Phony white nationalists

npi-conf-too-500x200

I copied this image from an ad on The Occidental Observer. This is the problem with white nationalists. Jack Donovan, who is included in the list of featured speakers in the forthcoming gathering, is homo and they have no problem with it. I wouldn’t mind if Donovan was an in-closet homo. But the guy advertises his sexuality openly, crossing a line that will never be allowed crossing in the ethnostate, where whites will really “become what we are” to quote from the title of the coming gathering.

Yesterday Greg Johnson had the audacity of reposting his “gay marriage” article published exactly two years ago, an homosexualist piece that was elegantly refuted by Hajo Liaucius (Liaucius’ response made its way in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour). And like typical liberals and leftists, in his blog Johnson continues, today, banning dissenters that strongly disagree with his plea to accept homosexual “marriage.”

American Renaissance is not much better. It’s several days now since the Supreme Court approved homo marriage in the US and there’s still no critical article in their site. So it’s not only Counter Currents. These two other blogsites together with Richard Spencer’s, whose name also appears in the above pic, are major sites for white interests and they are unable recognize that approving such “marriage” is harmful for us. In fact, American Renaissance has also invited Donovan to its conferences, who has been photographed next to Spencer. (I don’t care that Donovan has criticized such pseudo-marriage. The point is that no out-of-the-closet homo should be allowed to address the young.)

The following article, “Look what gay marriage did to freedom of speech in Canada” by Red Dawn, quotes a writer whose last name sounds Jewish. She might be Jewish only in name as she was adopted by two male homos. Whatever she is, isn’t it a shame that a woman raised by fags is now defending our interests while, at the same time, among leading WN sites pieces strongly criticizing homo “marriage” are lacking? The American Red Dawn wrote (abridged):
 

* * *

 
fag banner

There are a couple things we can learn from our neighbors of the North. In an excellent piece in Aleteia, Dawn Stefanowicz, a woman who lives in Canada and was raised by gay parents, pens a warning to the United States: We don’t want to embrace gay marriage, and Canada is proof. Canada federally mandated gay marriage about ten years ago in 2005. Since then, their freedoms have eroded.

Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

It slowly creeps up, and before you know it, you can’t speak about the traditional family of a man, woman and children without authorities considering it “hate speech.” In fact, you couldn’t even have this kind of debate in Canada, because everyone would start shouting, “OMG you’re so homophobic and bigoted!” But it doesn’t end there.

Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

With gay marriage totally legal, the traditional family structure is destroyed. Kids can totally be raised by two dads or two moms, and call me discriminatory or hateful, but that’s not nature’s way. With same sex marriage legal, the concerns of kids are shut out. It’s not politically correct to point out, but kids who are raised by parents of the same sex have problems growing up (identifying with their gender, sexuality, and wondering about their “missing” parent of the opposite sex). A dad can’t fundamentally replace a mom, and a mom can’t fundamentally replace a dad. Stefanowicz would know. Two gay men raised her.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.

Oh, didn’t you hear? They’re called “legal” parents now. Canada basically “erased biological parenthood” and replaced it with this warm and fuzzy gender-neutral term “legal parent.” So once again, the state is overriding parental rights. Because it can.

And this is where it gets even scarier. In Canada, it’s considered discriminatory to say marriage is between a man and a woman. If someone catches and reports you uttering your bigoted, intolerant opinion, prepare to face tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.

And it still gets worse. In Canada, the state has a say on what you’re teaching your children. And if they don’t like it, they can be taken from you:

The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.

So if you’re not teaching your children the state mandated gender-neutral terminology, expect a knock at your door chumps.

Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language.

Bottom line? Gay marriage is slowly eroding the freedom of speech away in Canada. And everyone’s playing along because they don’t want to be the bad guy. Heck, in order to keep their status as charities, churches even play along! The media’s restricted. Business owners are restricted. Parents are restricted. Everyone’s restricted. Is that what you want America?

Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

 

gay_marriageEditor’s note:

Although “Hate speech” is no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act, due to the militant character of homos—and especially because “the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty”—you’ll see how they will sue, in the US, those American photographers or bakers who decline their services in such “weddings.”

On WN fools

by Jack Frost

april-fools-day
 
“But a larger reason is probably the fact that most current white nationalists are, as I’ve alluded to earlier, thinkers and not doers…”

It would be more accurate to say they are losers, not winners. They are immature fools who expect a race war to be fought—by white people anyway—by Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Also hysterical: their claim that on the one hand, Jews control the media, and on the other that their own actions have something to do with the way they are portrayed in that media. They will tell you they understand, but it obviously still hasn’t penetrated their skulls that they are going to be demonized no matter what they do.

That’s how we get these loons who claim to be white advocates, who are more upset about the loss of 9 negroes than they are about poor Mr. Roof, who, taking his manifesto at face value, has sacrificed his own life for his race.

In truth, and by every principle of Darwinism, the white race would be infinitely better off without any negroes at all. So long as this kind of non-thinking prevails, the status quo will continue, and whites will continue to be victims. After a while, you begin to suspect that that’s what these pretenders want. They like being victims because they think it gives them a superior moral position, and it also frees them from the painful and dangerous responsibility of taking action.

The whole thing is really quite nauseating.

________________

Editor’s note of 9:30 pm:

The Christians at Occidental Dissent are a good paradigm of this foolishness. See for example here (“murder is immoral”).

And especially here (“I am deeply saddened by the killings in Charleston. Once in every 50 years or so, the Mainstream Media does actually tell the truth and this does appear to be a terrible instance of a White racist [sic!] criminal killing innocent African Americans in a Christian church”).

Published in: on June 26, 2015 at 8:38 am  Comments (6)  
Tags:

Phony traditionalists

One of the most bothersome aspects among today’s racists is their feminism, so much that I’ve been tempted to quote the many feminist passages in Harold Covington’s Freedom’s Sons. (Covington is supposedly the toughest neo-Nazi in America insofar as he is planning a violent revolution to takeover the Northwest for whites.)

1950s American family valuesCovington aside, what should be accepted wisdom among real traditionalists, patriarchy, is altogether missing in many quarters of white nationalists. Andrew Anglin’s recent articles exposing these phony traditionalists are worth reading (e.g., here and here).

Southern nationalist

“I have to do it. You [African Americans] rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.”

—Dylann Storm Roof

 
killerRegarding yesterday’s Charleston, South Carolina shooting (pic of the perp, Dylann Storm Roof), southern nationalist Hunter Wallace has just said “We’re Christians. It’s not something we would ever do.”

What the hell is that supposed to mean? It was the American Christians the ones who committed the most serious crime of all history in the century when we were born: the Hellstorm Holocaust (see Tom Sunic’s “A war crime of the Bible”). Because of this Holocaust white people all over the world have been targeted for slow extermination since 1945—a sort of a Morgenthau Plan “lite” not only for Germany but for the whole West, the US included.

If Aryans go indeed extinct, future Chinese or Muslim historians will certainly blame Christian axiology as a major factor of white suicide.

________________

See update to Roof’s actions: here

Radio Renaissance

RadRen1

You can listen yesterday’s broadcast of Radio Renaissance by downloading it: here.

Sebastian Ronin’s group is absolutely right that white nationalists don’t want to abandon their comfort zone in the internet. They are right that a financial accident is coming and, later, an apocalyptic energy devolution that will open a window of opportunity for whites to shift paradigms. They are is also right that, as Ronin put it, “if a movement does not go political nothing happens.” His words sharply contrast with small groups at both sides of the Atlantic (for example Counter Currents and the London Forum) that limit themselves to so-called metapolitics—mere essayism and intellectual meetings. Ronin’s group is right that—unlike, say, Golden Dawn—white nationalist groups are composed by cowards who cannot understand the maxim, “No risk no return.”

However, we disagree with Ronin regarding Pierce: the best mind that this continent has ever produced. Also, Ronin doesn’t seem to know that the Christian problem is larger than the Jewish problem, and that in modern times it even encompasses it (see the recent entries quoting Jack Frost). In Ronin’s group the subject of the Hellstorm Holocaust goes unmentioned. Exposing it is the only way that the sins of the descendants of those who destroyed Germany’s spirit may be atoned.

I am afraid to say that Ronin’s group isn’t spiritual enough. Although Pat Buchanan is not one of us, in the Buchanan interview I recently linked in a couple of posts (e.g., here) Pat hit the nail: the West needs a St Paul for a great awakening. But I am not a Christian and agree with Michael O’Meara that one could see the next awakening in purely ontological terms. However, unlike the masters of the spoken word the colder intellectuals cannot fully understand Being. As my good friend Manu Rodríguez told me, we need a New Temple to reconnect with our Indo-European heritage. To me, a priest of the 14 words, Aryan female beauty is the first pillar of the New Temple, and I wish more people would “take the black” as I did.

For Ronin’s group the US and Canada will break down into several nation-states. While in the short run that would be advisable, in the long run a white Reich would conquer a fragmented new nation if it is not wholly militarized. A new, non-fascist ethnostate reminds me Hitler’s annexation of Austria. Furthermore, only a united Reich could face the challenges presented to the whole West by the awakened dragon, China. Hitler’s view of conquering a continent for his Reich is the right one. His is the only way forward. White nationalists’ and Ronin’s non-Imperium goals won’t face the huge challenges presented to us later in this century when slaying the awakened dragon. The big question is if the Aryan Reich will originate in Europe or in the continent where I am presently living (a subject to be discusses elsewhere).

Finally, Ronin’s “Renaissance” group supports the creation of Aztlán, a Negro ethnostate, and an Indian state in North Dakota. That cannot contrast more dramatically with Pierce’s dream of cleansing the whole area. Is the Renaissance group still trapped in Christian axiology or is that only PR tactics so that they don’t get demonized by the Jew-controlled media?

Whatever the answer, unlike them and white nationalists those who have taken the black know that only hatred big time will save the race.

A brief Sebas exchange

Commenting about the video by Brother Nathanael “How to fix America,” I said yesterday at Sebastian Ronin’s Facebook page: “The US can’t be fixed even by non-Jew white nationalists. These guys don’t want to recognize that even considered in isolation the Old Testament kind of Christianity brought by their original founding fathers and America’s worship of Mammon are larger factors than the Jew one. Impossible to fix unless you renounce the US’s double-helix genes: something that white nationalists won’t do.”

Hermann1Today Sebastian responded:

The vast majority of Murkan WNs are simply dumb Cracka patriotards. They won’t renounce because they can’t renounce; they do not have the existential capacity to renounce. Just let it burn.

Published in: on May 9, 2015 at 9:28 am  Comments (12)  

On secular Christianity

The Occidental Observer (TOO) has been publishing several articles on white pathology this week (this one on Sweden, only the latest). I feel that neither the editor of TOO nor the commenters have a grasp of what Secular Christianity is. For example, in the linked article Kevin MacDonald wrote:

It is vitally important that we come to grips with this suicidal phenomenon which is more common in Northern Europeans. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Sweden is the most secular country in the world, and its elites are hostile to Christianity and more than happy to donate Christian churches to the non-Christian newcomers, or destroying them to make housing for them.

Jack Frost commented:

“It has nothing to do with Christianity.”
I couldn’t disagree more. The striving after moral perfection you’re talking about is nothing if not Christian, as are the underlying ideals of charity and universal brotherhood. It’s inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long. Christianity is where the West’s morality comes from, not propaganda. The sort of madness described above was unknown in whites of pre-Christian times.

MacDonald responded:

As an evolutionist, that is difficult to accept. You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics. Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell? Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics? Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?

Besides my Tuesday entry where I quoted him I do not know well Frost’s point of view. Is he blaming Christianity for all our problems? I would disagree with such reductionism. In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the formula that appears in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) plus egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) plus the empowerment of Jewry since the times of Napoleon has created a lethal brew for the white peoples. In other words: I don’t believe in a single cause of western decline, but in several etiological ingredients.

MacDonald does not believe that Christianity is a root cause of the problem. The questions he raises above can be explained if we introduce the notion of what in The Fair Race we call “Secular Christianity.”

Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell?

Secular Christians—western atheists, agnostics or nihilists who subscribe liberalism—have not abandoned the idea of sin, only sublimated it. Post-Christian whites are supposed to be the “bad guys” of world history.

Regarding the idea of hell, this has been the most psychotic idea of all Western history. In my opinion, the doctrine of eternal damnation proves that whites were psychotic throughout Christendom. I have written extensively about this extremely disturbing doctrine in Spanish and only a little in English.

Suffice it to say that it was to be expected that when whites abandoned the idea of eternal torture that they allegedly deserved according to the monstrous god they used to worship, something would happen. The extreme self-harming violence of such idea had to find an outlet, an ogre of the superego so to speak: exactly what we may well be witnessing with these pious efforts to deliver the European soil to the downtrodden à la The Camp of the Saints.

Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics?

Good question professor MacDonald. Here we can see that my “brew” metaphor is better than any of the monocausal explanations. Among whites universalism is hard wired since prehistory, which explains why sand niggers who have embraced Christianity are immune to it.

Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?

And here we have the other major factor, capitalism, in action. The use of slaves was obviously motivated by economic interests. In the past greed trumped the compassionate message of the gospel. Let me put it in this way: in Yang times capitalism trumps Christian axiology, whereas in yin times like ours altruistic axiology trumps economic interests.

In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the Swede from whom I learnt the term “Secular Christianity.” I tried to explain the TOO commentariat that Christianity is not only dogmatics, but axiology (moral grammar, ultimate ethics) as well. From this viewpoint modern liberals, however rabid anti-Christian may seem, have not really broken away from their grandparents’ religion.

The Swedes who have been the subject of a couple of recent articles at TOO are a good example. What’s the most classic Swedish film that comes to mind? Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, which depicts a quixotic knight (played by Max von Sydow, pic below) and his pragmatic squire who return to Sweden after fighting in the Crusades. Saving the Holy Land from the infidels (a Yang goal) may no longer be fashionable, but fulfilling the promises of the Sermon of the Mount (a yin goal), which contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, has become mandatory, especially the Beatitudes. As a TOO commenter put it, “The idea that deluded, race denying, libtard Swedes think that they are creating a humanitarian superpower by genetically obliterating themselves, is one of the most perverse forms of masochistic megalomania that I have ever heard of.” But this is only the modern equivalent of the quixotic, and therefore disastrous, Children’s Crusade of 1212 (which recent scholarship has revealed was conducted not exactly by children but by quixotic commoners).

Scandinavian Quixote

Presently whites are as religious Don Quixotes as they have always been, especially the pure Nordid atheists and secular humanists who claim to hate Christianity. But with honorable exceptions, like Alex Linder and company, MacDonald and most white nationalists ignore it.

I like to think of Christianity / Secular Christianity as a circle. Once you dismiss half of it, the dogma, the remaining axiological half metastasizes and tries to grow in the form of a circle again; this time without any need of gospel fictions. With due time dogmatics is thoroughly dismissed and the area of Secular Christianity becomes a full circle again. Every neo-Christian wants to be a quixotic knight in one way or another. The Swede wrote:

Our progressivist paradigm is based on Christian ethics. The Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West.” The current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization.

It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes. So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, [presently] it causes the population explosion in the world.

Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet.

But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form.

And not only the population explosion thanks to Western aid. Secular Christianity is behind the acceptance of those masses of non-white immigrants into our soils. Frost is right above that it is inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long (my emphasis). Furthermore, the Swede claims, in my opinion accurately, that since in neo-Christianity there is no sacrificial Christ, we ourselves, the still guilty post-Christians, must do the sacrifice—what is happening in Sweden!

In the article about “Schweitzer’s niglets” which expands the above quote you will also surmise a possible reply to one of MacDonald’s critical statements of Frost’s views:

You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics.

Well, quixotic Albert Schweitzer exemplifies why once you lose the credibility in the gospels, Christian axiology is not only maintained but reinforced.

Apparently the concept of a witches’ brew containing several ingredients is too strong food for thought to be digested even by the best minds in white nationalism. I gave up trying to convey my complex ideas to the commenters of those TOO threads, and even the site admin removed a couple of my posts.

So I said “good bye” to The Occidental Observer. However, since MacDonald is still taking issue with Frost in today’s comments section, I’d love if someone posts a link to this article in that thread.

The biological white

british-actor

This month I suspended the flow of Hitler’s table talks because I wanted the gospel fictions message to sink in. But that will never happen among those white nationalists stuck in their parents’ religion. Andrew Anglin for example, who said at the London Forum that he wants to blame the Jew for everything, wrote a piece “On the biological Jew” that in 2013 I excerpted here.

Anglin and most white nationalists have been beholding the mote in the Jew’s eye and fail to consider the beam in their own.

As any regular visitor knows I was born in Mexico. I’d like to respond to Anglin et al by means of quoting the comments that Gottlieb, who like me was born in Latin America, posted a couple of years ago over several threads in this blog. Since his native language is not English I’ll correct some of his syntax. His comments are a perfect counterpart to the received wisdom in white nationalism. In the bulleted sentences Gottlieb said:

  • I found a serious defect in the perfectly candid psychology of Christians and leftists. They are extremely egocentric and try to demonstrate their “goodness” through the stupid idea of loving the neighbor, regardless of who’s the neighbor.
  • Yes: the intellectual and cultural elite of today’s West is made up of Jews, but mainly by white liberals. That’s why the elites, a hybrid of white liberal and Jewish, want to destroy the ethnic homogeneity of white countries: they themselves are a minority.

This reminds me a shocking discovery in MacDonald’s trilogy: that centuries before the Jews took over the Western media the Christian kings used them to control the white population, especially by taxing.

  • Could it be that liberals suffer from brainwash or that they are already predisposed to believe in equality and fraternity? I think the same about people who believe in the Bible: brainwashing or genetic a propensity?

Which of course reminds me Revilo Oliver’s observation that Christianity is an Indo-European religion about which the Chinese and other peoples are immune.

  • Europeans are extremists by nature. That’s why the Swedes, who sterilized 60,000 people during the 20th century, became one of the most liberal countries in the world.
  • As I said, the purest whites are the most liberal. That must mean something. On the other hand, the more mixed tend to be the most tribalist. In the US, the more racist South is where happened some form of mild racial mixing while New England was originally the land of the purest Anglo-Saxons of the Americas. The purest whites are the least racist because they evolved directly to fulfill this kind of Christianity; while clearly mixed people—a considerable part of the Russians, Iberians, and Balkanians—remained tribalists. What might save me from being a complete liberal fool are my non-white genes.
  • Note also the Nazi leaders. Most of them were not even Nordic. This also relates to aggressiveness. Blondes and redheads tend to be less aggressive. It was extremely common among the classical anthropologists of the past to portray Alpine populations as having Mongolian admixtures. It makes sense that a good part of the Nazi leaders were of the Alpine type.
  • It is a kind of inversion. While white liberals nourish a Platonic love for all races except themselves, I entertain a great admiration, near vassalage to them compared to white Caucasians.

In one of those threads Stubbs commented: “The White capacity for self-delusion, self-destruction, and spiritual decay is as large as our capacity for creativity and strength… We will either be a conduit for gods or for demons, for overman or oblivion.” Gottlieb responded:

  • Precisely because both are related. Some of these traits are almost divine gifts, like Caucasian creativity. However, the higher the height the greater the fall.
  • The clear effect of the Christianization of Europe was the domestication of the white man. Crime reduction and safe communities are the result, but also the reduction of the traits responsible for the survival of any species.
  • Leftism is the evolution of the extremely high capacity of abstraction among Caucasians, which is missing in other peoples including the Jews. For liberals human equality is not just a belief: it is real even if there’s no scientific proof. It is easier to understand this difficulty than understanding the factual reality of things through the stupid cognitive process of many Christians.
  • Why are Jews like that? Because they are Jews. Why are white liberals that way? Because they are white liberals. There is no logical explanation about that cultural behavior but a specific biological explanation. We never lost white liberals: we never had them.

Which is why the Führer’s way is the only way. If they are wired the wrong way regarding the other races you need a collectivist, 4th Reich empire to counterbalance the white man’s suicidal tendencies.

Published in: on April 17, 2015 at 3:17 pm  Comments (29)  
Tags: ,

Phony nazis

caravaggio-thomas
Keyword: Christian Identity (CI)
 
“I think the men’s movement will eventually go completely Nazi. Just a matter of time” wrote Andrew Anglin recently. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that, like Harold Covington who admits women in his inner party—a feminist!—, Anglin and the commenters at The Daily Stormer are phony nazis as well. This Easter Anglin posted this Frankenstein entry trying to mix the unmixable, which I quote below:

Today is the holiest day on the Christian calendar, and it is important to remember why.

What is important to remember this Easter is that the Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem, and that Frankensteinian CI neonazis have fallen into monocausalism precisely because they are unwilling to see what the real nazis saw.

Christ was an example, both in deed and in metaphor. The metaphor of the crucifixion and resurrection is the metaphor for all of life. Life is suffering, but it is through that suffering that we become something more. We must die in order to be born again. This is where the meaning is. In the fight. Victory is inevitable and absolute. But it is the struggle, this is where the transformation takes place.

Finally it’s all too clear to me why many white nationalists don’t treasure Pierce’s Who We Are. If Moses replaced Hermann (Arminius) and Christ replaced Vercingetorix in the white psyche, it’s precisely because “the gradual replacement of White tradition, legend, and imagery by that of the Jews. Instead of specifically Celtic or German or Slavic heroes, the Church’s saints, many of them Levantines, were held up to the young for emulation; instead of the feats of Hermann or Vercingetorix, children were taught of the doings of Moses and David.” Anglin and all people in CI are simply incapable to see the level of alienation that resulted from bringing into our Aryan citadel a Trojan horse: none other than the god of the Jews! Once I finish quoting from Hitler’s table talks by the end of the year, I will be translating more articles of Manu Rodríguez, who explains beautifully why Zeus must replace Yahweh in order to save the race.

Jesus fought the Jew, and when it seemed as though the Jew had won, killing him, he rose from the grave. So too are we dead, and so too shall we rise from the grave. Just so, each of us as individuals must suffer in order to truly become what we are meant to be.

With these nazis who needs the Jews? A couple of days ago I told a CI commenter at The Daily Stormer that throughout the Old Testament the Hebrews teach ethno-centricity for the Hebrew people, but in the New Testament the Jew Paul teaches universalism for us gentiles! I confess I’m so upset with this nonsense in Murka’s neonazi blogosphere that I will skip Hitler’s table talk this day and post instead something about Easter; not sure if I’ll take the trouble to type an in-depth article on the Resurrection. What is sure is that I’ll now remove The Daily Stormer from my blogroll list.

When we lost WWII, we died. We are now in Hell. But the dawn is about to break, and we shall rise from the grave, living flesh, moving toward Heaven. Hail Victory.

What Anglin and the CI Christians at The Daily Stormer ignore is that it was precisely because of Christianity that we lost World War Two! Read Tom Sunic’s “A war crime of the Bible” in his book Homo Americanus.

Why I claim that Christianity is incompatible with National Socialism and that any attempt to merge the two is like Shelley’s novel about a student creating a grotesque but sentient creature? Simple. Just see what Hitler and Himmler said about our parents’ religion here and here. The first links to a table talk that should be read instead of the missing “Uncle Adolf’s table talk” entry today.

Reestablishing masculinity

by Andrew Anglin

 
Okay, so there are three separate main issues involved with Feminist Podgate 2015 that need to be cleared up for those who aren’t clear on them so far. These are:

a) The idea of women being involved in political movements
b) This site maintaining a male-centric character, and
c) My exact position on the nature of women and the role of women in society

These issues are linked closely, but they are not the exact same thing. Let’s talk about all of them at the same time.

Firstly, the issue of women being involved in the site has never really come up until now. I have published news articles by women, and never really thought much of it. We have also posted radio shows with women. We have a few female commenters, and surely quite a few female readers.

That said, this site has never held the view that it was appropriate for women to play a role in politics or public life in general, as the concept has always struck me as bizarre. There is no historical basis at all for women having a role in politics, it is a completely Jewish concept. Of course, you can dig up some historical individual women who did whichever political thing, but the mere fact that you have to bring up the names of individuals proves my point: there was no time in history when this was an accepted norm.

Currently, because of the Jew-altered social norms, there are women in right-wing political parties, sometimes playing prominent roles. On the political scene, I will support these women because of their views, for purely practical reasons, but as an ideological concept, I am entirely opposed to women being involved in politics.

To be honest, I had otherwise thought little about the involvement of women on the site, as I assumed that female readers understand this position—which I state often—and still continue to read.

Then this show happened and I realized that a new policy was necessary, as I was very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman giving her views about how men should be behaving, and was also very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being a “voice” on the site, as I believe that is unprofessional and ridiculous. I am not commenting on the particular woman involved at all here, as I believe she is a very fine lady. I am speaking of the concept.

And though this view is apparently shocking to a large portion of the White Nationalist community, by any historical gauge, those who disagreed with me would not only be shocking to the people, but appear to be completely insane. This website is a public speaking platform. The internet has only existed for a very short time, but we have a very long history of public forums, going all the way back to ancient Greece. Women were never allowed to speak in these. Depending on the era, locale and the specifics of the situation, sometimes they were allowed to hang out and listen to men speak, sometimes they were not.

For instance, the Roman Forum—Roman civilization lasted for 12 centuries, and always had a forum. There is a feminist website, called Women in World History, which in discussing the forum brings up two instances where women got involved:

During the years of the Roman Republic, women had no political rights. They were not allowed to vote, directly address the Senate, nor mill about in the forum. Respectable women who spent time in public places were frowned upon. Nonetheless, there were times when women used the power of public protest to get what they wanted. One was the demonstration of women against the Oppian Law. Another ws Hortensia’s speech to the forum.

I am sure there were more such instances, but I’m also sure that in every such instance, the entire population—women included—were either like “hmmm, this is weird” or they got really angry.

You could clearly go through the entire history of White civilization and see the exact same pattern: women were not involved with public life, at all. Is there really a need for specific examples though? Is there anyone actually making the argument that women traditionally played a public role in society? The feminists themselves are constantly on about how they have these thousands of years of oppression.

I do not see that there is a debate here on the traditional role of women in Western (or any other) society. We can probably all agree about that. So then, comrades: my position is the default position, historically and traditionally—objectively. That means that those who disagree with my position are not arguing for something traditional, they are arguing for a form of social progressivism. The argument is: “I’m not a feminist, but…”

“…but the Jews did have a few good points.” I mean, right?

No, that’s not fair, and I wouldn’t make that argument. I am open to discussing the idea that some form of social progressivism is good. I don’t think there will ever be any point at which I agree with it, but I am open to discussing it. However, this is not what I am seeing from many of those responding to this drama. They are not openly admitting that they are advocating for some degree of social progressivism—however limited that advocacy may or may not be—and are instead accusing me of whichever thing: “alienating women,” “excluding women,” “attacking women,” “being afraid of women,” “creating a male version of feminism,” “must be gay,” “small penis,” and on and on.

What it is is a reaction to the programming you’ve undergone in a Jew-controlled system being questioned. Your entire education and the whole media apparatus have pounded it into your head that women are equal, and so if someone questions that, there must be something wrong with him. Because there can’t possibly be anything wrong with female involvement in public life.

I am arguing for the exact type of social norms which existed all throughout history before the last hundred years. In order to condemn my position as objectively wrong, you would also have to condemn the entire history White civilization as wrong, which makes very little sense to me. I am definitely not saying something unique or ground-breaking here. It only comes across that way to you because you’ve been brainwashed by modern society to oppose the basic order of nature.

Either that, or I’ve communicated my positions poorly, and I am willing to just assume it was the latter, which is why I’m writing this piece to try and clear everything up.
 

So, misconceptions

Hunter Wallace—who I like, I am not bringing this up for drama purposes, but simply because he articulated well some ideas others stated—made this comment on the show I did yesterday with Sven:

brad-n-wife The “men’s rights” movement. It’s a reaction to contemporary feminism. It is heavily influenced by feminism and the gay rights movement. You could say that the two exist in symbiosis. There’s nothing “traditional” at all about PUA or male identity politics. Traditional societies interpret gender roles in terms of a greater whole.

Gentlemen’s clubs and fraternities, for example, existed in the Old South. That’s not the same thing though as group therapy sessions for aggrieved and victimized men who are embittered and hostile toward all women for ideological reasons. Elliot Rodger isn’t the solution to contemporary feminism. Insofar as men begin to sound like Elliot Rodger, it just makes a bad situation even worse. I don’t think more Americanism is the answer to the extremes of Americanism.

To which I responded:

AndyHi Hunter,

Firstly, bringing up Elliot Rodger is unfair. He was just a mentally ill Eurasian who realized he was never going to get laid.

The reason that “male identity politics” were never a thing is that all political identity was always male. It is the same reason there were no White identity politics before non-Whites entered the equation. You wouldn’t say “there is nothing traditional about opposing NAMBLA” simply because no anti-NAMBLA sentiment existed before the creation of NAMBLA. Same thing for anti-abortion movements, anti-homosexuality movements, gun rights movements and on and on. By definition, a reactionary movement has to have something to react to. So it isn’t really a valid point to say that it is not traditional, as ideally it is a modern movement to re-establish tradition, which would not have been necessary before the destruction of tradition.

That having been said, I basically agree with you about current “Men’s Rights” movements being similar to feminism or gay activism, though possibly for different reasons. I used the word “ideally” above, because in practice, these movements are not geared toward re-establishing tradition, but simply going issue by issue, advocating for men to have some of their basic rights restored. They use the term “real equality.”

In contrast, I am unapologetically arguing for a full-on return to Medieval gender norms—quite literally. “How dare you interrupt while men are speaking?” type stuff. There is some commonality between my position and the various positions of the Men’s Rights movement, because the issues they bring up are symptoms of the core issue, which is that women should not have any “rights” at all. And this is the default position, all throughout history, so there is no way to claim that this position is not “traditional.”

Modern Nationalist movements appear to pick and choose on issues of tradition, and it often appears that they are choosing based on what they perceive to be the most “inclusive” positions. I approach feminism in the same way that I approach Nazism and the Holocaust, which is without any attempt to soften the reality of the situation. And it should be noted that I do so not solely for ideological reasons, but also—and most importantly—because I don’t think anything else can possibly work.

I explained my reasoning behind embracing Nazi imagery and holocaust denial in some detail during the assault on my base by Colin Liddell and others. Perhaps it would be prudent to do something similar on the issue of feminism.

So, my position is not “men’s rights” advocacy or a form of feminism for men. It also has nothing to do with pick-up artistry, which I find faggy and weird.

There is also some confusion with this idea that I “don’t want women in the movement.” This is more difficult to respond to, as it is so broad and vague. As I have said, I don’t want women in political positions and I don’t want women playing a role of a political voice on my website. That doesn’t mean I don’t want women to come to rallies in support of nationalist causes if they feel like they need to or (much more likely) are dragged along by their boyfriends or husbands. They could have some special area to get together and talk about whatever it is women talk about with each other.

It is the nature of a woman, if she is not being influenced by a man with fringe beliefs, to return to the belief system which represents the status quo. This is a rule to which there are of course exceptions, but the fact that it is a rule is the point here. Women are naturally attracted to power, and if they are not being swayed by the individual power of an individual man, they will return to the power of the system itself.

To me, when I see nationalists talking about how they’re going to “get women involved in the movement,” as in market a political ideology to a woman, it just sounds kooky. Besides the fact that it’s not really possible, what could possibly be the point? And what are we talking about, exactly? I mean, are we talking about single women? So that nationalist websites, demonstrations and other events can turn into singles meet-ups? What sort of idiot childishness is this?

But ah—we do need “women in the movement”! What we need is nationalist men to have girlfriends and wives. Because if a man has a nationalist perspective, so too then does his female counterpart (unless he is some faggy failure at life being leeched off of by a parasite). The natural desire for a woman is to hold the political views of the male figure in her life.

And if we are going to have healthy men in healthy relationships with women, we are going to have to do away with feminism, not embrace it by saying “yeah let’s convince women to join our movement so they can tell us what we should be doing.”

Because it is an eternal law of the universe that if you do what a woman tells you to do, she doesn’t have respect for you, and thus she won’t follow you. And there is no way to sway women by trying to convince them of things. You must demonstrate power, because whether you guys like it or not, that is the only thing a woman’s essence is naturally capable of responding to. It is basic and obvious evolutionary biology, because within nature, a woman did not have the ability to defend and provide for herself and her children.

Status = Power, Muscles = Power, Money = Power. Power is to a woman what physical beauty is to a man. Period. You might like things about her besides her looks, but the bottom line is always going to be her looks, and unless you are some fagged-out beta wimp, you can admit that to yourself. There’s no shame in it. Yes, you’re superficial for looking at her ass and she’s superficial for looking at your wallet, but it’s just basic human nature.

We didn’t ever advance. We’re still the same animal we were before the invention of the steam engine. It’s hard to accept, I know, but it just is what it is. I’m not the bad guy for telling you. This applies to both individuals and groups or institutions. Once more: Women are attracted, magnetically, to all forms of power, because in the natural order from which we emerged, they needed to be attached to that power in order that they and their children would survive.

So, I simply don’t believe that this “okay let’s half way embrace feminism but just claim we aren’t actually doing that because maybe women will like it for some reason and then help us somehow” method is ever going to work out very well at all.
 

The absolute importance of this issue

Some people are taking the position of “well, sure this is important, but right now we have to focus on these Jews and their Brown hordes.” And obviously, the invasion is the most important issue, as it is the only one which can never be fixed. However, feminism was the basis for the destablization of society. The importance of the Eden myth cannot be overestimated. The root cause of all of these other problems is the feminization of our society—the feminization of men through the introduction of women as social and intellectual equals.

The only way we are going to be able to stand together and fight this thing as men is if we are men. And in order to reclaim our masculinity, we must understand what we have lost, psychologically, emotionally and physically through the Jewish process of distorting gender norms. No man is going to be capable of fighting a foreign enemy while he remains a slave to women.

Beyond that, by putting a focus on male issues, our movement is offering something to young men who are looking at their world. Whereas race can be an obscure concept for young Whites who haven’t been forced to deal with other races directly, and the Jewish problem can be downright esoteric, the problem of being forced into subservience to women, having your basic dignity taken from you as you are subjected to a level of degradation no man in history has ever been subjected to, is something we have all experienced as young men raised in a feminist society.

As such, the offer of “we can free you from women and give you back your masculinity and your power, as well as your tribal male-bonding patterns” means a whole lot more in real terms to young men—who currently have the option of living comfortably and playing video games, rather than fight for anything at all—than “we have to stop these Jews for the sake of future generations.”

On an instinctual level, I think most young men who grew up in this system will perceive a movement which allows women power is simply more of the same.
 

So, the direction of this site

I have been talking for a while about making this site more focused on male issues, and I want to work to do that. What that will mean is that I will necessarily have to say things that will offend at least most and probably all women, because there is no way around that. I have held back, to some extent, and that just has to stop, regardless of feelings.

I know for a fact there are women flipping out right now about what I’ve just said here about their sexual fixation with power. Because in the same way a man will tell a woman he’s interested in her personality and a relationship in order to get laid, women constantly put on that they are interested in men’s kindness in order to manipulate them and drain emotional or physical resources (generally without providing them with sex). They will do the same thing to political movements, pretending they understand or care about the ideology on some intellectual level, when in actual fact they are only judging its ability to provide them with resources.

Note that many of the resources women seek are emotional, so modern women often get involved in male spaces in order to cause chaos and direct male emotional energy towards themselves in order to boost their self-esteem, while simultaneously attempting to see if there is a man in the group willing to stop them from doing this and thus prove his worth to her.

Women very often react with rage when they hear someone say these things plainly, as they are now holding it as some sort of a secret, collectively (it’s obviously a bit more complicated than that, but we’ll get into that at a later date).

I had somewhat assumed that readers were up on these issues relating to the behavior patterns of women as individuals and as a collective. While some readers obviously are, I have no good reason for having assumed it was a majority, and recent comments sections have shown that this is definitely not the case. I regularly mention these issues on the site, but have never really gone into the necessary detail, and I am going to try and do that more. Can’t promise a regular schedule or anything, but I’ll be both writing and talking on the radio about these issues, and this will be a permanent feature of the site.

Also, just to be a hundred percent clear here: yes, this is now officially a boys club. Male space is needed and this needs to be a male space. There will not be any articles or radio shows from women, at all.

hitleryouth

Feminism is a war against both women and men. And it has hurt all of us, deeply. But the only possible way of fixing this situation is to return to the traditional norm, and in order for the traditional norm to be restored, men are going to have to come to terms with some very uncomfortable truths about the nature of the sexes.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 292 other followers