obama used his IQ inherited from his white mother to undermine white Americans. He was planning to flood only-white neighbourhoods with blacks before the last election! This way of looking at things—‘I let you go intelligent mulatto; I won’t kill you even if your white genes are a potential threat to us’—is absolutely typical of Neo-Christian nationalism.

In the interview Millennial Woes also said that people ‘between 90 and 100 percent white’ should live in the ethnostate. Note that this implies that he doesn’t want to deport the remaining ten percent. You can imagine one of the leading voices of the Third Reich saying that it is okay to tolerate ten percent of mud people in Germany! Millennial Woes also said that the IQ ‘is the most tangible difference between the races’ when in fact the troglodyte faces of the coloureds we see on the streets are the most obvious difference. This gross overlook of the most conspicuous aspect—what I call Neanderthalism—is also very common among self-styled race realists.

Finally, before the question ‘Would you allow white liberals in the ethnostate?’ Millennial Woes replied, ‘Yes I would.’

Compare this altruistic answer, so typical of a good Christian, with what is drawn from the novels of Pierce, David Lane and Harold Covington. Right after the holy racial wars, unless the liberal is a young and beautiful chick that would be used as a breeding machine by an Aryan warrior, white liberals will stay outside the frontiers of the liberated zones, where only the crying and gnashing of teeth of these traitors will be heard.

Hearken Millennial Woes!

The Aryan race needs a religion of boldness, not your secular religion of meekness…

The Aryan Race needs a religion of war, not a religion of peace!
The Aryan Race needs a religion of hate, not a religion of love!
The Aryan Race needs a religion of anger, not a religion of sorrow!
The Aryan Race needs a religion of severity, not a religion of mercy!

Umwertung aller Werte!

Diaspora, 2

Food for thought from Kevin
MacDonald’s Diaspora Peoples:

 
Puritans forbade the worship of Christmas, both in England and Massachusetts, and whipped, burned, and exiled those they found to be heretics, all the while believing themselves to be the beleaguered defenders of liberty…

At that time certain religious non-conformists, especially Anabaptists and Quakers, were still prevented from settling in New England and imprisoned, tortured, and even executed if they returned there…

As in the Old Testament, God’s wrath would be leveled at entire communities, not only individuals. Each member was therefore responsible for the purity of the whole, since transgressions of others would result in God’s wrath being leveled at the entire community. Puritans were therefore highly motivated to control the behavior of others that they thought might offend God. This included, of course, the sexual behavior of other community members.

Both East Anglia and New England had the lowest relative rates of private crime (murder, theft, mayhem), but the highest rates of public violence—“the burning of rebellious servants, the maiming of political dissenters, the hanging of Quakers, the execution of witches”. This record is entirely in keeping with Calvinist tendencies in Geneva…

Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins, perhaps a form of altruistic punishment described by Fehr and Gachter and found more often among cooperative hunter-gatherer groups than among groups, such as Judaism, based on extended kinship.

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired the rhetoric and rendered the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa justifiable in the minds of Puritans.

Militarily, the war with the Confederacy rendered the heaviest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans. Puritan moral fervor and its tendency to justify draconian punishment of evil doers can also be seen in the comments of “the Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Church in New York who went so far as to call for exterminating the German people, the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the woman.

In England, Puritanism never really developed into a group evolutionary strategy but remained a loosely bordered faction among other Protestant sects. In New England, however, it developed as a hegemonic religious and political movement in control of a particular territory. Membership in the church required a vote of the congregation. “The principal criterion, besides an upright behavior, was evidence that God had chosen the candidate for eternal salvation…”

Traditional women

My paternal grandmother was born in the 19th century, specifically in 1888, and I lived alone with her in the late 1970s and early 80s, when she was in her nineties.

When I was a small child the institution of marriage was pretty solid. How well I remember in my sixth year that a boy of my age talked about a case of divorce: an unheard of phenomenon in my family! Nobody talked about homosexuality and no degenerate music was heard even in shopping stores (this was before the malls). No degeneracy was shown in those elegant, old-time theatres like opera halls where I used to watch films. As a boomer I am a witness that all of these catastrophic changes happened within my lifespan.

Below, my abridgement of “Just what are traditional gender roles?,” a piece published last month on The Daily Stormer:

 

“I’m in a traditional marriage”
“I’m all for traditional gender roles”
“I want gender norms to be like the old days”

These are refrains I’ve heard endlessly repeated as the discussion over White sharia has advanced. They are coming from women and a few weak men counter-signaling the White sharia meme.

Because of the critical importance of this discussion for the survival of the white race and its European civilizations, I wanted to take a minute to explain to all the men and women claiming to be so-called traditionalists all the concepts and social boundaries that defined traditional relationships. This is the most important education that I can possibly give the community at this moment, and I ask that you ask yourself if you are really embracing traditionalism like you claim to be.
 
Coverture

Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the mid and late 19th century, when feminist agitators, the media, and academic establishment triumphed with their agitations through its abolition. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself. William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I:

The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.

UCLA gender studies professor Ellen Carol DuBois (whose career is chronicled in the Jewish Women’s Archive, of course) highlighted in her histories of women’s rights “the initial target of women’s rights protest was the legal doctrine of coverture,” and that 19th century feminist icon Lucy Stone despised the common law of marriage “because it gives the custody of the wife’s person to her husband, so that he has a right to her even against herself.”

If a woman decided to leave her marriage she was a penniless non-entity no matter what her previous position was in life (truly, there is no better position for an errant whore to be rendered into). Any restoration of traditional gender roles starts by restoring coverture, thus removing financial incentives for worthless scheming whores to destroy the sanctity of marriage by abandoning it over whims and lusts. Marriage, up until the abolition of coverture, meant that the woman was permanent property of one man; it allowed continued existence and any degree of freedom only in accordance with his desires.
 
Bride price

The dower grew out of the Germanic practice of bride price (Old English weotuma), which was given over to a bride’s family well in advance for arranging the marriage.

Before a woman was her husband’s property, she was her father’s. This is why the father gives away the bride at the marriage ceremony. Traditional marriage was a transfer of property, with the priest serving the role as the trusted third party to do the background research and make sure the transaction was honest. It was essentially like getting the sale of your apartment validated by a notary. The daughter was sold off by her father, and it was the father’s sole judgment of who was eligible to lawfully purchase his property.

The status of women as property was nearly universal in European cultures, with the exception of Jewry and some groups of gypsies, where access to tithes and trust followed a matrilineal line. This was why the Jews were so keen to attack these ideas, because the patrilineal passing of property was innately offensive to their culture. Europe only has this absurd notion of women as independent entities because of organized subversion by agents of Judaism.
 
Domestic discipline and “marital rape”

Coverture and bride price were abolished to ridiculously assert women were independent entities with “rights” so that they could lobby for suffrage. The implementation of suffrage culminated in legal penalties for domestic discipline and the concept of marital rape so that women could abandon their most basic household duties, thus destroying their homes and their husbands’ lives.

The thing about these changes is that they are really fresh and new. While the 19th century might seem like a long time ago for many of our young readers (it isn’t, on the civilizational timescale it is just last month and on the evolutionary timescale it is mere seconds) these new changes began in the lifetimes of our parents and finished in many of ours, and civilization was immediately and measurably the worse for wear. According to Wikipedia:

The reluctance to criminalize and prosecute marital rape has been attributed to traditional views of marriage, interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas about male and female sexuality, and to cultural expectations of subordination of a wife to her husband—views which continue to be common in many parts of the world.

These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman’s right to self-determination (i.e., control) of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape… The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.

Rape is a property crime and nothing more. First a crime against the property of the father, and then a crime against the property of the husband. This change only finished in the US and UK in the nineties, when I was eight years old. Women existing in a state of slavery to the sexual whims of their husbands is not some barbarism of prehistory. This was universal common sense for whites up until a couple decades ago.

Likewise, hitting a woman out of her head was seen as benevolent and a universal necessity in every marriage until the sixties, and even portrayed positively in movies and film. Regular slapping and the occasional vicious beating of a woman was a necessity in every household. Women need to be regularly disciplined to keep their heads about them. They can be intellectually mature and clever to the point of deviousness, but they will always have the emotional state of a very young child and we all know what happens when you spare those the rod.

On this subject I hear two narratives from low-T men in the alt-right. The first is that all these transformations in the rights and status of women happened in reaction to family abandonment and general hardships upon women. Even those I respect fall for this sniveling lie from the mouths of manipulative whores. To these I have said: let us examine the data. [Editor’s note: the graph is not included in this abridged post.]

Broken families happened as a result of these changes in the status of women, not as the cause of them. The reality is that extramarital sex and birth was at an all time historical low because of Victorian standards of morality. The only spikes on that chart before 1950 were a result of world wars, because a man that died in some kike’s war could not marry his whore. Men held up their end of everything. They married women, they provided for them, they gave them newfound comforts and innovations like laundry machines that reduced their domestic workload to nil. They gave them full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline.

What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.

They did this because white men had a fool’s compassion in their hearts and lost the good sense to shove their faces into a countertop and give them a swift kick to the gut as hard as they can when these skanks had it coming to them.
 
Men counter-signaling White sharia

So most of this “I’m totally traditionalist but White sharia is terrible” nonsense is coming from women, but sometimes it is coming from small-souled bugmen as well. Some of these men are being bullied by their wives. Some of them just have no will to power. Beardson just used this line, and as far as I’m concerned he’s not only no longer the leader of the thot patrol, but no longer eligible to even be on it. We’ll be bullying whores without him from now on.

Here’s the reality of European tradition: women were a category of property that had a single instance of sale. They were complete slaves to the will of fathers then husbands, both having free reign to beat them and the latter having the lawful right to fuck them, where and when they pleased.

This was the reality for thousands of years of European history and the change in this status only finished in our and our parents’ lifetimes. There’s nothing Islamic about this. It is just the default position of any civilization that is not being destroyed by decadence.

Man up, put women under your heel, throw away their birth control and make them bear you children and take care of your house. If they resist, discipline them.

If you are uncomfortable with the White sharia meme because it contains the word sharia, I can understand that, but “muh feels” is not an argument against the efficacy of the meme. This meme is effective because it has an immediate effect of being shocking and lurid to the senses of women and weak men and forces people to talk about the status of women in our civilization.

All we are pushing for is a return to the status of women we had in the early 19th century before Jews and their feminism ruined our civilization. This should not be controversial. If you are opposing White sharia because you disagree with women being reduced to the status of property to be beaten and fucked at the whims of her husband, you are a faggot and a cuckold and have no place in any right-wing site, and instead belong at the bottom of festering bogs like Reddit and Voat.

Published in: on June 15, 2017 at 3:12 pm  Comments (13)  
Tags: ,