Quotable quote

Winter is coming, and you don’t stand a chance unless you Eloi guys become killing machines again and your Weenas birthing machines… —‘Whose arc is it that will move?’

Published in: on August 11, 2020 at 1:40 pm  Comments Off on Quotable quote  

Führer quote

‘The goal of female education must
invariably be the future mother’.

Published in: on July 15, 2020 at 6:37 pm  Comments Off on Führer quote  

Spartan nostalgia

In his latest comments, Robert Morgan made a few remarks about why conspiracy theories, so popular in the comment sections of racially conscious whites, bother me so much:

Linh Dinh: ‘When your tyrants can’t even be identified, much less found, no coup, uprising or revolution is possible…’

Exactly. Preventing revolutions is the purpose of conspiracy theories. People who imagine they are being controlled by nameless others have the perfect excuse to continue doing what they are doing, which is making up conspiracy theories, or in other words, nothing.

You can score cheap moral points by denouncing vague conspiracies, attributing to them anything you don’t like. You avoid blaming the people themselves, because they’re only puppets! That’s the attraction of conspiracy theories.

I, on the other hand, do blame the people themselves. As I see it, America is just suffering the painful consequences for centuries of Christian delusions. They themselves imported negroes to their shores, and then fought a war to set them free and make them fellow citizens. Thinking this is the result of a conspiracy is ridiculous. To do so is just a transparent attempt to evade responsibility.

At another site, Counter-Currents, also in one of the comments sections a woman just recommended The Turner Diaries.

It is very positive that at least in the comments section, someone mentions Pierce’s novel. In one of the passages of that novel, blacks took a white woman in front of the police to rape her and when a white man complained, the policemen fled embarrassed by the complaint, since defending the white woman would be ‘racist’. As the negrolatric religion grows, it won’t take too long to reach that neo-Orwellian level. But I wanted to say something else about that comments sections.

A couple of CC commenters have just complained that it was useless to talk (for example, about the recent murder of a white woman by BLM) with their wives, that wives don’t get what’s happening.

Since I was liberal in the past, I treated women as if they were regular blokes. Over the decades, in my family I could only talk about the family tragedy with the direct victims of the perps: a couple of women (who, incidentally, have already died). But when speaking brutally with one of them, as we blokes do, my female cousin freaked out and for a few years we weren’t on speaking terms. Only after discovering the manosphere did I realise that I had done something wrong. If I had known what I know today, I would have refrained from talking about little red riding hoods and wolves in my dealings with my poor cousin, who had been a victim of molestation.

I don’t blame myself for that way of speaking because I was brainwashed. Twenty years ago, when I corresponded with my cousin, I had internalised the ethno-suicidal propaganda that guys and gals are all the same. Now I see more than ever that the first guideline I devised for the priest of fourteen words is really adequate: let’s try to talk about transcendental issues only with white males. For example, there is absolutely no point in trying to convey to a woman the fact that we have about ten times more sexual drive than they feel. Since they have never felt such a thing, we can’t create a bridge of true communication.

There are exceptions of course. In this site I’ve mentioned a female friend with whom I can communicate. But she is the exception that confirms the rule. Although as a woman she doesn’t have the impulse I have, her empathy is such that she once told me an anecdote. Apparently, a woman experimented with some male hormones and she felt, for a few days, a tremendous sex drive. As my friend confessed to me when assimilating the anecdote, she finally felt respect for men because we repress our sexual drive not only a few days, but throughout the years. It doesn’t matter that my friend hasn’t done such a hormonal experiment. Just by telling me that anecdote she transmitted that thanks to it she could finally understand men. But as I said, she’s the exception.

Commenters complaining on CC about their wives don’t follow the priest’s guideline. They try the impossible: to communicate with them. The ideal would be to have such guilds only for males as the Spartans had, in which all young men were forced to eat together, even after marriage in order to create the necessary mannerbund. This, in spite of the fact that eventually all Spartans had to marry.

Today’s feminised men, including many racialists, don’t even realise that, in some matters, it’s impossible to build communication bridges with the fair sex. Yes: women could be serving at the table of the Spartan warriors, but not get into discussions or camaraderie.

Lady revisited

If there is something that draws my attention from the pundits of white nationalism it is that they make reviews of recent films omitting that, unlike the cinema of yesteryear, they are pure poison for the white race. For example, in this quarantine millions of whites are actively poisoning their souls with Netflix and few complain.

In contrast yesterday I finished watching, once again, My Fair Lady of which I had already written something on this site in 2013.

Like classical music, it is a type of cinema that the younger generations of white advocacy are not only incapable of watching on the big screen, but even incapable to appreciate if they obtained the DVD to watch it on their televisions.

The disconnect between the pundits of the alt-right with the traditional legacy of the seventh art is so enormous that, when they opine about an old movie, they can say things that only reflect their ignorance. Not long ago, for example, commenting on my favourite film 2001: A Space Odyssey, in a conversation with Richard Spencer a certain Mark, a Hollywood expert, interpreted absurd things about the intentions of Kubrick. I know they are absurd because I have studied Arthur Clarke’s philosophy since the 1980s and read his biography, and Kubrick’s too, so I know the message of his most famous sci-fi novels thoroughly. (I even exchanged correspondence with Clarke in the 1990s, who was very impressed by a journal I sent him as it mentioned the obituary of a certain Benson Herbert, whom he had not dealt with since before World War II.)

But I wanted to talk about something else. One of the reasons this site doesn’t talk about news is because after a few days the media sometimes picks up info that the most radical bloggers had already said on their websites. For example, some of my recent posts mention that the Chinese virus may have come out of a Wuhan lab. I didn’t imagine, when I posted it, that Hannity would talk about it on Fox News soon after, inviting senators who also show their outrage about how these revelations change our views on the pandemic. I could have kept my policy of not talking about that kind of news. But the thing is, I never expected the MSM to bring up the lab scandal so soon. So I generally prefer to talk about things that won’t be said in the mainstream media.

What I experienced these nights before going to bed, for example, watching some minutes of My Fair Lady every midnight until after a few nights I finished it, is a subject not only that won’t appear on MSM but also on racialist forums. And it’s important to talk about it because in these times of lockdown racially conscious whites could try to start getting acquainted with the old cinema that contained good messages (recently I was talking about the movie Shane for example).

If there’s one thing I liked about My Fair Lady now that I saw it once more it’s that it reminds me of the days when men were men and women women (when Hollywood and TV now re-enact older times they put women as early feminists). Ever since I saw My Fair Lady as a child I have loved the idea of learning to speak English—real English—through phonetic exercises: the passion of Professor Henry Higgins. The original musicality of Shakespeare’s language should be a goal to be achieved in the ethnostate, in the unlikely event that Anglo-Saxons save their stock from extinction.

Published in: on April 17, 2020 at 10:44 am  Comments (10)  

How did white women get their cute appearance?

(Brief answer: we designed them)

Peter Frost is a Canadian anthropologist. His main research interest has been the role of sexual selection in highly visible human traits, notably diverse hair and eye colors. Other interests include vitamin D metabolism in northern hunting peoples and gene-culture coevolution, such as genetic pacification due to the state monopoly on violence (reduction of propensity for personal violence).

Grégoire Canlorbe: You are best known for your claim that the most plausible origin for the light coloration of skin in Europeans is sexual selection rather than natural selection. Could you remind us of your argument?

Peter Frost: It’s not just light skin. It’s also the extraordinary variety of hair and eye colors. I prefer to begin with them because they are much less explainable by anything other than sexual selection.

Take hair color. Most humans have black hair and one allele for hair color. Europeans have over two hundred for colors ranging from black to blond. The conventional explanation is straightforward: As humans entered higher latitudes, with less solar radiation, there was less selection for dark skin and, consequently, an accumulation of defective alleles for pigmentation. So the number of hair colors grew as a side effect.

That scenario has two problems. First, the genetic linkage between skin color and hair color is weak. If we took all humans with black hair, we would have a group with the full range of skin colors. Second, millions of years are needed to accumulate that many alleles through relaxation of selection. Yet modern humans have been in Europe for scarcely 45,000 years.

Did Europeans get their hair colors from the Neanderthals? According to a study of five alleles for red hair, one of them seems to be an archaic introgression, but the others are of modern human origin. Even if we assume that all of the alleles for hair color had slowly accumulated during the long existence of the Neanderthals, the timeline is still too short—at most three quarters of a million years. Furthermore, even if they all had a Neanderthal origin, we would still need to explain how they reached their current prevalence. Europeans today are only 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal.

That’s not all. Eye color, too, diversified during the same 45,000 years. So two polymorphisms—for hair and eye color—have developed in parallel with different genetic causes and within the same limits of time and space. There must have been a process of selection. Something helped preserve those new colors and pass them on to subsequent generations.

That something, in my opinion, was sexual selection. It begins when too many of one sex have to compete for too few of the other. The latter are in a buyer’s market and can pick and choose among prospective mates. Conversely, the “sellers” are in a worse position and must market themselves as best they can. They succeed by attracting attention and holding it as long as possible, typically by means of bright colors.

Sexual selection is consistent with the evolution of European hair and eye color in four ways:

First, the European color pattern has become more developed in one sex. Specifically, hair and eye colors are more varied among women than among men, with infrequent colors more common among women and frequent ones less common. A UK Biobank study found that red hair is especially prevalent among women, followed by blond hair and light brown hair. Conversely, the same study found that black hair is three to five times less common among women than among men. The different eye colors are likewise distributed more uniformly among women. These sex differences seem to be due to the action of estrogen during fetal development. A Czech study found that face shape was more feminine in blue-eyed men than in brown-eyed men, as if a single factor had feminized both face shape and eye color.

Second, dark colors have given way to brighter colors, even though new dark colors could have been created. Hair is carrot red, not beet red. Eyes are light blue, not navy blue. Brightness increases visual impact, causing the observer to watch the image longer and keep it in memory longer.

Third, broad-spectrum colors have given way to narrow-spectrum, “pure” ones. A pure color has relatively few wavelengths and is restricted to a narrow slice of the visible spectrum. Such colors don’t happen by accident. They are unusual in the natural world and almost always serve to attract attention, either as a warning coloration or as a means to attract a mate.

Fourth, a single color has given way to a variety. A color grabs attention not only by being bright within a narrow slice of the spectrum but also by being novel. If a particular color becomes too common, it will be less novel and less attractive, and the pressure of sexual selection will shift to more unusual ones. A variety of colors will thus coexist and grow in number as more appear through mutation.

But why would sexual selection be stronger in Europe than elsewhere? Keep in mind that most Europeans did not look European until late in time, almost at the dawn of history. As late as the Mesolithic, pale skin and diverse hair and eye colors were confined to Scandinavia, the Baltic countries, and areas farther east. The oldest dating of blond hair goes back 18,000 years in central Siberia. We know all this from DNA in human remains. Inferential methods place the emergence of pale skin within the same time frame: 19,000 to 11,000 years ago according to one research team, and 19,200 to 7,600 years ago according to another. That’s more or less the last ice age, and long after modern humans had come to Europe. As a Science correspondent wrote: “The implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years.”

We still need more data, but it seems that the current European phenotype arose during the last ice age, some 10 to 20 thousand years ago, among hunting people who inhabited the plains stretching from the Baltic to Siberia. Their women were subjected to strong sexual selection for two reasons. First, men were fewer in number. In a hunting society, male mortality increases as hunters cover longer distances, and average hunting distance is longest in open northern environments. Second, polygyny was less frequent. Since men provided almost all the food, the effort of providing for a second wife and her children was impossible for all but the best hunters. With few polygynous men, and fewer men altogether, women were in a tough market—too many competing for too few. Even slight improvements in attractiveness could make a big difference.

Why didn’t the new phenotype survive in Siberia? First, the colder and drier climate kept human numbers smaller than in Europe, the Gulf Stream being too distant to exert its warming and moistening influence. So the effects of sexual selection could not survive and accumulate as much, especially when the population contracted at the height of the ice age. Other humans then moved in as the climate turned warmer. Nonetheless, as shown by ancient DNA, the new phenotype did persist in south-central Siberia as late as the fourth century. Its population base had probably become too small to ensure its long-term survival.

Final question: Why are Europeans diverse for hair and eye color but not for skin color? The reason may be a pre-existing sex difference that oriented sexual selection in one direction. In all human populations, girls become lighter-skinned during adolescence, with the result that young women are noticeably fairer than young men. A fair complexion was traditionally valued in women, who would make themselves even fairer by avoiding the sun, by wearing protective clothing, and by using face powders. This gender norm has existed across all cultures with one exception, albeit a big one: the tanning craze of Western women since the early 20th century. Thus, at least in premodern times, fairer women were preferred, and such a preference, under intense sexual selection, would eventually drain the gene pool of alleles for dark skin. This may explain the strange albino-like skin of Europeans.

This episode of intense sexual selection probably did much more than change hair, eye, and skin color. Those effects are the most obvious, and the hardest to explain otherwise.

Other effects might include changes in hair form. Hair form was originally thick and straight across northern Eurasia. It then diversified in Europe during the same narrow timeframe that saw hair and eye colors diversify. From being thick and straight it became thin with diverse textures. About 45 percent of Europeans now have straight hair, 40 percent wavy hair, and 15 percent curly hair. The cause was probably the same desire for novelty that created the palette of hair and eye colors. A novelty effect has in fact been shown in an Austrian study, which found that women tend to change their hair form to a less common one.

__________

Read it all on American Renaissance.

Published in: on March 14, 2020 at 12:01 am  Comments (7)  

The Red Wedding

A couple of posts ago I said that in 2013 Game of Thrones’ Red Wedding caused a tremendous stir among fans of the series, especially in women. Today watching this clip I thought that the abyss that separates me from white women is abysmal:

The woman’s reaction was because she was seeing the moment when Robb Stark’s pregnant mudblood was stabbed in the belly as a punishment that Robb broke his pact to marry a younger and prettier girl (a completely Aryan girl by the way).

As you will remember, one of the guidelines of conduct that I have developed for the priest of the 14 words is: ‘Speak only with Aryan men’. We can already imagine if, instead of comforting this woman as her partner did in the clip above, I tried to reason with her by saying: ‘I stabbed her for you; so beauty like yours never get lost. I can’t let the pregnant mudblood leave brown offspring instead of Robb’s white skin. All the blood that I spill is spilled indirectly for you…’ Obviously the white woman would look at me with pure hatred; she would block herself before my reasons, and would embrace the most progressive anti-racism we can imagine.

Let’s face it: Women think with their emotions, which is not bad at all. It’s just their nature. Cold and ruthless reason is up to men. What the partner of this disconsolate woman did is the proper way to treat our women. It is absolutely delusional to believe that they are able to reason with the ruthless coldness with which we can reason.

My guideline remains and it is a disgrace that, except Andrew Anglin, the people of white nationalism haven’t come to realise that we come from Mars and they from Venus. And that it makes no sense to use reasons and good judgment to try to persuade the fair sex in martial matters.

Unlike feminist products that demoralise Aryan males such as The Rise of Skywalker, when civilisation collapses later in this century the bloodthirsty warriors who recover the West will belong to a Boys Only Club.

Published in: on December 26, 2019 at 10:34 pm  Comments (8)  

Turd Flinging Monkey

Turd Flinging Monkey (TFM) is a YouTuber who creates content for the community known as Men Going Their Own Way that advocates for the revoking of women’s ‘rights’. His unusual penname has to do with a clip in which a zoo chimpanzee throws a piece of his stool at humans. In one of his videos (or rather audios) TFM explains that his penname is perfect because men are unable to change the anti-male System, and the only thing they can do is complain on social media, like the chimpanzee locked up in the zoo.

A previous version of The Fair Race includes the text that is currently linked on the sidebar, in the words ‘Women understood: here’, where I used TFM’s work to understand the sexuality of women and men.* It is a brilliant essay that makes us understand feminism beyond what, in the forums of white nationalism, we can read in the work of F. Roger Devlin. If I do not include it in the latest version of The Fair Race, it is because TFM is a degenerate who has a sex doll at home as a substitute for a flesh-and-blood woman.

But I understand TFM and the MGTOWs who follow those steps so as not to fall into a rigged system that takes away their property and children in divorce courts: a system that did not exist when I was a child. (One of the things I mention in my autobiographical book is a memory from the mid-1960s when my dad told me and another kid that divorce cases didn’t exist.) The flaw of that group and the Incel community consists in that, like the white nationalists, they are not discussing the racial revolution, as recovering Western nations means recovering white women.

Although the text in which I collect the ideas of TFM does not appear in the latest version of The Fair Race (or in the PDF of the sticky post), it is vital to read it. The welfare state is mentioned several times. According to TFM, feminism was ultimately responsible for the emergence of the welfare state. This is pivotal to understand the runaway feminism of our days. Except for personalities as opposed as Andrew Anglin and Roger Devlin, very few racialists have a profound grasp about the anti-white ravages that feminism causes in the West.

TFM is a professional when it comes to feminism; Devlin and Anglin mere dilettantes. Although TFM’s analyses are deeper than Anglin’s and even Devlin’s, there is another flaw in the worldview of the Incels, MGTOW in general and TFM in particular. None seems to know exactly how feminism originated. Evropa Soberana and Robert Morgan have tried to ponder at the root of the whole issue, blaming civilisation and technology respectively. But a technological civilisation does not need to reject patriarchy with the anti-male vindictiveness of the third feminist wave, unless it is contaminated by another factor.

‘Why Europeans must reject Christianity’, an essay by Ferdinand Bardamu that does appear in the latest edition of The Fair Race, begins with these words:

The disease of Christianity. The classical philologist Revilo P. Oliver once described Christianity as a “spiritual syphilis.” The musician Varg Vikernes said Christianity was a “problem to be solved by medical science.” He described it as an “HIV/AIDS of the spirit and mind.” Only the paradigm of sexually transmitted disease can shed light on the true nature of the Christian religion.

In the case of syphilis, there is a latency period. This is analogous to the growth and spread of Christianity across the Roman empire, until the reign of Constantine in the early 4th century. The symptoms of syphilitic infection increase in severity, leading to a plethora of life-threatening consequences. The neurological and cardiovascular degeneration caused by syphilis weaken the body of the host. If the infection continues without medical intervention, death ensues. In similar fashion, Christianity weakens and then destroys the state through proliferation of its most degenerate Christian-derived ideologies, such as liberalism, socialism and feminism [emphasis added].

It seems to me that Bardamu is closer to the truth than Soberana and Morgan. As we never saw a victorious Hitler, we cannot know if the project of a patriarchal civilisation throughout the Third Reich would have succumbed to feminism. I doubt it very much! Following Bardamu, I believe that current feminism is more a product of the terminal stage of Christianity, which is a secular phase, than of Western civilisation itself.

To those who have read the sidebar text and wish to delve into the matter, I suggest a recent interview of some Frenchmen with TFM. Just as I ‘translated’ the TFM audios into text, these Frenchmen translated TFM’s philosophy in the interview in English (here) into an audio in French (here).

Remember these words that I have quoted more than once: ‘We don’t stand a chance unless our men become killing machines and our women birthing machines’. Reclaiming the West means not only that we become men again (like George Lincoln Rockwell). It also means that women should become women again.

Update of 8:47 pm:

It is not surprising to me how the people who have a good grasp of a field of knowledge are perfectly sane but, in other fields, they go become completely bananas.

I refer not only to racialists who see absolutely nothing wrong with feminism (they are crazy, of course), but to MGTOWs like TFM who see nothing wrong with the ongoing destruction of whites throughout the West.

None notice that the egalitarianism they fight (racial equality / gender equality) is only one facet of a geometric body greater than the single facet they are focusing on.

This day for example I listened to other TFM audios and realised that this guy doesn’t see anything wrong with a third facet of what we may call the trinitarian god of today: sexual orientation. He said he sees nothing wrong even with extreme sexual practices of people who, literally, like that the sexual partner ‘shits on you’. In other words, for TFM the current god of egalitarianism of racial and sexual preferences is okay. He only revolts against one person of today’s Holy Trinity: gender egalitarianism.

In another recent audio TFW talked about an Ethiopian immigrant who murdered his wife. He didn’t specify whether the wife was white, but TFM sided with the Negro because of the simple fact that he is a man! He is unable to digest that, with their spouses, blacks commit more abuse than whites.

It is not even clear that TFM is white. In one of his not-so-recent audios in Bitchute, ‘News: Unite The Clans (TFM 42O)’, he talked about the post-war Nazis as if they were the bad guys. The image he chose for that program is two muscular arms shaking hands: one of a white and one of a black. TFM said:

This is a call to put aside racial prejudices… We need to stop isolating ourselves as men. We need to stop dividing ourselves along racial lines because women got their shit together.

Although I won’t listen to this guy again, I still recommend the PDF on the sidebar.
_________

(*) I used strong colours in the images that appear in the text so that, when printing the PDF at home, the images appear well demarcated.

Published in: on November 22, 2019 at 12:23 pm  Comments Off on Turd Flinging Monkey  

‘Islam is right about women’

To understand why this meme is making NPCs mad watch what Black Pigeon Speaks said a month ago or what Eli Harman said last Sunday (especially in the first two minutes of his video).

Published in: on October 22, 2019 at 6:16 pm  Comments (3)  

Spartan women

The Athenians called the Spartan women fainomérides (‘those that show the thighs’) as a reproach of their freedom of dress. This was because the Spartans were still using the old Dorian peplos, which was open in the waist side. It was part of women’s fashion, more comfortable and lighter than the female clothing in the rest of Greece: where fashions flourished of extravagant hairstyles, makeup, jewellery or perfumes. It was a fashion for healthy Spartan women.

But the rest of Hellas, as far as women are concerned, was already infected with Eastern customs: which kept them permanently locked up at home, where their bodies weakened and their sick minds developed. The Athenian poet Euripides (480-406 BCE) was shocked at the fact that the ‘daughters of the Spartans… leave home’ and ‘mingle with men showing their thighs’.

(Passages from one of Evropa Soberana’s essays in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.)

Published in: on September 4, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (1)  

Balancing the eternal masculine

A soldier far from home, without a country, an ideal or a feminine image of reference—a model of perfection, an axis of divinity—immediately degenerates into a villain without honour. Conversely, if he can internalize an inner mystique and a feminine symbolism that balances the brutality he witnesses day after day, his spirit will be strengthened and his character ennoble. Sparta had no problems in this regard; Spartan women were the perfect counterpart of a good warrior…

In ancient Scandinavian meetings, as an example of the value of the feminine influence, only married men were allowed to vote. The man was the one who made the decisions, but it was assumed that he was not complete until he had at his side a complementary, feminine spirit, a Woman who could transmit certain magic every day, and inspired him with her reflections. Only then he was allowed to vote.

In practice, every marriage was a single vote. In the other Hellenic states the female presence was banished, thus unbalancing the mentality and behaviour of the warrior, and finally facilitating the emergence of pederast homosexuality. The whole issue of Spartan femininity was inconceivable in the rest of Greece.

(Passages from one of Evropa Soberana’s essays in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.)