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.)

The eternal feminine

Since prehistory, man-woman relationships have never been in such a psychotic state as they are today in the West. Those neophytes to the subject who have not read anything could start by means of an academic reading (Roger Devlin) or a crude reading (MGTOW). But here I would like to approach a question: How to treat women in the darkest hour for the white race?

Visitors to this site will be familiar with one of my guidelines for the priest of the fourteen words: ‘Speak only with Aryan males’. That does not mean that it is impossible to communicate with any woman. Visitors know that this site regularly quotes Catherine Nixey’s book about the destruction of the Greco-Roman world by Christians. Also, in the forums that defend the West there are a few women who also represent the exception that confirms the rule. A directive is only a directive, not an iron rule.

But in general terms it is almost impossible to communicate the most serious issues with the bulk of the female population. It is obvious that they come from Venus and we from Mars, and their PC Operating System is not exactly compatible with our Macs. That does not mean that we despise them. It means that the yin is not the Yang but its complement. I will explain it through my personal philosophy.

As some visitors know, I have written two thick autobiographical volumes (and I am writing the third one). Day of Wrath, the English translation of selected chapters of those two volumes, is partial in one respect. The translations are texts that appeal to the left hemisphere of our brain, texts that men are capable of understanding. But the autobiographical part of my two volumes is missing in Day of Wrath because it appeals to the right hemisphere. Those are texts in which women understand me better (and this site is for Aryan males).

No man among those to whom I have given them manuscripts from my first volume, Hojas Susurrantes, has understood me. But I’ve received very good feedback from a couple of women. With men I cannot communicate heart problems for the simple reason that they have not developed their soul well.

Years ago I mentioned the concept of the eternal feminine in this site and in the previous incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour but did not explain it because it is a numinous feeling rather than an intellectual concept. A male balanced in yin and Yang could decode the double helix, Mars and Venus, from my books written in the language of Cervantes. But not everyone has developed his soul (among white nationalists, Tom Goodrich is the exception). Anima means in Latin soul. In the analytical psychology of Carl Gustav Jung, he alludes to the archetypal images of the eternal feminine in the unconscious of a man, which form a link between the consciousness of the “I” and the collective unconscious, potentially opening a path to the Self. (To understand these concepts, see the illustrations on the anima in the illustrated book Man and his Symbols of Jung and his female disciples, or at least this diagram.)

The reason that among men we cannot communicate in matters that most concern our feelings is simple. To communicate those issues one has to cry sometimes and the feedback of s/he who listens to the tragedy must be at the emotional level, not through the cold and intellectual reason. Women can communicate with each other for the simple fact that it is common for them to touch each other, comfort themselves, cry a little and hug each other without an iota of lesbianism. But we heterosexual men cannot do that with another man (I for one even dislike my cousins wanting to hug me in public). Men can talk about very abstract issues, but communicating alone with a friend about intimate problems is not our strength.

In such parallel universes are men in matters of the heart that, when a man in deep depression tries to speak out with his best friend over the phone, the typical friend without empathy or genuine compassion tells him such idiotic thing that he is shocked when, a couple of hours later, he learns that the depressed friend has just committed suicide. It’s a story I’ve heard more than once.

So the nuclear content of my two books has not appeared on this site, nor will it appear. I know from experience that a tragedy becomes a non-tragedy in the ears of Neanderthal men because they have not sufficiently developed the soul that Jung talked about. In plain English, since we straight men cannot touch ourselves and cry as women do, we cannot communicate our most serious existential problems among ourselves. That is why Schopenhauer was correct in advising us to have a woman as a confidant of such problems. The stronghold of women, Schopenhauer observed, is the compassion that, according to the philosopher, is the highest of human virtues. Therefore, since the middle 1990s I have had a female friend with whom I can communicate the yin content of my mind. It is not recommended to be romantically involved with this confidant because that would cloud the relationship into other venues.

Now let’s go to the opposite case. Compassionate women, in general terms, are unable to understand the cold reasons of the manly intellect. Few have a developed animus. Animus means, in Latin, mind, intellectual powers or courage. In Jung’s analytical psychology, he alludes to the archetypal images of the eternal masculine in the unconscious of a woman, which form a link between the consciousness of the “I” and the collective unconscious, potentially opening a path to the Self. (Again, to understand the concept see the illustrations on the animus in Man and its Symbols.)

Given that the bulk of women do not have a developed animus, it is useless to make them dizzy with lots of Jared Taylor-type statistics on race realism. We have to tune into their wavelength. Bear in mind that I have been communicating with the aforementioned woman for a couple of decades, and I can say that Schopenhauer was right: I see things that she cannot see, and she sees things in life that I am unable to see.

All the intellectual content of the white nationalist forums is useless when talking to women, especially if they come from the left (the left perverts the natural compassion of white women). The priests of Lane’s words should only try to communicate something that appeals to their vanity, say: If I am in favour of the ethnostate it’s simply because I don’t want your beauty to disappear (through miscegenation). For these words to have a certain weight on the female in question, there may not be any romantic interest involved in the priest who pronounces them.

The italicised words above could even become a mantra, and it is the only thing that the priest of the 14 words is advised to say to the opposite sex, in case one of them challenges us to an intellectual discussion. Regarding Jung’s psychology I could philosophise a little saying that the ‘Absolute’ of Schelling and Hegel resonates with the Jungian ‘Self’ and, from the Faustian point of view, only the understanding of the eternal feminine will lead the white race to the Absolute.

Published in: on February 18, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (13)  

On banning feminists

Last Wednesday I explained my reasons why those who cry ‘Jew!’ while losing an argument should be banned on this site. Now I would say the same about ethno-suicidal feminists. Simon Elliot (pic: here) for one did not cry ‘Jew!’ certainly, but he told me:

Men usually like it when women are attractive, and since you don’t, and you *claim* not to be an old testament fanatic, the only conclusion I’m left with is that you must be a homosexual. I see no other explanation.

All false. I do like attractive women and I’m not a homo. But I am not banning Simon for that comment, who by the way uses the avatar of a girl in his Twitter account (this one). I am banning him because his feminist ideology is destroying in his country what I care the most: Lane’s 14 words. This for example was his very last comment on this site:

You are clearly in agreement with Anglin, that repulsive little gremlin, when it comes to women. The consensus here is clear. Unless they’re pumping out babies to be used as cannon fodder in your race war, they’re worthless whores who may as well drop dead. So much for your love of English roses. You will destroy them if you arrange for them to reproduce with hyper-masculine males. I warned you of that, and you can resent it all you want, but it remains true. Genetics is a bitch.

I will leave others to respond to that.

Tonight I am watching how nasty British feminists are (‘Jordan Peterson destroyed by feminist NPC | Facts and logic not even needed, TPS #209’). Simon is a typical feminist Briton. Ever since our initial interactions he confessed he hates Roger Devlin. (Unlike the troll Anglin whose style I happen to like, Dr. Devlin uses an academic prose in his scholarly papers against feminism.)

pride-and-prejudice 2005 filmI am now closing the thread where Simon made his last comment. Contra him and other ethno-suicidal Britons, I would say that if our civilization is under the grip of liberal mores, especially the belief that non-discrimination on race and gender is the highest moral value, when values are transvalued back to Austen mores our women will be having six or more kids.

If whites are to survive as a people the vagina gentium must be reopened, whether our spoiled women, or feminized Britons, like it or not.

Yoga shooter was an incel revolutionary

by Andrew Anglin

Editor’s note:

On Friday, a 40-year-old man shot and killed two people and wounded five others at a Tallahassee yoga studio before turning his handgun on himself.

 
Incels [involuntary celibates] are deserving of pity, and no one is giving it to them. Instead, they are called losers and creeps, and told that their oppression is their own fault.

Historically, every man other than the very bottom of the gene pool got laid, because we enforced strict rules against sluts. In the modern age, we have no rules enforced against sluts—instead we have the opposite: we have rules enforced to protect and comfort sluts, to enable them to maximize their whoring beyond levels you can even begin to imagine.

And yet somehow, we are supposed to be shocked that some guys lose their nerve and can’t take it anymore and shoot-up a yoga studio?

Well, apparently, the chickens have come home to roost. The incel rebellion is in full-swing.

The way to stop this is easy: you bring back traditional sexual standards. But there is no will to do that, because the Jews want white women to be whores fucking niggers.

I obviously do not support or encourage anyone to shoot up yoga studios, and in fact think this is very ungood. But you cannot expect it to not happen. It is the direct consequence of the actions of the Jews in “liberating” women to be completely godless whores.

It’s all very sad.

Published in: on November 4, 2018 at 10:10 am  Comments (58)