On the white sharia meme

I don’t use the white sharia meme but in my soliloquies I constantly say to myself in humorous vein: “Lo más importante de todo en la vida es que las mujeres sean lindas Caperucitas (Most important of all in life is for women to be cute Little Riding Hoods).

Yesterday Irmin Vinson, the author of an important pamphlet about Hitler, had his latest article published at Counter Currents. He cannot understand why The Daily Stormer dislikes a photo of three modern white women showing their legs. The answer is simple: because that means that they are not lindas Caperucitas.

Vinson is ten years younger than I. Younger generations are so alienated from their past that they completely ignore that old-time marriage was a rock-solid institution in the Greco-Roman world even before Christian takeover. Vinson says that he doesn’t feel the tiniest bit of hostility to the three women in the picture that the Stormer article tags as “Skanks having the time of their lives whilst their cities are conquered by foreigners?”

What Vinson cannot see is that presently women are exempted from their former responsibilities—marriage, motherhood and submissiveness. Let’s forget the white sharia meme if its Islamist implications offend you. Use instead the European fairy tale about a young girl and a Big Bad Wolf. Vinson and the effete commenters on Counter Currents are clueless that when traditional marriage is abandoned (the above pic is taken from the television adaptation of Pride and Prejudice) Western society collapses. The welfare state will become overburdened and finally crash. The demographic winter of whites will reset back to traditionalism, but this time it will be a traditionalist Sharia for a white Europe turned into a brown Eurabia.

To compete with the brown barbarians whites won’t have any choice but to return to the brutality of Ancient Rome, when the father was the judge, jury and executioner of the family (pater familias), wife included. Those who have read the newest edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour will remember this passage:

In Rome the problem started right after the Second Punic War, when a vital law was abolished. Lex Oppia restricted a woman’s wealth. It forbade any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold. Unsuccessfully, Cato the Elder opposed the abrogation of that law and Roman feminists harvested other triumphs, even in the Senate, and the trend smoothly continued up to the Christian era. By the time of the Byzantine Empire even brownish women could inherit property.

The Roman Empire disintegrated but the Middle Ages rectified Rome’s mistake throughout Europe by getting back to patriarchy. After the Enlightenment the cycle that Cato opposed started again, with women “reclaiming their rights” and writing pamphlets. The eighteenth century influenced the nineteenth century. In the United States the turning point occurred when women obtained the right to vote in 1920, although the women’s movement had started in 1848. The welfare state initiated in 1935 with Social Security and was expanded in 1965 to include Medicare. “No fault divorce” was another escalation of feminism, in addition to the 1967 initiative for affirmative action for women.

This informative piece can be read: here. Alas, many white nationalists will continue to deny that women’s lib has been as lethal ingredient for the brew that’s killing whites as Jewry.

Traditional women

My paternal grandmother was born in the 19th century, specifically in 1888, and I lived alone with her in the late 1970s and early 80s, when she was in her nineties.

When I was a small child the institution of marriage was pretty solid. How well I remember in my sixth year that a boy of my age talked about a case of divorce: an unheard of phenomenon in my family! Nobody talked about homosexuality and no degenerate music was heard even in shopping stores (this was before the malls). No degeneracy was shown in those elegant, old-time theatres like opera halls where I used to watch films. As a boomer I am a witness that all of these catastrophic changes happened within my lifespan.

Below, my abridgement of “Just what are traditional gender roles?,” a piece published last month on The Daily Stormer:

 

“I’m in a traditional marriage”
“I’m all for traditional gender roles”
“I want gender norms to be like the old days”

These are refrains I’ve heard endlessly repeated as the discussion over White sharia has advanced. They are coming from women and a few weak men counter-signaling the White sharia meme.

Because of the critical importance of this discussion for the survival of the white race and its European civilizations, I wanted to take a minute to explain to all the men and women claiming to be so-called traditionalists all the concepts and social boundaries that defined traditional relationships. This is the most important education that I can possibly give the community at this moment, and I ask that you ask yourself if you are really embracing traditionalism like you claim to be.
 
Coverture

Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the mid and late 19th century, when feminist agitators, the media, and academic establishment triumphed with their agitations through its abolition. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself. William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I:

The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.

UCLA gender studies professor Ellen Carol DuBois (whose career is chronicled in the Jewish Women’s Archive, of course) highlighted in her histories of women’s rights “the initial target of women’s rights protest was the legal doctrine of coverture,” and that 19th century feminist icon Lucy Stone despised the common law of marriage “because it gives the custody of the wife’s person to her husband, so that he has a right to her even against herself.”

If a woman decided to leave her marriage she was a penniless non-entity no matter what her previous position was in life (truly, there is no better position for an errant whore to be rendered into). Any restoration of traditional gender roles starts by restoring coverture, thus removing financial incentives for worthless scheming whores to destroy the sanctity of marriage by abandoning it over whims and lusts. Marriage, up until the abolition of coverture, meant that the woman was permanent property of one man; it allowed continued existence and any degree of freedom only in accordance with his desires.
 
Bride price

The dower grew out of the Germanic practice of bride price (Old English weotuma), which was given over to a bride’s family well in advance for arranging the marriage.

Before a woman was her husband’s property, she was her father’s. This is why the father gives away the bride at the marriage ceremony. Traditional marriage was a transfer of property, with the priest serving the role as the trusted third party to do the background research and make sure the transaction was honest. It was essentially like getting the sale of your apartment validated by a notary. The daughter was sold off by her father, and it was the father’s sole judgment of who was eligible to lawfully purchase his property.

The status of women as property was nearly universal in European cultures, with the exception of Jewry and some groups of gypsies, where access to tithes and trust followed a matrilineal line. This was why the Jews were so keen to attack these ideas, because the patrilineal passing of property was innately offensive to their culture. Europe only has this absurd notion of women as independent entities because of organized subversion by agents of Judaism.
 
Domestic discipline and “marital rape”

Coverture and bride price were abolished to ridiculously assert women were independent entities with “rights” so that they could lobby for suffrage. The implementation of suffrage culminated in legal penalties for domestic discipline and the concept of marital rape so that women could abandon their most basic household duties, thus destroying their homes and their husbands’ lives.

The thing about these changes is that they are really fresh and new. While the 19th century might seem like a long time ago for many of our young readers (it isn’t, on the civilizational timescale it is just last month and on the evolutionary timescale it is mere seconds) these new changes began in the lifetimes of our parents and finished in many of ours, and civilization was immediately and measurably the worse for wear. According to Wikipedia:

The reluctance to criminalize and prosecute marital rape has been attributed to traditional views of marriage, interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas about male and female sexuality, and to cultural expectations of subordination of a wife to her husband—views which continue to be common in many parts of the world.

These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman’s right to self-determination (i.e., control) of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape… The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.

Rape is a property crime and nothing more. First a crime against the property of the father, and then a crime against the property of the husband. This change only finished in the US and UK in the nineties, when I was eight years old. Women existing in a state of slavery to the sexual whims of their husbands is not some barbarism of prehistory. This was universal common sense for whites up until a couple decades ago.

Likewise, hitting a woman out of her head was seen as benevolent and a universal necessity in every marriage until the sixties, and even portrayed positively in movies and film. Regular slapping and the occasional vicious beating of a woman was a necessity in every household. Women need to be regularly disciplined to keep their heads about them. They can be intellectually mature and clever to the point of deviousness, but they will always have the emotional state of a very young child and we all know what happens when you spare those the rod.

On this subject I hear two narratives from low-T men in the alt-right. The first is that all these transformations in the rights and status of women happened in reaction to family abandonment and general hardships upon women. Even those I respect fall for this sniveling lie from the mouths of manipulative whores. To these I have said: let us examine the data. [Editor’s note: the graph is not included in this abridged post.]

Broken families happened as a result of these changes in the status of women, not as the cause of them. The reality is that extramarital sex and birth was at an all time historical low because of Victorian standards of morality. The only spikes on that chart before 1950 were a result of world wars, because a man that died in some kike’s war could not marry his whore. Men held up their end of everything. They married women, they provided for them, they gave them newfound comforts and innovations like laundry machines that reduced their domestic workload to nil. They gave them full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline.

What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.

They did this because white men had a fool’s compassion in their hearts and lost the good sense to shove their faces into a countertop and give them a swift kick to the gut as hard as they can when these skanks had it coming to them.
 
Men counter-signaling White sharia

So most of this “I’m totally traditionalist but White sharia is terrible” nonsense is coming from women, but sometimes it is coming from small-souled bugmen as well. Some of these men are being bullied by their wives. Some of them just have no will to power. Beardson just used this line, and as far as I’m concerned he’s not only no longer the leader of the thot patrol, but no longer eligible to even be on it. We’ll be bullying whores without him from now on.

Here’s the reality of European tradition: women were a category of property that had a single instance of sale. They were complete slaves to the will of fathers then husbands, both having free reign to beat them and the latter having the lawful right to fuck them, where and when they pleased.

This was the reality for thousands of years of European history and the change in this status only finished in our and our parents’ lifetimes. There’s nothing Islamic about this. It is just the default position of any civilization that is not being destroyed by decadence.

Man up, put women under your heel, throw away their birth control and make them bear you children and take care of your house. If they resist, discipline them.

If you are uncomfortable with the White sharia meme because it contains the word sharia, I can understand that, but “muh feels” is not an argument against the efficacy of the meme. This meme is effective because it has an immediate effect of being shocking and lurid to the senses of women and weak men and forces people to talk about the status of women in our civilization.

All we are pushing for is a return to the status of women we had in the early 19th century before Jews and their feminism ruined our civilization. This should not be controversial. If you are opposing White sharia because you disagree with women being reduced to the status of property to be beaten and fucked at the whims of her husband, you are a faggot and a cuckold and have no place in any right-wing site, and instead belong at the bottom of festering bogs like Reddit and Voat.

Published in: on June 15, 2017 at 3:12 pm  Comments (13)  
Tags: ,

War of the sexes, 10

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

 

Marketplace value for men & women
 
turd-flinging-monkey

Successful career women overvalue their sexual marketplace because they don’t perceive they’re not anymore cute little reds riding hoods from our point of view. But we males commit a symmetrical mistake: even when young and handsome we are (or were) clueless about what women are actually chasing in men.

Regarding the first psychological fallacy, the desirability for a woman collapses after her late thirties. Little riding hoods’ beauty is the primary quality that attracts us wolves. That’s why women spend so much time and money in cosmetics. According to the blogger, second to beauty is youth. I slightly disagree because in the marketplace we cannot separate youth from beauty. (Why nature has permitted the genes of fat women, those who even on permanent diet have an endomorph constitution, is a mystery for me.)

The blogger also says that women are attracted by resources, physicality, alpha traits and personality. If men valuate a woman for her youthful beauty from one to ten, women valuate men by their resources.

The 2005 movie adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is an absolutely must-see film for the architects of the coming ethnostate, even when the 1995 television series depict more faithfully the early nineteenth-century England. Women must be educated that way. In both the film and the novel, Elizabeth and Jane (dressed in black and blue in this pic) were impressed by Mr. Darcy’s and Mr. Bingley’s fortunes. In the specific case of Elizabeth, she changed her mind about smug Mr. Darcy only after she saw his awesome mansion. This is fiction of course: both the women and the men were valuated as 10 in resources and youthful beauty respectively.

The market value for a woman always falls in a descendant spiral, says the blogger. He doesn’t talk about Pride and Prejudice but we can remember the scene when 27-year old Charlotte becomes engaged with the ridiculous Mr. Collins for elemental survival. As in the Jane Austen world, in the ethnostate women should not be allowed to make careers or inherit property, not even their late fathers’ estates, to force them getting married and fulfill the 14 words.

Back to the blogger. He says that even if a woman is married properly, her marketplace value diminishes because she has lost her virtue as is now sexually active. On the other hand, we males don’t fall into a descendant spiral with age. Even I, in my late fifties, could find a much younger spouse if I won the lottery.

Published in: on November 1, 2016 at 12:19 pm  Comments (8)  
Tags: , , ,

On sexual lib

socalled liberation

Never forget the sexual side of the destruction of the white race. Below, “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide,” a Roger Devlin address given at The Occidental Quarterly Editor’s Dinner on October 30, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia.



What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream.

But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime?

The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 59

the-real-hitler

 

Night of 1st-2nd January 1942

You cannot avoid God
—The marriage ceremony.

 
 

Discussing a letter from Frau von Oeynhausen, Chr. Sehr, examined the possibility of replacing religious instruction in schools by a course of general philosophy, so that children should not lose the sense of respect in the presence of things that transcend our understanding.

Someone proposed that this new type of instruction should not be described as “philosophy.” It would be more like an exegesis of National Socialism. The Fuehrer gave his opinion: It’s impossible to escape the problem of God. When I have the time, I’ll work out the formulae to be used on great occasions.

We must have something perfect both in thought and in form. It’s my opinion that we should organise marriage in such a way that couples do not present themselves one by one before the officer of the civil authority. If each couple assembles a following of ten relatives or friends, with fifty couples we shall have five hundred participants—all the elements of a majestic ceremony!

Published in: on September 15, 2015 at 4:45 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 73

the-real-hitler

 

Night of 25th-26th January 1942

On marriage—Some beautiful women.
 

 

It’s lucky I’m not married. For me, marriage would have been a disaster.

It’s only after maternity that the woman discovers that other realities exist in life for her. The man, on the other hand, is a slave to his thoughts. The idea of his duties rules him. He necessarily has moments when he wants to throw the whole thing overboard, wife and children too. When I think of it, I realise that during the year 1932, if I’d been married, I’d scarcely have spent a few days in my own home.

The bad side of marriage is that it creates rights. In that case, it’s far better to have a mistress. The burden is lightened, and everything is placed on the level of a gift.

The Fuehrer noticed two guests who looked somewhat crestfallen, J.W. and Chr. Sehr. He turned towards Sehr, and explained: What I’ve said applies only to men of a higher type, of course!

Relieved, Sehr, exclaimed: “That’s just what I was thinking, my Fuehrer.”

At Brunswick, a young girl rushed towards my car to offer me a bouquet. She was blonde, dashing, wonderful. Everyone around me was amazed, but not one of these idiots had the idea of asking the girl for her address, so that I could send her a word of thanks. I’ve always reproached myself most bitterly.

Published in: on September 9, 2015 at 2:26 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 122

the-real-hitler

24th April 1942, at dinner

Marriage and the child problem—German soldiers marrying women of the occupied countries—The educative rôle of the Schools of the Reich—The wives of our leaders.
 

This conversation took place during a journey from Fuehrerhauptquartier to Berlin. The subject under discussion was marriage and children. The Fuehrer said:

The history of the German Princes proves, generally speaking, that the most successful marriages are not those which are founded solely on reasons of expediency. In all human activities only that which is true has any chance of survival, and it is therefore only natural that a marriage inspired by sincere mutual love should be the union with the best chance of happy success. Such a marriage constitutes a guarantee for the manner in which the children will be brought up, and this is a guarantee of inestimable value for the future of the German people.

I do not think, therefore, that we should sanction, except in isolated cases, marriage between our soldiers and foreign women. The request may often be based on sound reasons, but all the same it should be refused. Most of these cases, obviously, result from a sexual experience which the applicant desires to continue—and the number of requests submitted to me is enormous.

It suffices, however, to glance at the photographs of most of the candidates to realise that in the majority of cases the union is not desirable. Most of the women concerned are either malformed or ugly, and from the racial point of view the results could not be satisfactory. I am sure, too, that such marriages would not stand the test of time. A really happy marriage can only be attained by people deeply attracted to each other.

Where marriage itself is concerned it is, of course, essential that both parties should be absolutely healthy and racially beyond reproach. How decisive the influence of real attachment between the parents is on the children of a marriage is brought home to me when I think of the number of men of outstanding ability who originate from the Orphans’ Homes during that period of history when people really in love were so often precluded from marrying for reasons of social expediency.

These Orphans’ Homes, I think, were most valuable institutions. As far as we are concerned, our schools are in a position to deal adequately with the problem. In the National Socialist centres of education, combined with the boarding-schools, all necessary arrangements have been made for the reception of racially healthy illegitimate children and the giving to them of an education appropriate to their talents. These Schools of the Reich are also an ideal refuge for the children of marriages which have gone wrong; it is far better that they should be removed from the atmosphere of a disrupted home, which leaves its mark on a man for the rest of his life.

I grant you, it is a most laudable thing that parents who no longer love each other try to maintain the semblance of a happy marriage for the sake of their children; but it is an effort that very seldom succeeds. I have seen so many cases among members of our Party, whose wives have not been able to keep pace with their husbands’ rise in life.

Grasping their opportunities, these latter have seen their talents blossom and expand in the execution of the tasks I have confided to them; burdened with wives who have ceased to be worthy of them, and exposed to unending petty domestic squabbles, they gradually come to accept as inevitable the idea of separation. To my mind, it is obvious that a man should seek in his wife qualities which are complementary to his own as the path towards a full and ideal life. But one cannot make hard and fast rules, and there are many exceptions. I have now been enumerating cases in which one’s sympathies lie with the man, but there are many cases in which it would be unjust in the extreme to demand of a woman that she should systematically sacrifice herself on the altar of matrimony.

I have no sympathy whatever for the man who maltreats his wife, and who subjects her either to moral torture or material burdens.

Published in: on August 3, 2015 at 8:28 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

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” and removing 12-paragraph posts.

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 to 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.

 

Editor’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.”

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 167

the-real-hitler

 
12th August 1942, midday

Marriage is a holy act, the binding into one of two human beings of different sex; less moving, perhaps, for a man than for a woman, but still a most solemn occasion.

* * *

The purging of all foreign elements in Germany, introduction of compulsory military service, reconstitution of the German Army, abolition of the freedom of the press, suppression of provincial governments! Good heavens! Such ideas were pure blasphemy! People swore solemn oaths that they had never lent an ear to such things! But old Schröder, that most energetic of men, that uncompromising fanatic, accepted the whole thing without further ado. He was to the Navy what Lützow was to the Army. Hutier, too, was a national figure, and a fine one at that! But he had, I think, a tiny streak of the Catholic in him. When I discover a man like Schröder, I grab him at once.

Turning to Admiral Krancke: I suppose this accounts for the slight inferiority complex which the land forces feel in the presence of the Navy. We had to cut up our greatcoats in order to make puttees, and we looked like a bunch of tatterdemalion balletdancers! They, on the other hand, looked frightfully smart in their belts and gaiters; and we were not sorry when we escaped to the decent obscurity of our trenches once more.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Published in: on April 3, 2015 at 10:34 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 184

the-real-hitler

 

6th September 1942, midday

Racial mixtures—Sailors on leave.
 
 

What a fine race the Dutch are! The girls are splendid and very much to my taste. The blemishes in the Dutch are due to interbreeding with the Malays, and that, in its turn, is the result of sexual urge and the lack of a sufficiency of white women in their colonies. We had much the same thing in our own colonies; a German had the right to marry a negress, provided she was a Catholic, but not a German girl, if she happened to be a Protestant.

Even today, the Catholic priest chatters for months if one of his flock wishes to marry a Protestant. It is not very long ago that, in the country, a marriage between Catholic and Protestant was stigmatised as an insult to the Holy Altar; but no body bothered their heads about the colour of bastards! In the British Empire, things are very different; but the Church of England is a political, rather than an ecclesiastical, organisation.

Again and again I am asked to sanction marriage between one of our soldiers and a foreign girl; and as often as not the soldier is a splendid young lad and the girl a little trollop.

Nothing but catastrophe could come of such unions. The branches of the services most exposed to this danger are the Navy and the antiaircraft units, because they stay in one place longer than anyone else. It was the same in the first war. The Flemish girls were most attractive, and, had the war had a normal ending, many of them would undoubtedly have married German soldiers.

The Fuehrer turns jestingly to Admiral Krancke: Your sailors have only three hours’ liberty ashore each day; can’t you give them a bit more? If they must hang about in port, they will be best employed chasing the girls!

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.