Jesus’ slaves

Further to my ‘Yin empire’ (pay special attention to the discussion with Joseph Walsh in the comments section of that post).
 
I cannot afford that luxury (cf. Walsh’s second comment in that thread), as whites are the only ones capable of making that my religion of the 4 words flies in the future. If they go extinct, the animals will be condemned to the continuing torture in the slaughterhouses and in the labs—precisely what the Nazis tried to prevent.

Instead, what I’ve started to care less are the classics of literature and philosophy, the ‘Wisdom of the West’ as Bertrand Russell put it. If none of the supposedly greatest writers and philosophers wrote about the importance of race, or the need to understand that the coloured races were a potential threat to Aryans, how can I have interest in a ‘wisdom’ that presently has proven so unwise?

The greatest paradox of history is that the compassion of whites is counter-productive, as it’s all too clear with what I said above about the fate of animals if they go extinct.

Recently I’ve thought about the left-right hemispheric segregation of brain function in the context of the political terms left and right. Let’s compare our political biases with left-handed or right-handed people always remembering that, in most people, as the left side of the brain controls speaking right-handedness predominates; and vice versa for left-handed people.

Could if be that leftists—predominately women but presently the feminized males of the West that are slaves of the Jesus archetype—are thinking predominately with the right hemisphere and we predominately with the left one? The trouble I see not only with normies but even with compassionate Alt-Righters is that emotional thinking predominates in counter-productive, even ethno-suicidal ways.

Take the Spartan example as a paradigm. Why women should never, ever be empowered in society is illustrated with the example of a defective baby in ancient Hellas. If Spartan women had the right to let him or her live, eugenics would have been impossible in her society. A Spartan husband on the other hand could handle the situation more coldly, even though he also suffered when sentencing his child to die.

Women think with their emotions. The feminized male in today’s West is totally incapable of thinking coldly; of using properly the left hemisphere of his brain to control the emotions of the right one. He is really living under the archetype of a lefty, androgynous Jesus: including the secular humanists and even, with a few exceptions, the white nationalists.

Only the pains of a societal collapse would make them awaken from the Empire of the Yin.

Published in: on September 22, 2017 at 12:27 pm  Comments (11)  
Tags: ,

Axiological revisionism

‘Whenever referring to modern history the line is drawn: we live in the post-war period. For the most part the lines on the maps, the institutions and more importantly how we define our era as a society—all find their origins in World War II’ said a vlogger in a video I embedded here last Thursday.

I hope I’ll have the textual transcript of the whole audio by the weekend. It is pivotal to understand the current evil paradigm that has been destroying the white race since I was a child.

It is so important actually that I must reiterate what I have said elsewhere: Getting the record straight about what really happened in that war should be #1 priority in racialist circles. And getting the record straight about what really was National Socialism should be equally prioritised.

As far as I know Carolyn Yeager is the only one that theoretically has this approach. But she’s a woman, and as she has made it perfectly clear, she doesn’t want to be associated with my ‘extremism, i.e., murder and mayhem, Viking style’. I cannot blame Carolyn as white nationalist males are as distant from Himmler’s SS as is this woman.

These tweets by Young White Family hit the nail:

‘The WN meme that the Nazis dindu nuffin and dindu mass grave killings is ridiculous and goes against the violent attitude we need to have.’

‘100 Dylan Roofs and the JewSA would crumble. 100,000 peaceful whiners and enemies are still laughing at us.’

‘Nearly every White Nationalist info source is cleverly scripted towards re-pacifying Whites into the Christian, pro “justice system” fold.’

‘So sick of the whining and aggrandizement of Jews like they’re supermen. It’s White traitors and our own weakness that’s the main problem.’

‘There’s enough WNs right now to take down the system if they had balls, not blogs.’

‘White people won’t be saved by YouTube videos. It’s going to take White men who kill enemies and cause more ppl to fear them than the gov’t.’

‘If WNs operated more like ISIS instead of complaining about them, we’d be noteworthy, and not a pathetic bunch of politicking wannabes.’

‘Wahhh, you support genocide, you’re anti-White and bad’ – said the WN fag pussy. Whites won’t survive if they don’t genocide non-Whites.

An axiological soulmate! Conversely, in ‘Against Vantardism’ Hunter Wallace published a pic of Dylan Roof as an example of a ‘vanatrdist’. But the only retarded here are those nationalists who simply cannot grasp the truth in the sentence ‘A hundred Dylan Roofs and the JewSA would crumble. 100,000 peaceful whiners and our enemies are still laughing at us.’

Don’t take me wrong. I am not advocating violence right now because I am certain that the dollar will crash and, when it does, the System will start to crumble. Even William Pierce did not recommend violence to his listeners, though he never condemned it either (see for example what Pierce wrote about Bob Mathews).

Wallace’s stance is refuted in this video, where he was constantly interrupted by the crying of a child. But of course: these guys admit women with small children in their conferences! Compare them not only with the real Nazis but with the white warriors of yore.

Today’s nationalists are still thinking like civilians, not as freedom fighters. But going back to the point I was making at the beginning of this entry, last October a Counter-Currents article advised ‘Not Starting with Revisionism’.

gulagThe exact opposite is the truth. As I have said many times, if Anglo-Saxons don’t atone for the Holocaust they committed on the Germans, their little race will go extinct. A good starting point for anti-Nazi normies who still gravitate around the current narrative about the Second World War is this abridged book.

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?

Where are your balls?

Fifty years ago, the noblest man born in America was bid farewell with Nazi salutes. Last year, the Roman salute was even condemned by the panel of racialist speakers who, within a few yards, watched Richard Spencer toast after Trump’s triumph. This year the white nationalists have gone further after Charlottesville: they claim in unison that all swastikas must be banned because they give bad optics.

Did the nationalists betray themselves? Rather, the people in general are incredibly more brainwashed than the day they said goodbye to Rockwell. In addition, American nationalists are more cowardly than Ursula Haverbeck, the 88-year-old German woman who has just been sentenced to jail for daring to say anything other than the accepted history of the holocaust.

The day Rockwell was murdered I was a child. Then there were no documentaries on the ‘holocaust’ in the media. Within my life span I have witnessed the holocaust industry grow exponentially to authentically pious levels.

The feminized tactics of today’s racists, to hide the swastikas, must be replaced by the manly tactic of telling the truth about what happened in World War II. But who in the forums of white nationalism constantly talks about the Hellstorm Holocaust committed on the Germans, even from 1945 to 1947? Or does a German old lady have more balls than today’s Americans?

From Joseph Walsh’s desk

It has become clear to me that us white males must kill our enemies or our race will go extinct. By our enemies I mean primarily the Jews, and before someone imagines these Jews are invincible and untouchable, just think how many synagogues there are around your country? THE ENEMY that is genociding us is sitting comfortably in our own countries unmolested by the people he is exterminating. That says a lot about us. Unlike our ancestors, white males of today don’t kill our enemies. We send memes to them. We talk about them. Anything but actually killing them. But unless we resume the ways of our ancestors in dealing with their enemies we are not going to survive. If we are too cowardly to kill our enemies then our extinction will be richly deserved.

If there were no police, white men would be more likely to kill their enemies for the danger of life in prison would be put aside. The idea of a ‘collapse’ holds appeal to many because it’s assumed that in the chaos of the collapse, the police will somehow be dispersed and Whites can start killing their enemies without the threat of prison. But we should not rely on a collapse to take place, we must prepare for the worst—that things continue to remain the same. In that case we must simply kill our enemies. What is holding us back is ourselves. There are enough White Nationalist men worldwide to do serious damage to the Jews.

A thousand Breiviks attacking synagogues and the earth would tremble. It is white males who are to blame for lacking the initiative to carry out attacks on their enemies, white males who are to blame for their failure to secure our race’s existence. Real Men would have done something about all this decades ago. In fact real men would never have allowed this situation to come to pass. At some point during the end of WWII the White Man made the unconscious decision that he couldn’t be bothered to contend with the Jews and just chose extinction instead. It is this unconscious death-wish that has made it so easy for the Jews to genocide us.

If it becomes clear to me (and others) near the end of my lifetime that the White race is not going to survive, I will not pity us. For our extinction is justified by Natural Law. Nature’s Law of Survival of the Fittest ensures justice, and we will have been weighed in the balance by that law and judged unfit to survive. Extinction is the logical outcome for a species too cowardly and stupid to preserve itself, and although it is my own race that is perishing, from a detached, impartial perspective there is no need to pity it. It simply got what it deserved.

Published in: on August 9, 2017 at 5:23 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags:

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: ,

Lack of men

“The country is dying because of a
lack of men, not a lack of programs.”

—Codreanu

Published in: on May 18, 2017 at 1:51 pm  Comments (1)  

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.

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.