In my recent entry on ‘The Last Jedi’ I recommended The Turner Diaries as one of the few books that the initiate should read. But William Pierce made a terrible mistake in a passage of his novel. He wrote that if a freedom fighter raped a female guerrilla comrade he would be shot on the spot.
Like me before reading Roger Devlin, Pierce was completely unaware of the feminine nature. I recently blamed my father on this site for having swallowed the rosary of slander with which my mother defamed me throughout my adolescence, but I was unaware that many women behave the same, even in the white nationalist movement.
As will be recalled, there’s a recent entry on this site under the title, ‘A terrible mistake’. That letter from Chris White, whom I met personally in London, is de-contextualized in that post. But now Chris provides the proper context in a long post, ‘A Terrible Mistake: A Conversation With Collette in Exegesis & Why We As White Nationalist Men Should Forsake our Friendship with our White Sisters’ (read it: here).
So even the ‘Jedi’ who takes refuge on the island to do the internal work that will allow him to fight ZOG must know that not everything in the few Jedi books, that are in the great tree of wisdom, is true. As in the movie Luke rebelled against the arrogance of the Jedi, we must rebel not only against the mistake that Pierce committed in his great novel: but against other mistakes that other great priests of the 14 words have committed.
In other words, it is not enough to treasure the best ‘Jedi’ books. We must discuss with them based on recent findings about the nature of women, including the nature of the crown of evolution physically, the English roses.
45 replies on “Chris White’s long text”
Here is a library on this subject.
Thanks for not adding a bare link.
You’re quite welcome. I just failed to understand the definition in the manner implied. I quit embedding links due to the problems I had with their displaying properly. I will do my best to take more care in that regard.
There is one aspect of this issue that long confused me.
I once had a true psychopath working for me as a welder. He always had a crazed gleam in his eye, but he was a good welder. I had a partnership in a business installing bank vaults and vault equipment. I was the equipment side of the business. Of course banks are always filled with young lovelies. We were always telling this guy to stay away from the girls, but he would always chat them up anyway. The girls always loved it.
The interesting thing is that he was a violent, vicious woman beater. His apartment had varying pictures of different dimensions in the oddest places where he attempted to cover the holes he had kicked and punched in the walls.
He would beat his girlfriends to the point they feared for their lives and only then would they run away. What was really interesting is that he always had girlfriends. He was a magnet for masochistic women. One would run and another would be waiting in the wings fro a beating. They never turned him in, made any accusations. They never complained, they just ran away. I never understood this interaction until much later in life.
It finally ended one night when he was beating one of his girlfriends and two rent-a-cops came to the door to see what the ruckus was about. Our former employee took out a pistol to threaten them and when the rent-cops ran away, he shot them in the back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other night I watched Selznick’s 1935 version of David Copperfield. It had been years since I read the book and I was amazed at how much of the story I had forgotten. The most curious character was David’s young wife, played by Maureen O’Sullivan, a beautiful, but childish ditz that David loved and cherished anyway. The most amazing scene occurs at her death bed when she recants her childish ways, suddenly growing older and much wiser. No doubt this was the Jew’s subliminal message to goy women and men that the traditional female role would soon change with the coming war.
One other interesting character was that of the deranged Mr. Dick, whom David’s aunt looks upon as as an oracle of wisdom. Take a look at this actors facial expressions and tell me what well known bawdy, British 60’s television star took his persona from this actor’s role in the movie.
In one of the links you advised me to read yesterday – which if I remember correctly was written by you, Cesar – it described the Greco-Roman depictions of the human form as having “perfect” facial features. I find this very odd because, as I explained yesterday, Greco-Roman depictions of the human form always depict women with protuberant, masculine facial extremities, which are ugly enough on men themselves, let alone women. You didn’t object to my evolutionary sound observation then, so why in your link do you describe these non-neotenous, ugly physiognomies as “perfect” when they are so obviously the inverse of perfection? I would be interested to know. I know you provided one example of a fresco portrait that was reasonably inoffensive, but I’m afraid that’s a drop in an ocean, and the Greco-Roman record remains aesthetically abysmal, as far as human facial aesthetics are concerned. I’m sorry this comment isn’t directly related to the subject of your post, but nobody seems to be contributing to yesterday’s thread anymore.
You don’t like Greco-Roman female aesthetics.
That’s your opinion – based on the 1% of Greco-Roman art that survived the Xtian ‘Year Zero’ policies.
What else is there to contribute?
You said it better that I could, Mauricio.
@Simon:
I am not the Spaniard that blogs under the penname of Evropa Soberana (you only read a Spanish-English translation). If you click on the masthead of this blog you may start following the white rabbit precisely with a Soberana essay.
For the precise reason that they aren’t female aesthetics. Shemale, most definitely, but not female. Perhaps that’s why they survived the purges, because they were hideous and would not inspire lust, which the Christians, with their inhuman sex-phobia, feared. If they aren’t truly representative of what Greco-Roman women looked like, then one wonders why any artists would choose to create something which was an inversion of reality. Perhaps the best explanation is the homosexuality prevalent among the artistic elite. Alas, all we can do is speculate.
I’m already very familiar with Hellstorm. Rome vs Judea, that looks like an exhausting read. It’s a lot to take in.
As I said, Jews did not invent the concept of patriarchy, as many primitive cultures demonstrate. Nor have they invented hardly any of the concepts they use against the goyim. Movies, newspapers and TV are but a few notable examples of their usurpation of ideas.
From the creative standpoint, Jews aren’t very bright, but they are very cunning and resourceful at taking advantage of their host’s weaknesses, as do all parasitical organisms.
Jewish history precedes Rome’s by about 800 years. Jews are dated in their first host culture with the arrival of the Hyksos in Egypt at end of the Thirteenth Dynasty, around 1500 BC. However, Egyptians never held their women in low regard as did the ancient Jews. Jews also preceded Sparta by around 900 years.
I can find no other culture that held such views of women before the ancient “Israelites.” In the book of Genesis, the only mention of women is to establish relationships between bloodlines, i.e. who begat Jews and who begat “gentiles.” After that, women are hardly mentioned in the Torah.
Take your time. He who has not read it cannot grasp the gist of this site.
Sam Elliot. You are very unwittingly contradicting yourself within a sentence. If the “shemale” depictions are only in the vast minority, then how are you at the same time going to say that they represent Greco-Roman female aesthetics as they were seen by the majority? Therefore the portrait Cesar showed you could not be “a drop in the ocean” as you put it, but in the majority. The idea that the 1% were not destroyed due to their ugliness is a baseless assertion which you are projecting onto the Christians. And I honestly do not see anything masculine about the depictions. I honestly would like to know what it is that strikes you as masculine. You say facial extremities, so I suppose the noses. Yes, the noses are pretty big but I see nothing manly about them.
And could you please define sex-phobic? The other day you accused Maldo of being prudish for idealising a more healthy and traditional form of sexuality, and it seemed that you were even equating “sex-phobia” with SJWism which, if you was doing the latter, is just as ignorant as calling patriarchalism Abrahamic.
It’s Simon. I said it *could* be that they reflect only a minority of examples of the period, given what you say about the Christian destruction of Greco-Roman cultural artefacts. My personal feeling is that they are indeed broadly representative. Why? It’s my intuition, and since we shall never know for sure, I see no shame in relying on that. Or maybe they were just bad artists. But given the exquisite nature of their architecture, I find their aesthetic illiteracy when it came to the human form to be inexplicable.
I think it’s likely that I know more about craniofacial dimorphism than you do. If you did know what I know, then you wouldn’t be averse to my assertion that a larger, more prominent and dominant nose is masculine. Development of the brow ridges, nasal bones, zygomatic bones, jaw and chin are due to high levels of testosterone. Needless to say that it makes logical sense that females and softer, rounder, more childlike features, while men typically have angular, heavier, more intimidating features. This is intuitively obvious, so you really don’t need to possess medical knowledge of how humans develop in order to work this out, and if the ancients couldn’t figure this out, well, that’s quite an intellectual deficit in my book.
Sex-phobia has it’s origins in primitive superstitions, and most of those found in European civilisation have Abrahamic roots. I dislike sex-phobia both for it’s Semitic affiliations and, of course, the absurdity of it in its own right. Obsessions with chastity and virginity, to the point that being attractive is a beatable offense, disgust me. It’s one of the great ironies of the White Sharia meme of last year, that in their desperation to preserve the white race and its civilisation at all costs, those who subscribed to it were willing to turn their backs on their most sacred commitment. The beauty of the white woman *will* vanish from the earth if you adopt primitive anti-sex attitudes. It will also disappear if you mate them with hyper-masculine men. I know that’s a particularly bitter pill for you to swallow, but it’s the truth. Testosterone dilutes femininity. It’s called sexually antagonistic selection, and is present in other species too. White Sharia may achieve your goal of perpetuation for the sake of perpetuation, but at what cost? What kind of a rigid, dogmatic, joyless and, indeed, ugly world would we then inhabit? It’s certainly not a world I would want to live in, but then again, if given the choice, I wouldn’t have chosen to live in this one either. Because female beauty *is* linked to sexual maturity. Indeed, without fertility, the phenomena of female beauty would not exist at all. The moment someone starts calling women “whores” the moment they show some thigh skin or wear a little rouge is the moment I tune out completely. How many men want to live in such a world? Islamic men perhaps, but we all know their minds have been completely taken over by a parasitic and thoroughly Semitic worldview. And as if that wasn’t enough, consider that the Fuhrer himself acknowledged the necessity of seeing pretty women.
Sorry – Simon.
I understand that more prominent features such as the jaw and nose are more masculine but it is irrelevant. Aside from having slightly larger noses than modern Western males, I see nothing masculinised about the Greco-Roman women and I am not sure anyone else on this site does either. At the end of the day it is just your taste in women which is driving this, same with me. Many find Chinese women to be more to their liking, or Hebraic women such as Natalie Portman. Some men like amputees or women with actual deformities; It doesn’t give them the licence to make assumptions about entire civilisations.
“Obsessions with chastity and virginity, to the point that being attractive is a beatable offense”
Men since time immemorial have favoured virgins. Men don’t want women who have been ejaculated inside by other men. Gorilla silverbacks are the same. All civilisation, White and non-White have preferred innocence in women and a virgin is always treated with higher value than a non-virgin unmarried woman. But my question was how was Maldo being sex-phobic for wanting marriage and the relationships between men and women to be more traditional?
“The beauty of the white woman *will* vanish from the earth if you adopt primitive anti-sex attitudes.”
Could you please define “primitive anti-sex attitudes” and could you please let me know what it is I am doing or believe which you think may contribute to this?
“It will also disappear if you mate them with hyper-masculine men. I know that’s a particularly bitter pill for you to swallow, but it’s the truth.”
Not really. By this logic beautiful women shouldn’t even exist. Of course there are beautiful women in every Race. I have seen plenty of good-looking Negresses, Chinks, Indians (dot not feather) and muds of indeterminable ethnicity (I wouldn’t want to touch any of them, mind you).
These non-White Races, most of them at least, have highly masculine men, compared to Whites today. Yet they still produce females that are nice to the eye. How can this be if what you say is to be taken for granted. The Germanic tribes produced highly masculine men, yet their women were known to be beautiful. How so if what you say is as simplistic as you are making it out to be?
“White Sharia may achieve your goal of perpetuation for the sake of perpetuation, but at what cost? What kind of a rigid, dogmatic, joyless and, indeed, ugly world would we then inhabit?”
I never once claimed to be an advocate of White Sharia. You are making yet another baseless assertion directed at myself this time.
“The moment someone starts calling women “whores” the moment they show some thigh skin or wear a little rouge is the moment I tune out completely. ”
There is a simple reason for why you see it this way: You are a Westerner who has grown up in the West surrounded by women who show off and spread their legs for any Tom, Dick and Harry that look their way. For you, as most of us, it is an everyday occurrence that we were not only brought up to accept since we were still figuring out what part of our mothers served the drinks, but that we are to this day taught to both respect and admire: 15 year old blonde-haired, blue-eyed lass Greta wants to wear a mini-skirt to give Tyrone something to look at? Well then she has every right to. We live in the West, not Saudi Arabia. Our women are allowed to do what they want. We aren’t savages.
It is people who say things like that who disgust me to no end. As Cesar himself describes, in a world like this Aryan females are no longer caperucita rojas. The most important thing in the world is that Aryan females, virgins or not, remain little red riding hoods. What’s more, makeup or “rogue” is decadent, unnatural and an amplifier for one’s vanity, specifically of the Western strain. Sparta outlawed makeup for the precise reason that it covers up the very beauty that evolution gave to them through hard work: “beauty doesn’t need ornaments. Beauty is, in itself, the highest ornament.”
“How many men want to live in such a world? Islamic men perhaps”
No. I do not want a world where nymphets and nymphs alike walk around with lipstick and eyeliner, with fishnet stockings and make plans on getting cummed into because A. society tells them that they shouldn’t deny “natural urges” and B. because their daddies are middle class failures who happen to have loads of money. As Arch Stanton very rightfully says, Humans would be no different to beasts of the field, having no higher calling than base, animalistic fancies.
“consider that the Fuhrer himself acknowledged the necessity of seeing pretty women.”
To compare the 3rd Reich and the state of women in that Nation to White women today is just more ignorance. Women were very clearly suited to conventional and conservative roles. Yes, Goebbels was a work-place pervert, something which those such as Himmler saw as being remnant of Jewish bosses who were, and still are, notorious for groping their pretty secretaries. But the dress code was very clearly conservative and not sexualised as it is today. And if you are thinking of black and white footage of German girls swinging around hula hoops in scanty clothing, that doesn’t count and I actually see no problem with it.
Nevertheless, just because Hitler did or believed something doesn’t mean I have to agree with him. To do so would be mindless and knee-jerk. Chris White very clearly does not agree with Hitler’s view on wartime rape as I have seen in his “article”. I do agree with Hitler’s view on wartime rape especially seeing as if I didn’t then the contents of Hellstorm are no longer considered crimes as they should be considered.
If Chris believes in Vae Victus (as I believe that Adunai does too, though his opinion could have changed) then the Germans were not victims of anything and I honestly believe that Chris White should have thought twice before typing that down, especially as he directly addresses us readers of this site not a few lines before.
No, it’s not mere taste. It’s biology, and I find it very postmodernist of you to suggest otherwise. I can be tolerant of many things, but one thing I absolutely can’t abide is alethic relativism, which our society has been saturated with in recent decades. I’m sorry but we’ve suffered under it enough, and I have a zero tolerance policy of it at this point. I have explained the hormonal aspect of craniofacial morphology, and asking for an explanation of an explanation would drag out any conversation to the point of absurdity.
I think this must be the virgin/whore complex I’ve heard about. But I ask you, what is a traditional marriage? One where the man has complete freedom to beat and rape his wife, where he can hold her hostage in an abysmal union of such misery that she is driven to suicide? I have always said that something shouldn’t get a free pass because it’s traditional. It should be evaluated based on its innate merit, or lack thereof. The idea that a woman is a whore or otherwise “impure” even if she has only had a single male partner prior to her current relationship is sex-phobic because it is implicitly shaming the sexual act, and female sexuality specifically. Notice that the same thing is not done to men, as they are apparently above being “tainted” in any physical or spiritual way. I do not subscribe to the strict dichotomy of virginity or whoredom.
You may find beautiful women in every race, but notice how even the most beautiful negro or Asian woman always pales in comparison to the most beautiful white woman. I have explained before that, from the evidence I’ve seen, attractive women were virtually non-existent prior to roughly 1925. There are several reasons I believe this was so, one of them being that the sex-phobic attitudes present in past eras placed such taboos on cosmetics, form-flattering clothes and “immodest” hairstyles that women were forced to go around looking about as appetising as a stale old bowl of porridge. One of these reasons, of course, is that testosterone levels in the gene pool were likely much higher, and this had a deleterious effect on the women, phenotypically speaking. Again, as I said, this is known as sexually antagonistic selection, and from the historical record it appears to have been the norm in all European cultures, who were also highly patriarchal, so no wonder the women looked so bad. When the testosterone levels began to drop in the middle of the 20th century, and after they were no longer discouraged from wearing flattering clothes and hairstyles, attractive women started to become the norm rather than the exception. So it becomes a question of values. Do we want the patriarchal empire wherein we rule the world and our women look masculinised, or do I want a world where our women are genuinely beautiful? It’s the latter for me. You remove the keystone of female beauty and our race and culture becomes worthless, and I see no point in defending it.
I’m addressing both you and Cesar. He appears to subscribe to White Sharia, and although you say that you do not, the views you’ve expressed are, in my opinion, as good as.
You seem determined to turn an aesthetic issue into a moral one. Women making themselves look nice, for themselves as much as anyone else, has no relation to prostitution or promiscuity. Viewing cosmetics as vain and immodest reminds me of the miserable modernist architects who won’t allow any ornamentation in buildings. We like certain things simply because they look nice, and anyone who wishes to either deny it (postmodernist) or deny us it (Abrahamic sex-phobes) can go to hell, for all I care. Because the fact of the matter is that most humans, from time immemorial, have not been attractive. Humans are not inherently beautiful. It is, most regrettably, not the norm for our species, nor our race. It takes a lot of work. I have seen pictures of Nazi era German women, and I can tell you, none of them would inspire me to take up the sword and go to war in their name. If this is the mythical Aryan beauty you speak of, I’m not impressed. By and large, the only people who possess beautiful faces without the use of cosmetics or photoshop are children.
Then I would highly recommend you comment somewhere else. I am not the admin of this site, but I am just giving you my humble advice. Go and bitch to Kyle Hunt and his strumpet “wife” on his Renegade Tribune about how we are all misogynist, Sharia-loving bullies. In this site we do not kowtow or pander to females and we do not sling Freudian terms (madonna-whore complex) onto men who do not fit our own matriarchal outlook then accuse them of being postmodernist for – correctly – telling us that our opinions are just that. We believe in traditional, Aryan marriages where the man owns the woman and we understand the importance of women being virgins until they find an appropriate husband. I could elaborate that I do not advocate for women to be in burqas but you seem too far gone to want to listen. I have told you things to contradict you about my ideological beliefs and you still continue with this nonsense of ignoring everything I say.
With all due respect, to paraphrase Matthew Edgley, you are nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary whose own sanctimonious sense of affront is supposed to constitute as an argument. You add nothing of substance in your emasculated ramblings, not even adding sources to back up extremely wild claims: “I have explained before that, from the evidence I’ve seen, attractive women were virtually non-existent prior to roughly 1925.”
In other words, the only difference between yourself and every degenerate nihilist that breathes our precious air is that you don’t like blacks very much and you have a White person fetish. You are no different from Jon and Collette, but worse, in fact, as you are an anti-natalist and she wasn’t.
Simon Elliot, your suggestion that masculine men cannot produce attractive daughters is nothing short of absurd. There were no attractive women prior to 1925? That’s a hilarious, fantastical assertion. I do suppose the Circassian beauties were mere fantasy. I’d love to know why the Ottomans went out of their way to kidnap Aryan women for the harems during times where white men were as testosterone packed as your average bull-nigger.
It seems to me that you’re attempting to justify the effeminate mannerisms of modern Aryans, or perhaps even yourself, in this crusade against virginity and monogamy. It isn’t inherently bad for a male to want sexual exclusivity, or even multiple partners to call exclusively his own. If our men did not produce so much testosterone in the days of old we would seen the Germans and Celts crushed boot-and-heel by the Romans, Huns, Mongols etc.
Men such as yourself would be hung and quartered for their endorsement of such effeminate activities in saner times.
@ Jack & Simon,
There were plenty of attractive women prior to 1925 by the way, and the pre-Raphaelites of your town attested to it in a museum I tried to visit a few years ago.
While Jews may not have invented the concept of patriarchy, they employed it with vengeance to an advanced degree. In ancient Jewish culture, the familial bloodline was propagated through the male, as women were chattel, i.e property, owned by males.
Women could not own or inherent property or enter into contracts. Their names are frequently omitted in the Bible and when their names are mentioned, it is in stories where they are trying to secure a male representative, as in the stories of Tamar and Rebekkah’s plot to have her son Jacob steal Esau’s birthright, i.e. tribal leadership so her future will be assured through her favored son’s auspices.
Abram’s wife, Sarai, is merely a literary foil, a shill, in Abram’s plot to extort Pharaoh’s wealth. Abram has Sarai misrepresent herself to Pharaoh with the absurd idea that the Egyptians will murder him if they find out she is his wife. Predictably, the Egyptians do not murder Abram when they find out the truth of his relationship with Sarai. Instead, they provide Abram “well for her sake: and he Abram had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.” Instead of murdering Abram, “Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.
This extortion plot worked so well the newly renamed Abraham used it again on Abimelech. “And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife. And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee. And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.”
And in true Jewish fashion, Abraham’s son Isaac uses it again to again extort more wealth from Abimelech and the Philistines. However, by this time Abimelech is wise to the extortion plot. Instead of directly coughing up his wealth, this time he provides Isaac protection, or in Jewish terms “muscle,” to cheat the hated Philistines in trade. “And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death. Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him.
What Isaac “sowed” was not the soil, but the people, as is evident by the fact he increased his wealth a “hundredfold” in less than a year. The story moves on where Jacob’s daughter Dinah justifies the massacre of the Hivites. Here the woman is merely an excuse for murder.
@ Simon,
I didn’t read below your phrase “I’m addressing both you and Cesar. He appears to subscribe to White Sharia, and…”
It seems that we are not communicating simply because you have not read the basic items of this site.
Today I re-read my already linked excerpts of Turd Flinging Monkey and I find him so eloquent that tonight I’ll modify the masthead of this site to include it.
I strongly recommend your reading it. I have purposely used the PDF format of my ‘Monkey’ excerpts so that it may be printed at home and read as a short book. (This is why, incidentally, in the lycanthrope pic the colors are a bit too strong: they are thought for the black-and-white printer rather than for an online reading.)
@ Robert Kelly
I did not say that rape as a weapon of war should necessarily be ordered, but rather simply permitted. Furthermore I no more agree that it was right to sanction rape in WWII (on either side), than I agree that it would have been right sanction rape in the Falklands War, – the last time Britain went up against an at least reasonably civilized foreign power for national interests as opposed to ZOG interests.
Albeit the Second World War was fought against raw Communism, the fact remains that most of the citizens of the Soviet Union outside of Moscovy did not support Communism, (apart from a large Jewish concentration clustered around what is today Belarus and therefore rightly subject to Einstazgruppen counterinsurgency operations).
I believe the war that we shall see probably at some point towards the end of this century will be a different type of war to any war we have previously seen, except perhaps the Russian, Spanish and Bosnian civil wars, but even bigger in size than all three combined x10.
I predict that there will be no quarter in this war and I expect that in this war genocidal actions will be carried out on all sides, especially on the side that we as White Nationalists must face.
This war will not be fought primarily with regular armies as we have known them. Whole populations will be mobilized against one another, and you want to not only somehow ‘control’ but actually to forbid Baizou women from being accrued as taxable commodities, only for them to shoot at us and murder our security forces behind our own lines? – A. It can’t be done. B. It will be impossible to enforce and C. This type of brutality may actually have certain key advantages in the suppression of Red Resistance.
It may for example incentivise White Nationalist troops to take enemy strong points knowing that there are valuable slaves to be gained there. It may also preserve the lives of Baizou women who would otherwise have to be dispensed with as captured terrorist combatants, or in reprisal for our own slaughtered women. Another reason may be that we shall have to shoot so many Baizuo men that we will need their women to replenish the White Race.
Because this coming conflict will be not only an ideological war but also a racial war, I predict that lots of coloured settlers will be either driven out or killed, (IF we are victorious). There are many ways this can be achieved, as I mentioned in the article leading vast columns of people into caverns in the ground and then blowing up the entrances is a cheap and efficient method of achieving this.
I have surveyed the caves that are dotted around the British Isles on Google maps and I estimate that with full control over the UK and Ireland one could liquidate about 20 million subjects within just 18 months, perhaps even 12.
Therefore with Baizuo men and coloured settlers all dead, why should the White Nationalists not simply enslave and forcibly breed with the fertile enemy women of White Race who remain? Isn’t that better than executing them? – A lot less wasteful?
You are naive indeed if you believe that this conflict will be anything but brutish and harsh with the utmost extreme cruelty.
You may be right of course, and there may be some form of chivalry system going on between the protagonists, but I doubt it. Look at the ideologies involved. – Judaism? Wahhabism? Fascism? Marxism? And look what’s at stake: We’re not talking about socio-economic systems anymore! Now it’s serious. Now it’s about which race of people gets to keep this country, and which will be vanquished and/or even exterminated from it.
The Second World War will look like a merry-go-round compared with what is to come. Back THEN you could possibly make a case against using only the most ruthless and vicious methods conceivable, but not now. Now is a different time with completely different rules and cultures involved.
This is why I don’t call myself a National Socialist. Because the real National Socialists were too honourable. – Too chivalrous. What this coming war will require is barbarism not chivalry.
Half of the White population are literally traitors who literally want to make themselves and us extinct, because they believe that this will end ‘racism’. Give me one reason why Baizuo cities and their populations (or what’s left of them by 2050-2100), should be spared?
Personally, after we have exhausted all appeal to reason and patriotism, I can’t think of a single reason why we should suffer their presence in our homelands anymore than we should suffer the presence of the Afro-Asiatic hoard, made multiplied and fat off of the produce of our own civilization.
A better genocidal strategy are immigrant towns like the camp in the final scenes of the film Children of Men, which depicts the UK in 2027, and then simply nuke them all.
Regarding the non-white & white traitor survivors, outside the liberated zones there will only be weeping and gnashing of teeth, similar to what Pierce depicts in the Diaries after liberating California. Only fertile white women, white children and combating men would have the right to be in.
Also, the ethno-state will takeover all of the country’s oil, leaving those outside the liberated zones regressing to cannibalism. (I’d only pity those innocent whites who didn’t make it to the liberated zones.)
Well thought out and well stated comment. However, you did not factor in the advanced weaponry coming on line. The new satellite based scalar weapons, essentially the space based death ray of science fiction, have already been successfully tested on America’s west coast, notably on the city of Santa Rosa, California.
These weapons have the same devastating effect as a nuclear weapon, but without the radioactive aftermath. Already there is a quiet acceleration in scrapping America’s nuclear and conventional based weapons systems in anticipation of this devastating weapon against which there is no possible ground based defense; a weapon over which our Jewish masters will have direct control. Imagine Lord Rothschild with his finger on the trigger. No longer do Jews have need for questionable goyim minds to man their nuclear ramparts, a great fear Jews have had since their development of atomic energy as portrayed in their movie Dr. Strangelove. Think “Terminator” on steroids without any visible robots.
Unless the ground based control stations can be accessed there will no hope of stopping these weapons. Note Trump, now where did I leave that wall? just quietly restarted the space program. No doubt these weapons will soon be entirely controlled from space based platforms, at that point, we are toast – literally.
Think for a moment, if I can foresee these developments, would Jews miss them?
Chris, I understand your point much better. And no, I do not believe we should be holding ourselves to the exact same standard as the 3rd Reich.
I have no problem with rape insofar as it refers to the abduction of women for sex and/or impregnation. It doesn’t make it a fundamental evil just because Muslims have done it and continue to do it. My problem is with rape as it is slung around today – forcing somebody into sex just for the short term as Boone Caudill does to a girl at the end of Guthrie’s The Big Sky (depends on the reader’s perspective).
This is something which I am rocking back and forth on. I have your opinion one moment then another during the next. My problem is with me being arbitrary to a certain degree. I see no problem with the wartime rape of Race traitor women. Notice that I said rape and not abduction.
Only time will tell and perhaps if i do happen to be alive during this future war you describe then my opinions may change. I know for certain that rape is not something beneath or beyond me. Under the right circumstances I would be ready to rape.
In the book IRON GATES, written by a member of Atomwaffen Division, the narrative describes how the organisation is so powerful precisely because it, unlike the other factions vying for the ashes of the old world, put aside commonly understood ethics and outmoded ways of thinking which we take for granted.
And what would your strategy be for wiping out nonwhites globally?
Aren’t you concerned about the environmental impact of nuking vast swathes of the planet???
An all-white planet Chernobyl doesn’t seem all that desirable
@Arch Stanton
I will leave a slight margin of possibility open that I could be wrong, but I really don’t think that we are going to see orbital death rays operated by Jews from Tel Aviv anytime soon.
At most what we will see may be some type of kinetic shell that is fired at Mach 50 or thereabouts, and even then it doesn’t necessarily have to be from space. Hitler’s Government was experimenting with this concept with their ‘V3 Program’ in 1944.
In any case, why should we even necessarily assume that the United States will still be in effective existence by the end of this century? – And just because they may be able to take out whole cities using kinetic weapons, that does not necessarily mean that their opponents wouldn’t also by this point be able to produce similar WMD capabilities. For example simply releasing a few drops of advanced nerve agent into Chicago’s metropolitan water sewer system would be sufficient to kill at least many thousands within days if correctly targeted.
@Cesar
I think that internment and starvation would as you suggest prove far more practical than the use of such methods as poisoned gas or bullets. However, such a program would of course I suspect prove to be highly time consuming, wasteful and ultimately unnecessary.
I’m not an ogre and I would of course seek to humanely repatriate Britain’s racial alien population using abandoned or evacuated urban centres, as makeshift concentration camps employed as temporary holding facilities, such as in ‘Children of Men’.
(My favourite apocalyptic movie, not least of all because the infertility crisis in it I know is attempting to symbolise the problem of modern women and of Feminism. – Nor is it a coincidence that in this film the first female to give birth in decades is black, or that the name ‘The Human Project’ sounds remarkably like the late Jew Jacque Frescoes ‘The Venus Project’.)
If however, as Arch Stanton suggests efforts to repatriate tens of millions of hostile muds, who having been rooted in our exclusive racial birthright for several decades and having developed their own distinct British culture and identity, (even to the point of developing a pigeon dialect distinct to Britain called ‘Black British’), refuse to ignore the possibilities of direct resistance against us, then other more forceful measures may be necessary. Particularly if we then find ourselves in a Milosevic Debacle; wherein we find ourselves being sanctioned by mass bombing and the threat of invasion on account of our vital racial policy to recover our national territory.
Under those circumstances – knowing full well that to halt our program and to effectively surrender the levers of political power will mean our race’s total annihilation as these aliens inevitably return to recolonise us, – then it will not only become necessary, but also unfortunately obligatory to end their existence as a whole using lethal methods.
Yes, an ad hoc way of doing it may actually mean some cheap, effective and ramshackle solution, especially if we find the country in a state of total chaos. I therefore still think that in the absence of sufficient communications, finance or bureaucratic management mass executions by dynamiting cave entrances thereby killing the thousands trapped and killed inside, is probably the most obvious possibility. However, with sufficient organisation and transport it may also be possible to construct locks on the coast that are specifically designed to drown large groups at a time using sea water. Much cheaper than gas or bullets. The locks could then simply be drained and the corpses then flushed into the Atlantic Ocean as trash.
(In order to prevent bloated rotting corpses from rising to the surface the dispatchees could simply be forced to carry in weights and shackles into the death lock, or else simply tied together prior to execution.)
As for the Jews. Well as Arch Stanton argues this planet is now for all intents and purposes a Jewish planet. The first thing I would do if I came to power would be to arrest and then intern all those of Jewish blood, who would then be held as hostages against the international community’s further actions against us. If they were so foolish as to attack us with kinetic weapons of mass destruction or to invade us, then not only would the solution to our Kosovans be obvious, but also the solution to the hundreds of thousands of Jewish hostages in our grasp. They would of course be scattered around the country in secret locations, lest Israel tried to pull of a Uganda.
You said that you are not NS because the Nazis were chivalrous and that the coming wars will be far more barbarous. Well, you don’t have to be an “ogre” to be an exterminationist (cf. the sidebar: “For an introduction to my exterminationist philosophy see: here.”)
Last time I was in London I saw mulattos between English and Negores. The need to develop an exterminationist philosophy is obvious. Mulattoes like Obama, whose mother was white, side blacks and use their white genes (higher IQ) as a weapon against pure whites. So they are far more dangerous than pure blacks. Therefore my exterminationist philosophy ought to be considered the only moral way to victory.
If you just expel them they will be mad as hell and will use their smart white genes against you. After the HRWs there will be high time to use UK’s nukes for the first time. The hell with Mexican director Cuarón (who studied in the same high school than I)! A white helping a negress’ baby in Children of Men is, to my mind, a sin against the holy ghost of England.
Arch Stanton. I agree, but what you are ignoring is that Aryan societies such as Rome did the same things, though not necessarily all of them.
In Rome, the familial line was from Father to son and women were owned by males to the point where a husband could kill his wife. You may not agree with that but it is an example of something Jewish within a society that was Aryan, though it might have had some Jews within it.
Women, to a certain degree, were not allowed to own property.
Nevertheless, the OT is only prudish from a certain perspective. Yes, women may have been subject to strong levels of repression in the same manner as Arabic women, but there is a lot of sexual explicitness in that book, a lot of which is not frowned upon. Examples are Lot and his daughters, David and his many concubines including a story where one of them has sex with him on his deathbed, and quite a few stories smiling upon rape.
So, I honestly think that “sex-phobia” as it is so eloquently being put is not Abrahamic, nor do I believe the possession of women to be Abrahamic. If so, then KD Rebel is Abrahamic (however I find Lane’s opinions on female homosexuality to be revolting), and the viking age Scandinavians would have been Abrahamic as they did kidnap British girls for sex.
Today that I reread the ‘Monkey’ excerpts I found these phrases:
My mind immediately flew over my recent visit to an asylum where an old family friend was permanently committed by his wife, younger than I, only because he became sick. He used to be very wealthy and married a very conservative woman. His late mother even belonged to the Catholic Opus Dei, but even in those traditional circles the wife not only committed him but never visits him!
This never happened in the family with the old laws, when patriarchy ruled when I was a child. It was an unheard of phenomenon that those males who had a sick wife not only committed her but never visited them!
Joseph Walsh is right in another thread that the natures of men and women are as different (I rephrase) as being from different planets: we from Mars and they from Venus.
Tort, I apologise if my comments over the past few hours have seemed too rowdy, but I had to say something.
A friend of mine has just told me over email:
“His comments were nothing more than absurd. Really, statues of Aphrodite are “masculine”? I personally don’t see how. What I found most repugnant however was his disgust for the biologically necessary male preference for virgin women. I don’t necessarily know how or why such people fail to understand that men produce testosterone and thus want sexual exclusivity to ensure that their offspring is, indeed, their own.
I honestly suspect that this ‘Simon Elliot’ character may even be a woman, as I’ve never seen a racially aware male endorse polyamory or get angry over men’s preference for virgins”
Regardless, my friend has clearly never met Kyle Hunt.
You don’t have to apologize.
In the other thread I had in mind what you yourself said about another commenter: that you were unnecessary bellicose (again, in old threads).
Simon Elliot
@arnoldtohtfan
He says he’s male. But he choses this avatar with a pink Twitter background…
@ Jack Halliday
I’ve been listening to Renegade Broadcasting on and off since I came across the radio shows in February 2013 and I even appeared as a co-host on two radio shows with Chris White back in late 2015. Renegade (or rather Kyle Hunt) have put out a lot of good material including on their other site Renegade Tribune but they really miss the mark when it comes to females in general.
I put a lot of this down to the influence of Hunt’s ‘partner’ (not wife) Sinead McCarthy though I’m not sure how much is down to her. They seem to have that ‘mystical mother goddess’ view of women that was so popular during the 1960’s/early 1970’s hippie era, that women are ‘one with mother Earth’ and that men and women should work as co-equals, no patriarchy. It’s notable that the paganism Renegade subscribe to is Norse-Germanic paganism because Greek and Roman paganism is a lot harder to ‘feminize’. (In fact I read Kyle Hunt putting down Zeus and Jupiter alongside Yahweh). Also because Northern Europe was not urbanized like Rome and Greece there is a sort of ‘hippie love fest in the woods’ feel to the Germanic paganism coming from Renegade. It is nothing like National Socialist Germany’s (who Renegade treat as the only true opposition to the Jews) approach to females treatment and role in society.
The Pre-Raphaelites were among the worst offenders. Lantern jaws, jutting chins and prominent noses are all common to that artistic movement. Contrast the masculinised depictions of women in the classical tradition with more contemporary, phenotypically accurate depictions like those of Howard Rogers and you will see the contrast is as striking as night and day.
I’m not surprised by your suggestion that I may be female. On the contrary, it’s the kind of paranoia I expected to arouse eventually. I have a picture of myself on my twitter page. Incidentally, you don’t have to be a hyper-masculine macho man to have convictions and get what needs to be done, done. I’ve already said that I’d wipe out the majority of the human population without much hesitation, provided it’s done in the method I described.
My commitment to anti-natalism was solidified after reading Hellstorm. Anyone who could bring a child into a world where anything *at all* bad can happen is guilty of the greatest crime. Your motivation is evolutionary and deeply ingrained, the belief in vicarious survival. Only in a perfect world is the creation of new sentient life justifiable. It’s perfectly possible to reach this conclusion and still have an interest in the JQ and the trajectory of Western society.
You can have your sense of entitlement to virgin brides, but I really don’t see the point in complaining about women voting when we all know democracy will become a thing of the past if you ever take the political reigns. Seems like a moot point. Devlin’s thesis never sat right with me because it was apparent from the beginning that men are guilty of the same deceitful, exploitative behaviour when it comes to securing a mate. I see no honour in the strategies of either sex. Speaking of which, all this obsessive talk of honour and virtue strikes me as farcical, and what’s more, I feel that anyone who truly possessed those qualities would not feel the need to remind everyone (and themselves) of it at every opportunity. In all honesty, it seems like a cultivated façade.
I’m also perplexed by the continued use of mystical terms like Aryan, whatever that’s supposed to mean. You mean white, so just say white.
More to the point, have you checked up the new masthead (esp. #3)?
Yes, but it wasn’t taken in my bedroom, obviously. I’ve pointed out the reasons why the Pre-Raphaelites fail abysmally at female aesthetics, and it’s all anchored in biology, so I don’t really see what you can say to defend your liking of it. You can like the themes of those works, but I find it a shame that beauty isn’t among them.
I can’t be expected to do everything at once. I still have to read your Rome vs Judea, and I don’t know what “masthead” refers to. Sounds like something one would find on a sailing vessel.
As to your mother’s room I’m curious if you have, in addition to that, a strong attachment with your father’s room, or if you strongly identify with any male figure? These are important questions since what you say against natalism isn’t exactly a male POV; it’s feminine.
We males of the 14 words should simply hate the System more than love our lives (civil war is coming), which is why today I posted Chris White’s text on ‘The Base’.
That, together with pro-natalism and love for the pre-Raphaelites, is masculine.
I have no father. There was a man who supplied the sperm to conceive me, but he was no father. He was a very bad man. When he left us he took most of my mother’s belongings and what little money we had. As you can imagine, such a story doesn’t fit the manosphere narrative of perpetual male victimhood. He ruined us, and I shall say no more about it.
The beliefs I have come to accept, with no great reluctance, are those elaborated by professor of philosophy David Benatar in his books Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence (2006) and The Human Predicament (2017). A very long discussion between Benatar and Sam Harris can be found on youtube. I spent a year trying to formulate new arguments against Benatar’s philosophy and they all failed.
In some warped and twisted way, maybe some men are so obsessed with masculinity and manhood that they can only bring themselves to love masculinised women, such as in classical depictions. I pity such men, for I can imagine no greater poverty than a dearth of feminine beauty.
I always preferred capable, intelligent women and viewed marriage as a ninety percent give ten percent take proposition. I did not marry until I was 42. In fact, I had quit dating long before then and had become quite comfortable being alone. I was well past the point where doting aunts would say, “one day you’ll meet the right girl.”
As a loner, focused on a career whose entry training cost a small fortune, there was little choice in chasing skirts or pursuing my lifelong dreams – dreams won out. After achieving and burning out my dreams. I became somewhat aimless. When I lost my profession, I lost my identity. Then Waco happened outside my backdoor and seeing the public reaction, I decided I no longer wanted to live in chickenshit America.
To that end I decided to buy a boat and sail around the world. It was about that time I became reacquainted with a young lady I had known in my childhood. Our mothers had been friends since the 1940s. She was the first women I met that did not run the other way when I told her of my plan to buy a boat and sail around the world.
My wife had grit, proving it more than once while we were under sail. Had I married the typical American ditzy woman that froze, or worse, came apart at the seams when the seas at night were running high under gale force winds, it is doubtful I would be writing this. A fellow sailor once commented “your wife has a lot of man in her.” And so she did.
Women, like many swords, invariably have a double edge, but in my ignorance I would not admit this. After several years of sailing, my wife suddenly stated, “I’m not going” (around the word). But she took it beyond that, deciding she did not want me either.
Bright lass that she was, my wife got the very best of lawyers and waltzed me over to the court cleaners where pockets come out bright, shiny and empty. In the end I was lucky to get the boat, as without it I would have been living on the street at age 55.
As I had lived on the street in my teens, I was having trouble fathoming what a return would be like in late middle age. Sleeping on park benches, if such a thing is still allowed, and eating peanut butter sandwiches at the salvation Army did not bode for a promising future. However, in the end it worked out for the best and here I am safe, warm and comfortable. That was my first, last and only marriage.
Funny thing, my wife insisted on marriage, despite the fact I told her I was committed and need no paperwork to continue my commitment. My word has always been my bond, but she insisted. Later she would say, “marriage is just a contract that serves the state.” She was right about that.
My wife had rare intellect. She would say the damnedest things at the damnedest time, things that stopped me cold. Once during a trip to the museum of flight, I was waxing intelligently about the SR-71; how the aircraft seams would expand up to a quarter inch in flight due to the thermal expansion coefficient of its titanium surfaces. When the aircraft was parked, the seams would contract and the fuel tanks would leak, leaving a shadow of jet fuel underneath the plane. My wife looked at me without expression and said in dry, matter-of-fact tone, “but we went to the moon.” She was right about that too.
My wife provided some amazing insights on the Bible, like the fact that the story of Abraham was an extortion plot and the word “Torah” means both law and instruction. As I said, she is a very bright lass.
My wife was instrumental in furthering my Biblical research that led to writing the book about the life of Jesus. This was even more amazing considering she was totally a-religious.
It’s been years since the divorce and I don’t miss her much anymore.
I got a chuckle out of this finding this in the midst of writing this short history. He is correct, the masthead is in fact the top of a sailing vessel’s mast, where the mainsl’s running rigging blocks are located, along with the navigation lights for running under sail.
The girls on my sidebar are not masculine.
Also, my father was probably worse than yours.
It’s easy to cherry pick a few inoffensive examples. They do exist, but are incredibly rare. Note also that your pictures are not uber-feminine, nor hyper-masculine, but merely plain. Alas, those seem to be the only categories that existed prior to the 20th century, either a plain jane or a shemale.
My father actually allowed me, through his negligence, to come to harm, and it was at that point my mother realised he was a serious liability and took the opportunity to get us away from him while she still could.
0. Simon’s posts are probably the most interesting on this blog ever, as they strike at the very heart of CT’s ideology – that the beauty of Aryan females specifically be preserved! (This is such a powerful slogan, faggot Whigger nationalists do not dare to proclaim it to the fullest, and yet here it’s under attack. Delightful to read!)
1. @Simon “What kind of a rigid, dogmatic, joyless and, indeed, ugly world would we then inhabit? It’s certainly not a world I would want to live in, but then again, if given the choice….”
My views are quite similar to yours, I can even talk to my mom about the absurdity of my birth freely, too. It has always been a mystery to me why people do not commit suicide en masse, and more importantly, why they have children.
But I have come to some pragmatic conclusion – I am alive, and if I do not commit suicide for whatever reason (such as laziness), I choose Social Darwinism – exterminationist racism, no less! – as my credo, for it is the only credo of Life. That’s the way I took from simple love for old Europe to something farther than even Hitlerianism, and CT’s ideas are quite fitting for that far ideal.
Social Darwinism indeed, however, would prescribe child burning if that were the unalienable part of saving our race…
But maybe, there is no cruel paradox in the pro-natalist argument. Maybe, there is no true non-existence. Not before and not after life. I’ve been atheist/deist my whole life, and I despise the concept of souls, but it may be so that we can never escape being. If giving birth does not create life, there is no crime.
2. @Arch Stanton @CT Don’t you think that children get traumatized when their mother is beaten? I’m not against wife-beating at all, especially in the next 100-200 years, but children’s welfare is one of the pillars of this blog’s ideology.
3. About White Sharia, I wonder if it’s degenerate for White women to walk freely in the streets of a city? I for one find the sight of White mothers with their White kids pretty annoying in the shops and public transport alike (and many Russians do, too, for various, often contrary reasons).
4. @esotericisms “It seems to me that you’re attempting to justify the effeminate mannerisms of modern Aryans”
You mean, “emasculated.” Because César believes Aryans _should_ be effeminate (in the far, far future). And he believes we should pity the children and not burn them to crisps.
“we would seen the Germans and Celts crushed boot-and-heel by the Romans, Huns, Mongols etc.”
Er, we did see them all crushed by each listed nation. Celtic languages are utterly dead, supplanted by various abominations sprung from Latin; I haven’t met any Ostrogoths or Heruls in Ukraine. Mongols, Ottomans and Saracens ate up huge chunks on the edges of the White homeland, they just grew too decadent under the burden of the passage of epochs to besiege Vienna a third time.
5. @CT “since what you say against natalism isn’t exactly a male POV; it’s feminine”
Really? I have no idea myself. But anti-natalists are male (do “female philosophers” exist though?) and often even married. Whereas my mom said that giving birth [to me] had been the greatest joy of her life, and that it had always been surprising to her that Western women don’t have kids while being ridiculously rich (compared to other times and lands).
It is only via reason that you can come to anti-natalism. And reason is the domain of men (and of philosophising Kantian faggots).
The Goths pushed the Huns out of Europe and Hermann was able to save Germany from racial destruction at the hands of Rome. The Celts certainly fared far worse but by no means were they wiped out as there is still prominent Celtic ethnogenesis in the Alps, France, Iberia, Britain, Germany and Sealand.
So No, I don’t believe that they were wiped out, not by any means. The Goths, for instance, weren’t wiped out by those groups of people but rather mixed themselves out of existence in the same manner as the Vandals.
I figure anti-natalism comes easier to men because women have a deeply ingrained biological drive to have children. They are highly maternal, hence thinking about the ethics of procreation doesn’t even enter into their heads. I can’t condone the beating of women, though. They can be punished for their transgressions without resorting to physical violence.
Most people don’t commit suicide because they have two evolutionary mechanisms guarding against that. First, they have an optimism bias, and second, they have an innate fear of death, even if eternal nothingness is inevitable and nothing to fear. It is impossible for most people to overcome these mechanisms. Plus there is the issue of sunk costs, as most people (or at least the people who care about them) have a vested interest in continuing to exist once they are alive.
When I said above that men were pro-natalism I had in mind that we think with our cock: we’re hard-wired to fuck Little Reds. Regarding women’s anti-natalism, I had in mind the millions of spoiled brats who have aborted white babies or who use contraception pills.
Contraception must be forbidden in an ethno-state, as the ultimate goal would be to conquer the whole world for the Aryans (10 babies per white family will be the norm).
Suicide is a sin against the holy ghost. If you want to die, do it heroically (you know what I’m talking about).
P.S. I will close this long thread so that commenters can comment in another one where I’ll quote my above comment.