Unsweetened pill

Recently, in one of his typical videos, Millennial Woes reacted to the subject of admitting women in the movement. He has a point: the presence of female vloggers sweetens the redpill, there’s no question about that. But he goes farther and chastises those who want a boys-only club. Right after the hour Woes said: ‘We have to mature and develop beyond the male insecurity and paranoia that clearly is in abundance in our movement, in our community…’

Like many in the Alt-Right movement Woes is an ahistorical simpleton. He completely ignores that, say, women occupied prominent positions at the beginning of the Church. Hitler called Christianity the Bolshevism of the Ancient World, and we can imagine the female SJWs of the Early Church fighting for the inclusion of those nonwhites marginalised in the provinces of the Roman Empire.

I have not ended my translations of the series Apocalypse for whites, let alone the huge Kriminalgeschichte. For the moment a picture is worth a thousand words:

These are the type of mudbloods and sandniggers that composed the first Christians. The image is taken from funerary portraits of faithful resemblance to Greek-speaking people residing in Egypt. (The portraits survived thanks to the dryness of the Egyptian climate.) Although it is impossible to say who these men or women were, all were early Christians according to the book where I scanned the image.

Female vloggers sweeten the redpill, yes. But ultimately, and pace feminised western males like Woes, what we will need are natural-born killers. Women have their place in the movement lecturing other women. But only men ought to lecture men. If Alt-Right women are lecturing men that only means that the latter are avoiding a real fight in the real world. Moreover, women usually lack the IQ to see why the info provided by the authors of Apocalypse for whites and Kriminalgeschichte (think of the above pic) is so relevant for the survival of the race.

Yes: the women that Woes defends score much higher in YouTube hits than Woes himself. And Woes scores much higher than this humble WordPress blog of yours truly. But sooner of later men will have to make a choice: remain feminised like Woes or, awakened with the unsweetened redpill, fight to the death.

This Time, 9

rockwell

A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell

 
Without anybody coming out and saying it, the mad scramble for ‘democracy’ has been extended to the sexes and the natural dominance of the male, and the passive submission of the female, which are basic to both natures and absolutely necessary to their happiness, have been scorned as evil carry-overs from our animal natures. A ‘modern’ girl cannot avoid the impression that it is somehow ‘inferior’ to be ‘just a woman’ or ‘just a housewife and mother’, and the corresponding idea, therefore, that she must try to ‘be somebody’ or ‘do something worthwhile’ by having a ‘career’. She receives all sorts of ‘education’, particularly in college, which is not only useless if she becomes a wife and mother, but which irritate and frustrate her natural capacities.

It is not a question of ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’, but a question of possibilities. A girl will grow up to be a woman, a female, no matter what education, ideals, ideas and training she may get. Perhaps it is ‘unfair’ that she was born a woman, physically weak, less able to reason, coldly burdened with the inexorable cyclic functioning of her reproductive system and blessed with the soft, warm, emotional, understanding and patient nature of the machinery designed by Nature for motherhood, above all things.

The effort of feminists and liberals to ‘correct’ what Nature has decreed, whether the effort is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, can lead only to misery for those who attempt to fly in the face of a cold and merciless Nature, and a social agony for a world which is deprived of warm and submissive females and mothers.

It is a mark of insanity for an individual to ignore reality and act as if he were something which he is not. It is no less insane when women pretend that their female natures do not exist, that they are not only the ‘equals’ of men, but the same as men, except for a slight physiological difference. No matter how a few of them manage to succeed in the poses of engineers and steel-workers and fighter pilots and business executives; women today, as a group, are fundamentally acting in the manner of the insane: defying and ignoring reality.

The results are frightfully visible in our whole civilization. The women are becoming masculinized, while the men are getting feminized. One has only to look at a crowd of our teenagers to see how things are going. They wear the same tight pants, the same jackets and the same hats—even the same duck-tailed hairdos. We are breeding and training up a generation of jazzed-up, negroidal, neutered queers.

Our whole approach to women today, as with most of our social attitudes, is that of the Soviets who have women in the army, working in the streets and even in firing-squads, just like men. God save us from such women!

Women are indeed the equal of men, as a group, only when they fulfill the task for which Nature equipped and made them—motherhood. Man was designed, even in the creative process itself, to supply the spark, the drive and the aggressive push of life, while woman is designed to supply the basic building material of new life; nourish, treasure, warm and guide it, until it can sustain its own life. There is no escape from this fate, even if it were bad, which it is not.

If a man is to be honored for making cigars or building bridges or making beer, as our great businessmen are, then surely we ought to honor those who make our people! But the trouble is that our insane ‘liberal’ attitude toward motherhood and homemaking has given women an impossible inferiority complex and frustration about their possible and real achievements in life. We train our girls by the millions to be anything but successful wives and mothers, lead them to believe they are to be an ‘equal’ part of a ‘man’s world’, when the truth is that it is only Nature’s world, and man’s share in it is no greater or more glorious than that of a female-oriented woman who produces, brings up and gives to society a family of happy people.

If our girls were brought up from first consciousness to realize the absolute and total inevitability of their mission in life, but above all to be proud of that mission; train for and then fulfill it joyously, there would be no more talk of ‘achieving’ equality. They would find that Nature has already given them equality in generous measure, if only they will accept it. There can be no sense in discussing the superiority of negative or positive electricity in a battery; they are merely different forms of the same thing, but the difference is vital if there is to be any current. When the male and female potential or voltages are permitted to become ‘equal’, they must be strongly opposite or the current will stop…

It is not women who are at fault in the growing madness of our family and our sexual frustration, it is the men who have permitted it. The women are still born passive and submissive and if our fathers and grandfathers had not failed them as a group, as I failed my first wife as an individual, they would still, as a group, be enjoying their birthright and the honor owed them by society for being the most exalted manufacturers and executives in the world, the manufacturers of Our People!

Upon achieving power, one of our first tasks will be an all-out public relations drive to help our entire population—men and women—to see that ‘motherhood’ is not the silly, sloppy thing which is made of it today.

Published in: on November 7, 2017 at 10:33 pm  Comments (31)  
Tags:

National Socialism

eagle-and-swastika-reichadler-und-hakenkreuz-national-socialist-posters-third-reich-deutschland

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is “not done.” Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

—George Orwell

Excerpted from “National Socialism:
The Biological Worldview”
by Povl Riis-Knudsen:

 
As a National Socialist you constantly experience the difficulty in carrying on a meaningful conversation with a non-National Socialist. You often feel that such a dialogue is outright impossible and that you live in two totally different worlds. Partly, of course, the reason for this deplorable situation lies in the propaganda image of National Socialism as the culmination of human viciousness that our enemies have created in the public mind.

As opposed to today’s carefree relativism, where all ideas—in principle at least—are equally acceptable and valid, National Socialism represents the unremitting effort to find the absolute truth and to make this truth the foundation of human society. Unlike the nebulous ravings of inane armchair philosophers and oriental mysticism, however, National Socialism is based on common sense, and it seeks its arguments in the real world, where the difference between truth and lie and between good and evil is determined by facts and not by wishful thinking and theoretic reveries.

In this light, it is obvious that National Socialism must reject the conceptions and moral norms of all the ruling ideologies, and this, naturally, leads to a comprehensibility gap that is difficult to bridge—simply because there is no common frame of reference between National Socialists and people whose thinking is determined by the ideas of the present order. National Socialism simply means an absolute, irrevocable, and uncompromising fight against the very philosophical foundations of the entire ruling world order.

Unlike other philosophies, National Socialism has never been invented—it has been derived from the eternal Laws of Nature, which have existed as long as the universe and which have governed all life since the first primitive organism came into existence. This has been expressed beautifully and clearly by Savitri Devi, the famous late National Socialist philosopher, in her book The Lightning and the Sun:

In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our time, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch; it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and of the ocean depths and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and it is Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom, but to have made it the practical regeneration policy of world-wide scope.

In other words, National Socialism was not invented by Adolf Hitler. It is the conscious expression of the fundamental Laws of Nature governing our lives. It is based on an infinite love of the creation in all its diversity, a deep, unconditional respect for the wisdom of Nature, and an ardent will to preserve life as it has grown out of this wisdom. The only way to do so is to organize the society of man in accordance with these fundamental Laws.

Thus being against National Socialism is just as absurd and illogical as it would be to oppose the law of gravity or the fact that the earth is round! National Socialism is really nothing but the application of physical and biological laws to the political, economic, social, and religious areas of human life in the same way as they are today applied to technology.

Of course, we might sometimes wish that some of these Laws had been a little different, but we must necessarily accept that it would be impossible to change them. Laws of Nature cannot be abolished or amended through a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations, the US Congress, or any other national parliament! Perhaps everything had been easier if all human beings and all races had been created equal, and if there had not been any hereditary factors governing and limiting our individual possibilities of development. However, that is not the case, and there is absolutely no chance of changing this fact by wishful thinking, i.e., by doing as if these Laws did not exist. To build a society on such dreams is a deadly sin that can only have disastrous consequences.

These consequences are seen only too clearly when we take a look at the societies that have been built by our enemies in East and West. Unanimously, they refer to National Socialism as the “Gospel of Evil”—while they themselves rule over a world on the brink of economic and moral disaster, a world afflicted by inflation, unemployment, crime, senseless violence, drug abuse, pollution, pornography, corruption, hunger, and ecological catastrophes.

No wonder, indeed, that man lives in constant fear of what the next day has in store for him! Unfortunately, this fear and hopelessness is most widespread in the Aryan part of the world, where decadence and moral decay are most advanced. Here people have been totally alienated from all sound and natural values and made into mindless zombies, whose anxieties are soothed by material affluence—in a constant race against economic chaos.

In spite of all the material goodies of the modern world, these people are neither happy nor satisfied. They completely lack ideals and enthusiasm and they have lost all faith in the future. The Aryan is simply unwilling to bring children into this world. As he sees no future, he prefers the luxuries of the moment to the preservation of his race and culture. He tries to secure as comfortable a life for himself as he can in this cesspool, and his only hope is that the inevitable catastrophe will not occur in his lifetime. Thus, he passively watches the land of his forefathers being slowly but steadily taken over by aliens, who do not yet realize that the end of the white man means the end of all civilization as we know it.

This is the Golden Age our enemies promised the world in 1945—this is what they have been able to build in the seventy years they have had absolute power. Under these circumstances, the prospects for the future sure are gloomy. However, it does not have to be this way. That the world is in such a sinister condition is solely the result of man’s total disrespect for the Laws of Nature.

As a National Socialist you inevitably feel like someone from another planet when you have once realized the nature of the present order. You can have no part in this system and the very daily struggle to keep alive within the framework of this society must seem like a futile waste of time.

As National Socialists we envisage a totally New World Order, based on the “unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates.” Only within such a new world order can life survive on this planet in the long run. However, to establish this New Order man must accept that he is not elevated above Nature. Man is not the master of creation but an integrated part of the totality of Nature, and he is subject to exactly the same laws as all other living organisms.

Likewise, he must also accept the scientifically proven fact that the races of man are different—not only in their outward appearance but also with regard to their mental and intellectual characteristics—and, finally, that all human beings are individuals created unequal, and that their lives are mainly determined by hereditary factors and not by their natural environment. This may, of course, seem “unjust,” but one of the things man must recognize is that in Nature there is no concept of justice in the sense we normally apply to this word.

The enemies of National Socialism often claim that the biological conception of human nature, which is the very basis of National Socialism, is “unethical.” To this we can only reply that it is the so-called “ethics” of these opponents that are immoral, because they are based on norms and values that are not founded on Nature. For National Socialists there is only one truth: the Laws of Nature, and anything that is not in full accordance with this truth is absolutely wrong!
 

Christianity

This, of course, means a total rejection of Christianity, whose unnatural dualism is the very basis of the predominant “moral” code—also where this code is disguised under a liberal / humanistic or a Marxist label. According to Christianity, man enjoys a very special position among all creatures by having a divine soul. This soul is universal and unbiological.

Thus, Christianity is characterized by a distinct contempt of life and Nature. It is a religion for losers and dreamers who cannot cope with the challenges of life but just vegetate along, trusting that “the last shall be first and the first shall be last,” as Christianity regards any criminal good-for-nothing and mentally deficient fool as a more valuable human being than the industrious and creative citizen.

It represents a set of norms and values that put the virgin above the mother, the monk above the father of a family, and the weak and suffering above the strong and victorious; indeed, the dead above the living. It scorns any pleasure in life and glorifies self-torture and self-abasement as positive indications that man fights his flesh and accepts that he is born as a vessel of sin because he is not all spirit.

No matter from what angle you look at it, Christianity represents a perverted and misanthropic attitude to life that can under no circumstances be tolerated in a healthy society. To put it bluntly, Christianity is a kind of spiritual AIDS that has destroyed our natural immunity against unbiological thinking. It is a contaminating disease of the mind and must be fought with all means.

Unlike the Christian, the National Socialist is supposed to live. He is supposed to expand his abilities and unfold his personality as much as he can within the boundaries of his biological nature—both physically and spiritually. He is not supposed to spend life on his knees in front of a Middle Eastern god, begging for mercy and forgiveness for the “sin” of having been born into Nature.

We want to see proud and harmonious people who are confident of themselves and their mission in life—not frightened and dejected products of misanthropic conceptions like “original sin,” which only leaves man one hope in life: that “God” will forgive him if he just believes and repents.

Nor do we want the diffident and despairing victims of the pluralistic worldview with its denial of absolute values. National Socialists are not atheists. We do believe in a deity, but our deity is an absolute contrast to the Jewish-Christian Yahweh. For National Socialism there is only one true deity: the inscrutable creative power that is manifested everywhere in Nature. This is the deity we pay our tribute to by showing veneration and respect for the wisdom of the Laws of Nature.

As National Socialists, we follow no other voice than the voice of Nature and no other ethic than the ethic of Nature, and we know only one mortal sin: to try to revolt against this ethic. This is not mysticism, as some claim, but pantheism—the idea that the divine is expressed through Nature and nowhere else.

Pantheism has its roots far back in history and is one of the foundations of German idealism and romanticism in the 19th century. It is the recognition that we owe our existence to a principle of life that is not just the sum of its chemical components. Thus, National Socialism sees life as more than the materialistic scramble for maximum consumption and self-gratification—life entails an obligation to protect the divine principle that we are part of. Some might call this a religion, but it does not need the establishment of a narrative based on superstition to sustain it—and it sure is not a “faith.” It is not based on belief, but on facts.
 

Sexual roles

To create sound surroundings for life to unfold we also need healthy families, where children can grow up in harmony and be happy. Another evil of the present order is that this kind of family is being destroyed by the usual unbiological thinking and the nonsense of women’s libbers. Just as the races are different, so are the sexes, and the idea that man and woman are biologically equal is a serious threat to the survival of man.

The differences between them are not the result of socially constructed “sex roles” but of biological roles! It is not a coincidence that it is the woman who gives birth to the children. She is not only biologically fit for this task, but also mentally, and as the mother of the new generation she has the most important role in society. The idea that she must “fulfill herself” by joining the labor force and getting a job at an assembly line, while her children are left to others, is criminal.

nsdap Women can only fulfill themselves within their biological role as mothers. Without a mother, the family crumbles. The children are left to themselves or to a state education. When they get home, nobody has time for them. They are not taught any ideals and they get their idols from television, bad music, and even worse literature. They live on fast food and fall victims to the worst kind of commercial materialism—that is, if the woman does not choose to avoid having any children at all either by using some kind of “birth control” device or by murdering the child if she gets pregnant anyway. Of course, the feminists claim that it would be just as natural for the man to look after the children and the woman to go to work. The fact is that if it had been just as natural, the man would have given birth, too.

 
Miscegenation

The most serious threat to the coherence of society is, without comparison, the biological race-mixing that has always either come hand in hand with the mixing of cultures—or even being its precondition. The disintegration of culture itself can be stopped at any time and a people can find its way back to its own cultural norms and values again—as long as the racial stock is intact. The mixing of the races, however, is irrevocable—and its consequences are incalculable and disastrous.

There are only too many opportunities to study the kind of societies we have as a consequence of race mixing. Latin America, India, and Egypt are all excellent examples, and so are Hellas and the Roman Empire.

Just as the Indian, Persian, and Egyptian cultures also the Greek and Roman civilizations were created and sustained by an immigrated minority of predominantly Nordic race. This higher developed minority first suppressed the original majority and their culture, but later they slowly succumbed to their subdued peoples’ numerical superiority.

Weakened by innumerous wars that had cost them their most valuable blood and subverted by Asian ideas of false humanitarianism, they gradually gave increasing numbers from the subdued peoples citizenship and brought new slaves and laborers from their colonies in Africa and Asia—who were then integrated and acquired citizenship in the next generation. This sure is a familiar picture, isn’t it? And it was this disintegration of the Nordic race that changed the proud state of Hellas into present day Greece and Rome into Italy—or put in another way: civilization into chaos!

In school you still spend at least some time teaching the children about the ancient cultures, but not one word is said about the people who created those cultures. It does not seem to puzzle anybody that the ability to organize a state can disappear so completely. The truth is that most of the people who masquerade as “Romans” today racially have very little in common with their mighty predecessors. Too many of their ancestors had their home south of the Mediterranean!

When speaking about racial biology today, you soon face a whole lot of taboos. Studying racial biology—that is, if it is the human races you want to study—has become something naughty and not even medical doctors or so-called anthropologists can be expected to know anything at all about this matter. Even to want such knowledge is damaging to your career, so why care?

* * *

We do not have any time to lose. Would you care to join us? Not for our sake—but for the sake of your children.

Can you imagine a world without White people and the civilization they have created?

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.

Beware of Game of Thrones

In the last seasons of Games of Thrones:

1. A female knight, Brienne of Tarth, beats a couple of the best male knights: Ser Loras of House Tyrell (one of the great houses of Westeros) and The Hound (who was the personal bodyguard of king Joffrey Baratheon).

2. The wildling Ygritte, physically beautiful, goes to war as if she was just another guy. [1]

3. A few non-white, masculinized female warriors at Dorne are capable of inflicting a coup d’état on a society which architecture resembles Islam’s.

4. Daenerys Targaryen, the Queen of Dragons, a liberal-minded bimbo, thinks it’s her job to liberate the brown people from slavery. She lusts to conquer the Iron Throne and “break the wheel” (smash all Feudal Houses).

5. The adolescent Arya Stark (pic above) trains to become one of the two best assassins in Westeros.

6. Yara Greyjoy is depicted as smart and her castrated brother Theon as stupid. In the TV series Yara is lesbian or bisexual—though George R.R. Martin, the author of the novels A Song of Ice and Fire has confirmed that she is not in the novels. Of course: the hetero Theon has claimed that Yara, not he, is the one to be crowned as lord in the Iron Islands.

7. In what is perhaps the best battle ever filmed, Lady Sansa gives rational advice to Jon Snow, who fails to follow her advice and, in a rash decision to save his half-brother Rickon, lost the battle and almost got killed. Jon and his comrades in arms were rescued by the Knights of the Vale and Lord Petyr Baelish, popularly called Littlefinger, who surprisingly appeared in the last minute. (In real life it’s women who generally think with their emotions and men who think more coldly.)

8. The last season ended with blonde, bimbo Daenerys leading a mudvasion into the white part of Westeros.

Similarly, in the first episode of Season 7, which started tonight featuring the Lannisters (obviously Queen Cersei, not her twin brother Jaime, is the one who sits on the most emblematic symbol of the series, the Iron Throne):

9. The adolescent Arya—remember: she’s one of the best assassins in Westeros—is capable of wiping out an entire House (in the previous season she killed the Feudal Lord).

10. While preparing the defence of the North against the white walkers, a 12-year-old Lady Lyanna Mormont, the head of House Mormont, lectures a 60-year-old male: the head of another Feudal House.

“If the Jews speak the people must beware,” Goebbels warned. Well, well. The screenwriters of Game of Thrones are Jews. Beware of the subliminal messages of what has become the #1 television series!

__________________

[1] Compare it with Beowulf, a medieval epic poem and the most important piece of surviving literature in the Old English language. In the 2005 Icelandic film Beowulf & Grendel, Selma is abducted and tied around with a rope by the brute and handsome Beowulf, as used to happen in those times.

On the white sharia meme

I don’t use the white sharia meme but in my soliloquies I constantly say to myself in humorous vein: “Lo más importante de todo en la vida es que las mujeres sean lindas Caperucitas (Most important of all in life is for women to be cute Little Riding Hoods).

Yesterday Irmin Vinson, the author of an important pamphlet about Hitler, had his latest article published at Counter Currents. He cannot understand why The Daily Stormer dislikes a photo of three modern white women showing their legs. The answer is simple: because that means that they are not lindas Caperucitas.

Vinson is ten years younger than I. Younger generations are so alienated from their past that they completely ignore that old-time marriage was a rock-solid institution in the Greco-Roman world even before Christian takeover. Vinson says that he doesn’t feel the tiniest bit of hostility to the three women in the picture that the Stormer article tags as “Skanks having the time of their lives whilst their cities are conquered by foreigners?”

What Vinson cannot see is that presently women are exempted from their former responsibilities—marriage, motherhood and submissiveness. Let’s forget the white sharia meme if its Islamist implications offend you. Use instead the European fairy tale about a young girl and a Big Bad Wolf. Vinson and the effete commenters on Counter Currents are clueless that when traditional marriage is abandoned (the above pic is taken from the television adaptation of Pride and Prejudice) Western society collapses. The welfare state will become overburdened and finally crash. The demographic winter of whites will reset back to traditionalism, but this time it will be a traditionalist Sharia for a white Europe turned into a brown Eurabia.

To compete with the brown barbarians whites won’t have any choice but to return to the brutality of Ancient Rome, when the father was the judge, jury and executioner of the family (pater familias), wife included. Those who have read the newest edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour will remember this passage:

In Rome the problem started right after the Second Punic War, when a vital law was abolished. Lex Oppia restricted a woman’s wealth. It forbade any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold. Unsuccessfully, Cato the Elder opposed the abrogation of that law and Roman feminists harvested other triumphs, even in the Senate, and the trend smoothly continued up to the Christian era. By the time of the Byzantine Empire even brownish women could inherit property.

The Roman Empire disintegrated but the Middle Ages rectified Rome’s mistake throughout Europe by getting back to patriarchy. After the Enlightenment the cycle that Cato opposed started again, with women “reclaiming their rights” and writing pamphlets. The eighteenth century influenced the nineteenth century. In the United States the turning point occurred when women obtained the right to vote in 1920, although the women’s movement had started in 1848. The welfare state initiated in 1935 with Social Security and was expanded in 1965 to include Medicare. “No fault divorce” was another escalation of feminism, in addition to the 1967 initiative for affirmative action for women.

This informative piece can be read: here. Alas, many white nationalists will continue to deny that women’s lib has been as lethal ingredient for the brew that’s killing whites as Jewry.

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: ,

The scourge of male feminism

in the WN movement

by Andrew Anglin

Male feminists refuse to explain why a book—written by a woman for women about BDSM is now the best-selling book of all time. I get a lot of hate from white knights (who should really be called “male feminists”) for my straightforward commentary on the collective behavior of women.

The fact that women are sexually aroused by the idea of rape and abuse is extremely difficult for a lot of men to process. In particular, men have a hard time processing this in relationship to the female obsession with flooding the West with men who are shockingly prone to rape and abuse of women.

However, although I have laid out my arguments for this phenomenon in great detail, as of yet, no male feminist has bothered to give a counter-argument. Instead, they attack me personally, claim I must have some personal problem, or else I wouldn’t even care about the data which supports my claims.

It doesn’t matter what people think of me. If I was concerned about the opinions that random anonymous people on the internet have of me, I would have chosen a different profession. My concern is with the concept itself, that of shaming men who dare question the behavior of women.

By attacking me, these male feminists are sending a message to all men: if you question women, we will turn against you, we will insult and attack your masculinity. This is called “Man-Shaming.” It is the same exact system that the Jews used to silence men opposed to homosexuality: “If you’re against the gays, you must secretly be one yourself.”

The reason that white men will shame other white men with feminist garbage is that they themselves are emotionally incapable of dealing with the fact that their girlfriends and wives (or their objects of romantic interest) are not the princesses they imagine them to be.

This is objectively true. If they simply disagreed based on data, they would present counter-arguments and relevant data. Instead, they personally attack the man making the argument that causes them to feel the uncomfortable emotions.

I am absolutely disgusted by the idea that white men are willing to shame other white men, to question their virility and masculinity, in order to protect their own fragile emotions. This needs to stop. Man-shamers within the white nationalist movement are inhibiting free and open discussion of ideas, which can only be good for our enemies.

Beyond this, they are also creating a narrative that will harm men who are trying to have successful relationships with women. In order to have a successful relationship with a woman, a man must understand that they are fundamentally non-loyal (as opposed to disloyal), amoral (as opposed to immoral) and have a strong need to be dominated and controlled (in the modern system, where this need is not being fulfilled because men have been taught to treat women as “equals” with “valuable input,” their desire to be dominated and controlled expresses itself through pathological sexual desire).

 
I take criticism well

I am very good with criticism, and am fine with the idea that I might be wrong about certain things. I don’t consider myself infallible, and am always open to discussion and debate. However, because the feminist arguments are emotional and not based on data or logic, they do not engage in constructive criticism or debate, instead resorting to name-calling: woman-hater, MGTOW, etc.

All insults, no data or logic. My point, continually, has been that these concepts have nothing to do with me, and attacking me for presenting the concepts shows that the attacker lacks a rational, data-based defense.

I understand that this is a sensitive issue for many men, and I do my best to understand men where they are. I believe that the bonds between men are what make up the foundation of any society, and so I do my best to remain as sympathetic to the men who are taken in by feminism as the men who are able to acknowledge that they are victims of the Jewish-feminist agenda.

Nevertheless, it is the male feminists who are in the wrong, and who are harming others with their man-shaming agenda. Attack me all you want. It doesn’t matter. I care about my brothers, and sticking up for my brothers. We are all victims of feminism, whether we acknowledge it or not. All you have to do is look around you. In all likelihood, your own mother destroyed your life and the life of your father, for no explainable reason. Your friends have family members [who] have had their lives destroyed by women.

You are told that “somewhere out there” there are women who are different. But you keep looking, and you do not find them.

 
For the sake of the movement

It is very important to our personal lives that we understand women and their behavior. But our personal lives, individually, are irrelevant in the face of our agenda. And our agenda suffers very greatly if we do not take a realistic approach to the female issue. For one, if we allow women to assert influence on the movement, it will never go anywhere.

Perhaps even more importantly, we want this movement to expand, and we are not going to do that by being a movement of a bunch of losers who can’t get women. As such, it is important to me to teach men to be the kind of men who are successful with women, and the kind of man who fantasizes about women as princesses is not the kind of man who is successful with women.

The ironic thing about all of this is that while I am accused by the male feminists of “alienating women” and “limiting our movement to men only,” I am in fact doing the opposite of this. The only women who are ever going to truly feel adamantly about right-wing politics are women who do so because they have a boyfriend or a husband who is involved in the movement.

Women do not have moral convictions and do not have ideologies. These are masculine concepts. All philosophers understood this fact (literally, all of them, so there is no need to cite an individual philosopher here).

Given that women do not naturally possess their own beliefs, they adopt the beliefs of who they view as their natural physical protector. So in our modern situation, women adopt the beliefs of the state. The way we will get women “into the movement” is by getting girlfriends for the men already in the movement. Not by trying to cater an ideological message to women.

Single women who get involved in the movement do it either to find a man, or for attention whoring/funding purposes (in certain cases, they may also find it fashionable). Not because they were moved by a logical or ideological argument. As the woman exists for the sole purpose of producing children, her entire orientation is geared towards gathering resources and/or acquiring a man/men who will gather resources for her.

As such, the way to get women involved in the movement is very simple: Create a movement of men who are desirable to women. The female partners of those men will then, by default, be involved in the movement.

Male feminists are inhibiting our ability to do this, by attempting to shame men who take on a character that is attractive to women. Men who “respect women” are not attractive to women. They are viewed as weak and pathetic. That is not the kind of movement we want.

 
You cannot compare this to leftism

One cannot say “we have to follow the pattern of the leftists and recruit single women into our movement ” because the concepts are totally different. Women are naturally drawn to leftism, for innumerable reasons. In part, it is because they are natural communists.

One should read the ancient Greek play Assemblywomen by Aristophanes, about women taking over the government (or at least the Wikipedia synopsis of it). In 391 BC, this man was able to predict that women, if given the chance create a government, would institute communism. This is because women do not have the ability to gather their own resources, so they prefer that they are distributed based on “equality” rather than merit.

In the play, the women also dissolve the family, and require that the most attractive men be forced to have sex with all of the women in the city, so that unattractive women are also able to have a chance to mate with attractive men. It has always been understood that the sexuality of women is deranged by any male, moral standard.

Modern leftism is also satisfying the sexual desires of women by importing men whom they find sexually desirable. They manipulate weak, beta males (the type of males who are drawn to leftism to begin with) into helping them import brown people who they view as sexually dominant.

 
Blaming Jews for the behavior of women isn’t helping anything

There is a saying: “the only thing worse than a white knight is a white knight who blames Jews for the behavior of women.”

This is accurate. Of course, Jews should be blamed for the liberation of women. It was, on the whole, their idea. However, the behavior of women is the behavior of women. As I mentioned above, men in the 4th century BC understood that women, if given the chance, would do exactly what they are doing now.

If Jews released thousands of tigers out onto the streets of New York City, and they started mauling people, you would say “Jews are responsible for the fact that these tigers are mauling people on the street,” but you would not say “Jews are responsible for the fact that tigers are natural predators.” Claiming that Jews are responsible for the behavior of modern women simply confuses the issue.

Jews are responsible for creating a culture in which the worst, primitive instincts of women are celebrated as virtue, and the natural male desire to protect women is redirected into protecting her ability to indulge in these destructive, primitive behavior patterns.

 
Man-Up

It is time to act like men, and to take responsibility for the situation we are in, which includes taking responsibility for our women. Claiming that women are not a problem is simply a way of passing off male responsibility.

Our movement needs to be sexy. We want men to look at us, and say “that’s something I want to be a part of.” A huge part of that is being something that is attractive to women. And women are not attracted to men who “respect women.”

Call out the man-shamers for what they are: subversives who are harming this movement in order to fulfill a sad emotional need to believe in the virtue of women.

Patriarchy vs. feminism

redgirl_and_knight

I have just deleted the PDF “War of the sexes.” The section where I quoted the blogger Turd Flinging Monkey was long-winded. I have extensively reviewed it for inclusion in the 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. This abridged and reviewed version is now available in another PDF for a more comfortable reading (if the visitor wants to print it):

https://chechar.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/turd-flinging-monkey.pdf

The article shows that feminism will die and patriarchy will be restored in Europe, either by regenerated Whites or by Muslims. Pay special attention to what we say in the last three pages.
 
Thursday update

An “angel of the library” visited me. Lately I have been reading Tacitus’ Germania very slowly, opening his book written in 98 AD once in a while. Today, in the edition of Ostara Publications, the bookmark I had left on page 8 opened the book here:

Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband’s power. Having cut off the hair of the adulteress and stripped her naked, he expels her from the house in the presence of her kinsfolk, and then flogs her through the whole village.

Although it is feminist rubbish, we saw something like this in the chapter “Mother’s Mercy” of Game of Thrones: the punishment of adulterous Queen Cersei.

The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit another husband. No one in Germany turns vices into mirth, nor is the practice of corrupting and of yielding to corruption, called the custom of the Age…

They receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state.

Here I lean toward Roger Devlin more than Turd Flinging Monkey: marriage was instituted to control hypergamous women, not brutish alpha males. It seems to me that, since we men are morally superior to women, our male ancestors had no choice but invent marriage as a rock-solid institution. It is the only way to avoid that female hypergamy, a residual instinct so natural in prehistoric times, destroys an incipient culture or civilization.

The wisdom of the ancient Germanics in Tacitus’ passage (thanks angel!) can be fully understood if we take a look not only to the PDF linked above but also to Devlin’s seminal paper.

The empire of the yin

The following is the introduction to the sixth part of the forthcoming 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.

______ ______

 

Part VI:

Sparta vs. feminized western males

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK:

The empire of the yin

White nationalists are waking up. But they are cowards: they are not organizing to do anything in a concerted effort. They are still thinking like civilians, not as freedom fighters. As the creator of our fourteen words put it in the following article, “Unless we have an unseen army of total barbarians devoid of pity, of compassion, of compunctions, of restraining moralisms, we are doomed.”

In this section I have chosen the example of virile Sparta, another long text by Evropa Soberana, to shame nationalists a bit with the antithetical example of their pussy ways. Sparta is located at the farthest polarity of Yang that the white race has reached.

Like the rest of whites, the feminized nationalists I have interacted with are still living in the Empire of the yin. Whites have become so emasculated that they are no longer fighting for sex, preferring masturbation or porn instead. The feminization of western males comes hand with hand with feminism: the sinful masculinization of western women. Many white nationalists do not hate feminism, which should be hated with more vehemence than their hatred of the Jews.

After the essay on Sparta I excerpt texts from two disparate sources in still another long article. The first source are excerpts from John Sparks’ Battle of the Sexes in the Animal World (1999). Sparks, who uses very elegant language, studied animal behavior at the Zoological Society of London. After the fundamentals to understand the dialectics of animal yin-Yang I quote from a YouTube blogger, Turd Flinging Monkey whom I refer simply as “the blogger.” He is one of the most radical voices of the MGTOW movement (Men going their own way). The blogger uses profanities and I imitate his style in that section. Underlined words mean keywords for the scientific case against feminism, like dimorphism, gynocentrism, hypergamy, etc.

But first I must reproduce the letter of David Lane and the book on Sparta that I translated from Spanish.