Lost opportunity

In the forthcoming WDH Radio Show, which is in the process of being edited, the Boer Jan Lamprecht is the special guest.

Too bad that I cannot speak English fluently. With a simultaneous translator this is what I’d have said when I drew the subject of the atomic bombs that South Africa had:

First of all, I agree with James Mason that “The enemy today is the US Government itself and it is by every standard of measure, the most evil thing that has ever existed on earth.” This means, as Mason’s fans say, that the only valid pro-white action in America is that of the absolutely Leveling of the existing State, state culture, it’s values; in short, the total destruction of Americanism as such.

From this angle, and here is where it hurts me to be unable to speak fluently—which I can perfectly do, and with furious glances, in my native tongue—, it would have been logical to have used the atomic bombs—over the United States.

The fact that the West, including the US, pressured South Africa to initiate significant political changes against the Apartheid can only be contextualized considering the Americanist hegemony and the wars for racial equality from the 1880s, when the US betrayed itself.

The South African government had six atomic bombs. If the South Africans had nuked Washington, in addition to New York (which would dispatch quite a few non-gentiles) and Hollywood (thus destroying the Jewish virus factories for the Aryan mind), together with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (which would have emboldened the surrounding Muslims to reconquer Israel)—with the surplus bomb being retained for London, Paris, or Moscow—South Africa would have been destroyed by the Evil Empire, but at least it would have died with honor. (See as a paradigm of what real man should be the Siege entry I just posted today.)

Compare this heroic scenario with the slow death that South Africa suffers now, so well explained in what Jan Lamprecht says in the next episode of WDH Radio.

I repeat once again: Now that I have reread the events about the Judeo-Roman wars, the direct and overwhelming way in which the pre-Christian Aryans handled the Jewish problem surprises me. If the Romans had known that their massacre of Jews; their destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, and prohibiting Jews to enter their holy city would not produce results in the long run, they would have killed them in the siege of Jerusalem instead of selling the survivors as slaves. They didn’t do it because they ignored that this line of Semites had a more resistant spirit than the Carthaginian Semites, on whom the Romans had applied the same medicine.

Let us not blame the pre-Christian Romans. Blame instead the contemporary Aryans, including many “defenders” of the white race. Because of the mental virus that the Jews implanted in them, these latter-day Aryans are incapable of (1) celebrating each year what the Romans did with our racial enemies, and (2) devising a really final solution for the problem.

If they had sneaked five of the bombs they possessed into key cities in the US, Apartheid South Africans could have dealt a great blow to the Evil Empire. But they did not. The ideas in this post show why I barely speak on radio shows. If I’m unable to speak the English language with proper pronunciation and fluency, saying these things would only sound wrong. But at least I can say them in writing based on what Mason said above.

Siege, 8

When right wing becomes revolution

You’ve all read of the arrests in New Orleans made in connection with the projected plan involving the island of Dominica in the Caribbean Sea. I must comment at the start of this that a D-Day on the part of the Ku Klux Klan is a long way from burning crosses in cow pastures. That is encouraging enough right there. But because it was a first, infant step, it failed. It failed however for reasons easily corrected. It was a good idea and it was not bound to fail. Loose lips sink ships, always did and always will. I’m not trying to pick apart a mission that failed for reasons either inside or outside but I am wondering about something that could have still happened but did not.

It was reported that the KKK members were arrested with automatic weapons, about to embark by boat from New Orleans. Why did this happen? Why should ten men with automatic weapons about to leave the United States by boat be arrested? How could they be arrested unless they themselves decided in their own minds to let themselves be arrested? Instead of the end of a Right Wing mission, it could have and should have been the beginning of a revolutionary one. It could have begun right there on the pier.

They might be dead or out to sea right now but they’d be free and the System would most definitely have bled and the White Man would have scored a solid hit against the forces of Big Brother. Instead, these men are in a limbo and facing many years in prison while no real action was ever taken. Think of the tragic waste! They still maintained the old Right Wing notion of “getting away” with something; they felt individual life too sweet to take the dare and RESIST!

One set of equations that Joe Tommasi never got around to mentioning regarding the levels of the struggle is this: in the past the Right Wing pulled stupid stunts against Blacks and other useless expendables and then ran away hoping not to be caught later by Big Brother but usually were caught, and then offered no RESISTANCE. (Trying to defend yourself in Big Brother’s courtrooms is not resistance.) Lately some of the Movement have been choosing better, higher targets but still put themselves in a runaway kind of position where they are either caught right on the spot or after a manhunt. Again, little or no resistance (except in the heroic case of Fred Cowan who would not be taken).

The two levels which the Movement is steadily evolving toward are these: first, if they must put themselves in a hit-and-run position then they will have made up their minds at the start to not surrender by the rules of the System’s game. The final level is when they have begun to hit and keep on hitting, never considering detection much less capture because they are completely involved with the ongoing attack. This final level of struggle shall be when the so-called “capture parties” sent by Big Brother go out but don’t come back.

Any bets as to whether it’s coming to that or just how soon?

Vol. X, #6 – June, 1981

Order a copy of Siege (here)

Published in: on July 14, 2017 at 9:22 am  Comments (4)  

Siege, 7

Something that will work

This would almost call for a “mass” movement but here again we must carefully watch our definitions and understanding. By “masses” we need at most only a few hundred thousand more-or-less hardcore people committed to revolution and, to get and keep this discussion down-to-earth, we have been on the verge of going after these few hundred thousand twice before in the history of the Movement in the United States. Not only in theory but in actuality as newspaper headlines and membership rosters showed. First in 1966 and again in 1973.

As strange as it may sound, the opportunities of 1966 were lost well before Commander Rockwell was assassinated. And certainly there was no such single incident in 1973 [comparable to assassination of the leader] that could be easily blamed for the downward trend that next set in. In both instances the revolutionary political groundwork had not been tended to in advance of the laborious and painstaking street work which was eventually—and all too fleetingly—crowned with the reward of some significant numerical clout.

I’m sure also that had the pitfalls of having no solid chain-of-command reinforced and ready for the sudden challenge of hard success somehow been accidentally avoided, then still the moment would have been lost due to a lack of greater direction—a revolutionary plan—when suddenly called for.

And such a thing can rarely be supplied by accident. Getting into the rut of rolling with the blows is dangerous because it gets habit-forming and it numbs the senses and imagination. We have to know exactly what we’d do with a real political machine if we had one right now, for if we were handed one—or the means of getting one and did not know precisely what to do with it, we’d quickly blow it.

In 1966 Commander Rockwell was unable to EXPLOIT the God-given opportunity that presented itself in Chicago that summer and fall. He always considered and referred to himself as being the spearhead of the Right Wing and when the historic moment arrived during the time of the Black riots in major cities, when Commander Rockwell was doing his best spearheading activities, he was LET DOWN AND BETRAYED by his own side.

They failed to act in support even when, as the Commander himself pointed out, they stood to gain more from his efforts than he did because in the main, those people recruited by an intensive, unified Right Wing drive would naturally gravitate toward the “softer”, “easier” names and approaches like the NSRP [National States’ Rights Party] and various Mans. The Commander said all along that he only wanted and would only get what any true spearhead outfit must have: FIGHTING MEN! The apex moment of the 1960’s was thus lost.

In 1973, through constant activity nationwide and through some admirable policies of professionalism, the Movement stood ready to break into what Commander Rockwell would have called “Phase Three”, or the phase of mass action. We then had more leaders than had been on the scene in 1966. Rather than wait for a moment to come, we made our own. Not only that but we also chose the place: Cleveland. Over one hundred uniformed, helmeted Troopers marched down the middle of Euclid Avenue that Labor Day and formed-up in a public square for a rally.

And though the opposition was there—from the System and from the Reds—we were too strong. Had that sort of show of strength and discipline been maintained and repeated in various other cities it most likely would have, first, broken the “spell” of thousands who were hovering on the brink of committing openly and, second, prompted panic reactions on the part of every aspect of our racial Enemy thus providing obvious and inescapable openings for further and greater EXPLOTATION.

What set in next, both in 1966 and 1973, is what we must now learn to recognize and make our new effort far less vulnerable—if not altogether immune—to. There seemed to be no absolute commitment to REVOLUTION. No one seemed to know what the goal really was. The prevailing leadership at both times used the term “White Revolution” copiously in their propaganda but they thought only in terms of a revolutionary ideal or of a revolutionary social change far down the road somewhere.

They did not fully subscribe to TOTAL REVOLUTION NOW! And not only the men at the very top. The one-man show has proved it can’t get to first base. To be legitimate, a revolutionary political movement must have at least about a dozen or more leading, prominent figures. No one among the cadres being built at those times (with the single outstanding exception of Joseph Tommasi) was thinking purely revolutionary.

Everyone had their own ideas, and were bent on doing their own trip. When the “fun” stopped, when the “thrill” wore off, when the self-gratification halted, they split. Also because they had their own conceptions, most of the rules of good common sense got walked all over—primarily during and after 1973—resulting in petty bureaucracy followed closely by alienation and the effective destruction of the one party.

Had everyone concerned been completely committed to REVOLUTION OVER THE SYSTEM then it would have been a much easier task to sublimate the personal feelings and weaknesses which destroyed their efforts ultimately. The most incompatible of personalities can work together effectively for revolution but hardly for a damned thing else.

The most limited and klutzy individual can understand the common sacred drive to SMASH THE SYSTEM. Everyone can find his or her proper place in the WAR AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT. The Communists have proven this in a dozen historic cases, all of them recent. Once we get our fallible and undependable selves sublimated to REVOLUTION then the rest should come easy when compared to the endless, nowhere drag of past years.

Once accomplished, then all the “right” and the high ideals will have some meaning and can be put to some use. Instead of the current hindrance, they will have become the “end” that justifies whatever “means” may be necessary.

Vol. XI #1 – January, 1982

Order a copy of Siege (here)

Slippery slope

“It is far too easy to abandon our principles and values arguing pressure of circumstance. It takes strength of character, fortitude and resilience to resist the corrosive ideas of our enemies who bid us take the easy way… We have only to compromise once and we are on the slippery slope that leads to betrayal.”

—Derek Holland (The Political Soldier)

Published in: on June 30, 2017 at 1:06 pm  Leave a Comment  

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.

In defense of white sharia

by Sacco Vandal

Donald Thoresen recently wrote a criticism of the White Sharia meme, wherein he alleged that the proponents of the meme may perhaps be suffering from “self-hatred… and the internalization of white subservience.” As one of the genuine originators of the meme—which was first promulgated on my podcast, The War Room, in late 2016—I assure you: this is simply not the case.

In his piece, Thoresen wonders why anyone on the Alt Right would be “attracted to the brutality of the Islamic world” and advises those who enjoy the White Sharia meme to “decolonize themselves.” Unfortunately, it is Thoresen who needs to decolonize himself. He seems to have internalized the attempts of the darker races to meme our men into pacifistic, overly-civilized weaklings. Our enemies have facilitated this lie precisely in order to disarm us before moving in for the kill. But, in reality, barbarity is not foreign to us whites.

We should never forget that Faustian man was once, not so long ago, the most vicious and barbaric player on the world stage. Oswald Spengler referred to early Western man as “the red-haired barbarian” of “Frankistan.” Whites did not conquer the entire Earth by being nice or civilized; Whites conquered the world by sailing into foreign lands and taking those lands by force. Vikings, Crusaders, and Conquistadores alike were all practitioners of rape, pillage, and plunder.

But, alas, we have lost that barbarity. Our enemies have successfully memed us into cowardly weaklings.

____________

Read it all: here

Published in: on June 10, 2017 at 8:00 pm  Comments (11)  

White Sharia

Unlike most white nationalists, Andrew Anglin has been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about women. He’s even better than the MGTOW complainers because MGTOWers are not racists. Below, a few excerpts from Anglin’s article today on the Stormer:
 

What I am “claiming”—which is in fact simply explaining an objective reality, based on accepted science—is that women have no concept of “race,” as it is too abstract for their simple brains. What they have a concept of is getting impregnated by the dominant male.

Believing in “racially aware women” is a furry-tier sexual perversion. A woman is hardwired to breed with whoever she perceives as dominant in the society, as she wishes to give birth to dominant children. That is simple, mainstream, accepted evolutionary biology—not to mention painfully fucking obvious.

In a natural society, all women wanted to fuck the dominant warlord tribal chief. Because that would produce for them dominant, warlord children, who would protect them, feed them, house them and clothe them when they were too old and unattractive to have a male protect them for sexual reasons. This is the biological instinct of women to produce the most dominant male offspring—that instinct does not recognize race.

And we now have a society that has elevated the brown man to the status of dominant male. So the increasing female desire is to fuck the brown man. This is not complicated and it is not controversial.

The female sex drive is primitive and obsolete. Having been sexually liberated, they are leading our race to oblivion…

Primitive, obsolete female sex drive needs to be controlled with brutality.

I wish there was another way.

But there isn’t.

Published in: on May 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm  Comments (22)  
Tags: ,

Finally!

“Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state,” said Goebbels. While our comrades at the other side of the Atlantic can be incarcerated for trying to conquer the street, at least in this continent they were allowed to do it last Saturday in Pikeville, Kentucky, USA.

“There were people in attendance from the National Socialist Movement, the Traditionalist Worker’s Party, Iron March, Daily Stormer, The Right Stuff, The League of the South, White Lives Matter, America First Party, Vanguard America, and innumerable others,” wrote Benjamin Garland on The Stormer.

Now I can withdraw what I said in the past about “ethnosuicidal nationalists,” at least in the sense that they are—finally!—organizing themselves.

Published in: on May 2, 2017 at 9:21 am  Comments (3)  

Sparta

spartan-king-leonidas-greece

My revised translation of the “minibook” Sparta and its Law that will appear within the 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour is now available in PDF, so that it may be printed for a comfortable reading:

https://chechar.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/sparta.pdf

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.