Categories
Jewish question (JQ) Lord of the Rings

Beware of Wormtongue!

Or Against Takuan Seiyo

Still further to my previous entry in which I mentioned Tanstaafl’s essay “White Nationalism and Counter-Jihad”. Rosalie intervened at the Gates of Vienna (GoV) thread and her portrait of a half-Slav/half-Jew who in the blogosphere very misleadingly uses the penname of Takuan Seiyo (and who reminds me LOTR’s character Wormtongue) merits an entry on its own. At the blogsite Age of Treason,



Rosalie said…

For me, it defies reason why a bully and intellectual terrorist like Takuan Seiyo is considered respectable, accepted and praised in the counter-jihad community—and in any group of decent people. Compared to Seiyo, Larry Auster [about Auster cf. e.g., here] almost looks like the Good Samaritan.

Every time I read one of his comments online, I feel the need to intervene because my head almost explodes with anger seeing so much dishonesty, cunningness and obfuscation. Basically, everything he’s ever written might be summed up as “Whites everywhere feel the need to pay for pogroms, the Cossacks and Auschwitz with their suicide—and don’t even think about surviving until you uproot this evil from your hearts and minds”. Each and every of his essays or comments starts with a few sugarcoated paragraphs about the necessity to save the Western civilization, and then he comes back to the main point: don’t forget the pogroms, the Cossacks, Auschwitz.

It’s not only the transparent cunningness that makes my head explode—but also the unmatched Judaic thirst of revenge. Pretending that you want to save the Western civilization while reminding Europeans incessantly their tradition of “psychotic anti-Semitism” (the most painful issue for whites, the Holocaust guilt) is like pretending to help a drug-addict in recovery while admonishing him all the time “and never forget what a junkie you used to be: and you are a potential junkie for the rest of your life”. I prefer any time of the day a honest enemy to a destructive fake friend like this.

Seiyo makes me understand the mentality of the Jewish Soviet commissars and why Jews are capable to hijack any movement where they are accepted, from the Politburo to the Republican Party, at the expense of naive Gentiles, otherwise at least as capable of leadership as them. The virulence, hypnotic verbosity (talk as much as possible, never address the point), the fervor in silencing the opponents misrepresenting their arguments, character assassination as the main tool to stop the debate, sentimental blackmail and whining (“my parents, who survived the Holocaust”), etc. — all these aspects make me understand the mindset of many, from Trotsky to Alinsky, from Horkheimer to Bernard-Henri Levy.

Last but not least, it makes me understand the troubled Jewish-Gentile relations, in a nutshell. I don’t exclude the possibility that deep inside, at a subconscious level, intelligent, articulate Gentiles like Fjordman or the Baron [GoV’s admin] might simply be afraid of the bully and others like him. Not consciously, but as a suppressed reaction of protection.

@ Fjordman, the Baron, and others with Jekyll/Hyde “friends” like Seiyo.

Jekyll/Hyde is an apt characterization. You can notice his attitude towards me in the GoV thread. In the beginning he’s very friendly, with an almost father-like attitude. Then, when he realizes what I’m saying and that he can’t beat me with arguments, the wrath comes over my head: “I’ve believed that you might be saved, but it seems that I’m mistaken”. Notice how finally he placed me in the category of the unredeemable—the “Nazis”.

I can go on and on about his dishonest tactics and strategies. For example, when you respond to one of his posts and he’s unable to answer back with arguments, he disappears for a short while, then he’s back with a long diatribe against you consisting mainly in the accusation that you see “a Jew under every bed”, plus a panegyric praising the Jewish contributions to the Western civilization, plus a lachrymose eulogy dedicated to the victims of the pogroms and Auschwitz, like you’re personally responsible for them. Thus, the people who participate in the conversation don’t even know how all this started (he ducked out from the original conversation), and the impression that remains is that you’re a paranoid anti-Semite who blames Jews for all the ills of the world…

Jesus, expecting honesty and moral spine from these people is like expecting the Second Coming. Seiyo often claims that the main obstacle to save the West is the fact that paranoid anti-Semites are still around: they are the only reason the battle is lost before starting. The irony is, it’s exactly people like Auster and Seiyo that make any pro-Western movement impossible—and there are thousands like them. As long as we don’t have the strength to tell them, as a group, Get The Fuck Out (it’s as simple as that), we’re dead.

Categories
Lord of the Rings

Théoden or Denethor?

Or Against Fjordman III




Further to my recent entry about the notable counter-jihadist who blogs under the penname of “Fjordman.”

After my comments of my previous entry, also posted by me in Ned May’s blogsite Gates of Vienna (GoV), Fjordman reacted with unexpected hostility. But he didn’t address any of our points. A commenter who had been a fan of Fjordman’s previous writings replied to Fjordman: “You have not addressed one single point raised by the two commentators you lambast as ‘dishonest debaters’ — instead you embark upon a lengthy ad hom diatribe.”

The other commenter insulted by Fjordman was Tanstaafl. In his own blog, Tanstaafl’s comprehensive reply to Fjordman’s diatribe is so good that here I will limit myself to quote just a few of the comments of Tanstaafl’s essay “White Nationalism and Counter-Jihad”.

In the blogsite Age of Treason—:

Cicatrizatic said…

I think you [Tanstaafl] nailed it. He’s [Fjordman] too intellectually dishonest to reason through the Jewish question—he’s chosen to side with the Jews. Your comments make him uncomfortable, so he just pronounces that you are no longer welcome. A pitiful and cowardly response. Once bloggers side with the Jews, they adopt Jewish tactics, i.e., authoritarian control of “dialogue,” ad hominem attacks, extreme accusations, etc.

Mary said…

You are a good and decent person Tan, and I appreciate greatly the compassion and understanding you have extended to Fjordman given the shocking way he has just attacked you (and Chechar). I pray the day comes when he will thank you for said compassion and patience, and apologize for speaking to and about you in such a truly shameful fashion. It was such a “beta-style” rant, that I find myself having to craft an entirely new image of the man!

I mean come on! To accuse you—you being one of the most intelligent and honest writers in the blogosphere—of having a “low IQ”…

I mean, is the man looking for a career in stand-up comedy or something? I think you are bang on the money; he has come up against a most difficult inner hurdle, and as he could not bear to be challenged in the very public spotlight of the comments section at GoV he instead lashed out at you and made you “disappear.” I bet he will be seeing you under the bed and around corners from here on in, the poor bastard 😉

Brandon said…

You pushed his what I call “guilty button”. His reaction shows it. They who suppress the truth within themselves always do this when someone comes speaking truth. You got too close to the truth and they who are guilty of believing the lie can’t stand that.

Scott said…

I don’t share the confidence that guys like Fjordman will ever see the light. I’m convinced that those who come around are generally the ones who haven’t yet been exposed to the truth, very similar to how most young conservatives make a point of praising Martin Luther King before someone sets them straight about the mythology they are unwittingly promoting. It’s too obvious—such conversions shouldn’t take too long.



Jihadist Muslims in Europe are the invading Orcs. But the real enemy is Sauron (the subversive Jew).

–C.T.

My own comment for this blog…

At the beginning of the last year I still was, like Fjordman and most of the people in the counter-jihad movement, a staunch philo-Semite. But as Scott says, a couple of conversations about the Jewish Question set the philo-Semitic mythology straight in my mind, just as when Gandalf revealed Wormtongue for what he was, the bewitched Théoden, king of Rohan, returned to his senses.

But Fjordman is no Théoden. In Peter Jackson’s filmic interpretation of the Denethor character, the Steward of Gondor, Gandalf warns Denethor that Sauron is now ready to strike and urges him to call Rohan for aid. Denethor declines…

Like Denethor, Fjordman, who has been confronted by the dissident voices of the current narrative, has chosen to dissociate the whole Sauron problem to avoid any cognitive dissonance whatsoever. Like the Denethor of the movie, Fjordman’s sin of dishonesty comes from intellectual cowardice.

Denethors won’t ever see the light. They’re too far gone. Let’s focus on the potential Théodens instead…

Categories
History Holocaust Jewish question (JQ)

A nationalist reading of the “Holocaust”


 
The chosen image
for Irmin Vinson's site


Good articles about the so-called Holocaust are extremely difficult to find either in mainstream media or in the tiny white nationalist scene. Counter-Currents’ most recent article, “Holocaust Commemoration” by Irmin Vinson is the best introduction to this thorny subject I have read so far. It is a long read (14,000+ words) but worth of every minute spent. Every nationalist must read it and I hope more articles by Vinson will appear at CC.

More than the revelations of the main text, what shocked me the most was endnote #1:

On the subject of Jewish ethnocentrism, the comments of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, a former American citizen now living in Israel, are worth noting: “If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, and is thus part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA… If a Jew needs a liver, can he take the liver of an innocent non-Jew to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value. There is something more holy and unique about Jewish life than about non-Jewish life.” Quoted in Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (London: Pluto Press, 1999), 43.

Categories
Jewish question (JQ) Videos

Against Fjordman II

Jihadist Muslims in Europe are the invading Orcs. But the real enemy is Sauron (the subversive Jew).

–C. T.

Fjordman is a blogger who became notable in the conservative sites that focus on how massive immigration, especially Muslim, is destroying the West. In my previous post on Fjordman I failed to mention one of the sites that originally became impressed with Fjordman’s journalist talents.

So impressed that the admin chose naming his site with the penname of his fan, http://fjordman.wordpress.com/. Alas for Fjordman, the fact is that the German-speaking bloggers of that site are now openly repudiating Jew-blind counter-jihad, of which Fjordman is one of its most recognized intellectuals. A recent entry at As der Schwerter for instance contains this sentence—:

Und wenn man sich ansieht, zu welchem Scheuklappenverein die sogenannte „Counterjihad“-Szene umgeformt wurde, dann wurde es höchste Zeit, daß wir uns in „As der Schwerter“ umbenannt haben.

—which translated to English means:

And if you look at what has been transformed into the blinders club called “counter-jihad” scene, it was high time that we have changed our name to Ace of Swords.

A proverbial example of the “blinders club” in the counter-jihad scene is Ned May’s blogsite Gates of Vienna (GoV), which most recent article features Fjordman’s “When Treason Becomes The Norm.” In that essay Fjordman wrote:

If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down: (1) The United States government, (2) the European Union, (3) Muslims, (4) The anti-white Leftists controlling Western academia and mass media. (5) Multinational corporations and their lobbyists plus a business class hungry for open borders with unrestricted access to global markets and cheap labor. (6) The anti-white bias and genetic Communism aggressively promoted by Hollywood and the American entertainment industry.

To which I promptly responded:

Why did you leave out an important culprit Fjordman, the Jewish involvement in shaping American immigration policy? As to immigration in Europe, see this video where Jewess Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we [the Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”

Obviously, since both Fjordman and regular GOV-ers are willfully blind about the Jewish Question, their opinion about the only modern state who awoke to the realities of the JQ is as inverted as a photographic negative where black is white and white black. The following sentence of the same article by Fjordman is so stupid that it is not even worth of a reply:

I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.

If intellectuals such as Fjordman are considered the best defenders of Western civilization we must be in good shape!

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM8zOBOFFHw]

Categories
Abortion Feminism Jane Austen Marriage Roger Devlin Women

Devlin on feminism

Yesterday I read the most insightful essay I have ever read about feminism, Roger Devlin’s “Home Economics” published in five parts at Counter-Currents. Since the original essay, “Home Economics” is 14,000 words I cut it by half (very few ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):





1. Two conflicting conceptions of feminine dignity

One of the hallmarks of Western civilization is the unusually high status it has accorded women. That has often been attributed to the influence of Christianity, which prizes certain typically feminine virtues (mercy, humility) more than pagan society had.

Feminists, as we all know, assert that women are rightfully the “equals” of men and deserve a “level playing field” on which to compete with them. In our time, it is a rare person whose notions about women’s claims remain wholly uninfluenced by these slogans; that is true even of many who think of themselves as opponents of feminism.

For example, certain would-be defenders of Western civilization believe Islam presents a danger to us principally because it does not accept “equality of the sexes.” Indeed, they sometimes make it sound as though they would have no objection to Islam if only Muslim girls were free to wear miniskirts, join the Army, and divorce their husbands. Or again, many in the growing father’s movement describe their goal as implementing “true” equality rather than recovering their traditional role as family heads. I have even known conservatives to earnestly assure young audiences that the idea of sexual equality comes to us from Christianity—a crueler slander upon the Faith than Voltaire or Nietzsche ever imagined. The extreme case of such confusion can be found in “mainstream” conservatives such as William Kristol, who claims to oppose feminism on the grounds that its more exotic manifestations “threaten women’s recent gains”: in other words, the problem with feminism is that it endangers feminism.

It is difficult to combat a movement whose fundamental premises one accepts. In fact, the high standing of women in our civilization not only long predates feminist ideology but is logically incompatible with it.

To understand why, one needs to keep two points in mind: 1) women’s traditional status was linked to behavioral expectations—fulfilling the duties of their station; and 2) it assumed qualitative differences and complementarity (rather than “fair” competition) between the sexes.

As to the first point: strictly speaking, it was never women as such who enjoyed high status but rather the social roles proper to them—those of wife and mother, chiefly. Being born female (or male) is merely a natural fact of no intrinsic moral significance, but the filling of a social role involves effort and often sacrifice. Accordingly, the respect paid to women was not an unconditional birthright; it was reserved for women who fulfilled their feminine obligations.

Among those obligations, marital fidelity was of supreme importance: so much so that in our language general terms such as virtue and morality have often been used to refer specifically to sexual fidelity in women. That is owing not to irrational prudery, as the apostles of sexual liberation imagined, but to the recognition that all which is necessary to destroy a race and civilization is for its women to refuse to be faithful wives and mothers.

The Western tradition also includes a strong presumption that women wish to fulfill their role; in other words, women are assumed to be “virtuous” until proven otherwise. In certain eras it was dangerous even to suggest that a lady might not be a paragon of sexual self-restraint if one did not have very strong proofs: an aspersion upon a woman’s honor was grounds for a duel. Of course, that does not make much sense when women have no honor; and today, the proponents of equality and liberation openly repudiate the very idea as an “oppressive social construct.” But to be frank, I suspect honor never was actually the primary determinant of women’s behavior. Good example (especially from their mothers), habit, lack of opportunity, religious instruction, and, in the last instance, the prospect of social disgrace and financial ruin were probably always more effective with them.

Men, however, have often been encouraged to believe that women are naturally monogamous, unmotivated by anything so base as sexual attraction, and only seek “good husbands” whom they disinterestedly marry out of love. This pleasing and edifying view of womanhood is the basis of the West’s cultural forms surrounding relations between the sexes: gallantry, chivalry, courtship, and companionate marriage.

But whether based upon knowledge or pleasing illusion, the regard in which our civilization has held women depends utterly upon their practice of monogamy, and makes no sense apart from it. As long as cases of female adultery were few enough, they could be passed off to men as freaks of nature, akin to two-headed babies. When, on the other hand, wives in their millions act upon the feminist plan of “liberation,” walk out on their husbands, separate them from their children, bankrupt them in divorce court, and shack up with other men, that system breaks down. That is where we are today.

It seems that many men have an emotional need to believe in the inherent virtue or innocence of women, a bit of sentimentality akin to the Romantics’ cult of childhood. Even today, under a burgeoning feminist police-state, male commentators not infrequently berate their own sex for an allegedly insufficient appreciation of the lofty claims of womanhood. The kindest thing one might say of such men is that they are condemning themselves to irrelevance. A somewhat less kind judgment might be that they are collaborators.

The chivalrous view of women is helpful for keeping in check the naturally wayward desires of young husbands in a substantially monogamous society; it is useless or positively harmful in a society being run by spoiled and tyrannical females who have “liberated” themselves from domestic obligations. As usual, conservatives are busy calling for the barn door to be shut long after the horse has run off. Our task today is not to “safeguard” or “protect” marriage but to rebuild it almost from scratch. The strategy for doing so will necessarily be different from the strategy for defending it when it was merely under threat.


2. Feminism as Male-Role-Envy

Let us now turn to our second point about women’s traditional status: namely, that it implied sexual complementarity and cooperation.

First, a caveat: most critical discussions of feminism concentrate on refuting its doctrines, such as the ascription of feminine traits to upbringing rather than nature. My approach will be different. While such formal refutation of doctrines is not valueless, it seems to me to mistake the fundamental character of feminism. The feminist movement consists essentially not of ideas at all but of attitudes, or even mere emotions. Feminist “theory,” as it is grandiloquently called, is simply whatever the women in the movement come up with in post facto justification of their attitudes and emotions. A heavy focus on feminist doctrine seems to me symptomatic of the rationalist fallacy: the assumption that people are motivated primarily by beliefs. If they were, the best way to combat an armed doctrine would indeed be to demonstrate that its beliefs are false. But in the case of feminism, even more than Marxism and other political ideologies, it is rather the beliefs that are motivated by various personal and nonrational needs. I propose, therefore, that feminism may be better understood through a consideration of the feminist herself. A feminist in the strict and proper sense may be defined as a woman who envies the male role.

Both feminist and nonfeminist women sense that these characteristically male attributes have a natural primacy over their own. I prefer to speak of “primacy” rather than superiority in this context since both sets of traits are necessary to propagate the race. One sign of male primacy is that envy of the female role by men is virtually nonexistent—even, so far as I know, among homosexuals.

The feminists’ response… desires to possess masculinity directly and the chance to control wealth directly (rather than be supported). Envy has a fundamentally negative character: it wants to bring the other down rather than raise itself up. The envier disguises his envy as a zeal for justice.

Envy is distinct from the sense of justice in being fundamentally unappeasable. The righteously indignant person genuinely wants to come to a settlement. By contrast, if the envied party grants what the envier demands, it merely further demonstrates his superiority and provokes more envy. One reason the feminists have gotten as far as they have is that many men are untroubled by envy themselves. These men cannot understand the psychology behind feminism. Sincerely caring about women and wishing to promote their welfare, they waste effort on futile attempts to reason or compromise. They imagine that limited concessions might persuade feminists that men are not really so bad after all. What the appeasers actually do is grant women some of the external appearances. The situation with racial preferences, incidentally, is precisely analogous.

In other words, feminists’ claim to be motivated by love of justice or fairness is flapdoodle. Feminism is a species not of righteous indignation but of hatred.

In practice, since the feminist can never be the equal of men at the male role, she concentrates her efforts upon sabotaging that role. In other words, because she cannot level up, she contents herself as best she can with leveling down. So the practical consequence of feminist political power is to make it impossible for men to “do their thing” (fulfill their role). For example, women may not be able to have careers as glamorous and successful as they imagined, but one accusation of “harassment” is all it takes to destroy the career of a man whose accomplishments she could never equal. And there is no question that many women get a sadistic pleasure from wielding such power. I myself once heard a woman boast of getting three different men fired.

A whole legal industry has mushroomed within a single generation based upon newly invented crimes and torts of which only men can be guilty and only women can be victims. Obviously, the Western tradition of high regard for women is not going to survive the spread of such behavior indefinitely. It is a mortal threat to any society in which it truly takes hold.


3. Modern Neglect of the Economic Side of Marriage

Having examined briefly—in the first section—the two principal ways in which feminism has undermined the former position of esteem enjoyed by women in our civilization, let us proceed to consider how that position used to be maintained.

The bedrock of the system, more fundamental than the ideal of chivalry, was the institution of marriage. The strictest possible fulfillment of the conditions of marriage by women is obviously necessary before men can be made to believe that women are ethereally pure, naturally monogamous beings selflessly devoted to the good of their families in a way earthy, lust-filled men cannot comprehend.

What, then, is a marriage? I define it as a lifelong sexual and economic union between a man and a woman. Contrary to the superficial views of many people, particularly women, a wedding is not the defining attribute of marriage: it is merely a ceremony that normally marks a couple’s entry into marriage. The only essential purpose of a wedding is to establish paternity, to declare publicly who the presumptive father of the woman’s future children is.

Going into a marriage, sex is the woman’s strong hand. In early adulthood, when humans normally reproduce, the male sex-drive is incomparably stronger than the female, and the female’s sense of shame or modesty is at its height. That is why women rather than men are the primary choosers in the mating dance. But the man is naturally the economically stronger party.

General affluence, female careerism, and hiring preferences for women all erode the man’s natural strong point. Furthermore, the modern overstressing of sex and the corresponding neglect of the economics of marriage amount to a focus on the woman’s natural strength rather than the man’s: the sexual revolution has not strengthened the man’s position as popularly advertised, but undermined it. Our current informal polygamy is in fact a product of [women’s] choices far more than men’s. In fact, viewed economically, the function of monogamy is not to improve the condition of women at all, but rather to ensure that relatively poor men are able to father children.

The tendency to disregard the economics of procreation has encouraged many commentators to adopt what might be called a sexual-extortion model of matrimony, i.e., its portrayal as the finagling of a reluctant and grudging “commitment” from a man by means of the threat of sexual frustration: a triumph of the female over the male, rather than the sanctification of their union.

Let us remind ourselves of some obvious facts. Sex has always been available to men outside of marriage by the simple expedient of direct purchase. Prostitutes, no less than wives, are supported by their men. But since the prostitute has numerous “husbands,” each one only has to provide a small fraction of her support. This makes prostitution a far better bargain for men than marriage, from the perspective of individual sexual self-interest. If men wanted nothing from women but sexual access, renting beats owning: there is no good reason for them to marry at all.

Marriage has a number of things to offer men apart from coitus, in fact, but the most important is children. Ours is the only species whose males are conscious of their biological responsibility for particular offspring. The discovery of fatherhood was a watershed event in human history greater than the discovery of the wheel, fire, or agriculture. Civilization is very largely a matter of high-investment parenting.

The human male finds satisfaction in fatherhood. Generally speaking, a woman marries a meal ticket; a man marries trouble and expense.

I am aware that many readers will be displeased by the frankness—some might say cynicism—with which I write of these matters. Traditionally, the raw sexual and economic facts of marriage have been politely concealed by superadded ideas such as romantic love and gallantry. In the years following the Second World War, such antiquated fashions were with increasing rudeness torn from the sexual act by fraudulent sex “scientists” and pornographers. But the economic realities have not similarly been dragged into the light of day. On the contrary, our prosperity has made it easy to downplay them even more than in the past.

An example of such polite concealment is found in the traditional etiquette with respect to greeting newly married couples. It was customary to say “congratulations” to the man, but never to the woman; to the bride one offered only “best wishes.” The pretense was that the man was receiving an unmerited windfall. The reality, of course, is that the man assumes the principal burden in marriage. For women, it is an economic bonanza.

One factor in the disintegration of marriage and sex roles is that, spoiled by prosperity, women actually came to believe the chivalrous pretense and forgot the underlying economic reality. They expect men to be grateful for the opportunity to support them. (Wendy Shalit is an outstanding example of this mentality.) It is a case of gallantry being abused by its beneficiaries. Under such circumstances, men cannot simply go on behaving in the old manner as though nothing were wrong. It is incumbent upon them to fight back against the forces arrayed against them, in part by emphasizing some home truths about the economic realities of marriage. Perhaps it is time for young men to stop paying for dates and coyly explain that they are “saving their wallets” for marriage.

4. Female Attraction to “Providers” Natural and Unchangeable

Most men eventually come to the melancholy realization that a woman’s choice of mate is largely, and often principally, motivated by economic considerations. A popular female self-help book of the early 1980s, for example, was titled Men Are Just Desserts.

As usual, the feminists treated as historically conditioned something that was in reality natural. The female tendency to seek provider-mates evolved long before the dawn of history, when economic considerations meant hunting ability and bare survival rather than Sports Utility Vehicles and Hawaiian vacations. Women attracted to men able to provide for offspring had more surviving offspring. So today they are simply hard-wired to seek such men. What actually happens when a woman starts earning $100,000 a year, therefore, is not that she ceases to seek a man who can provide for her but that she perceives men as providers (and hence potential mates) only if they are earning even more. When the feminist project is carried out, the majority of men do not get less-materialistic wives; they simply do not get wives at all.

Even if there were enough wealthy men to go around, such men are rarely interested in marrying the corporate spinsters frantically pursuing them. That leads to a kind of tragicomic situation. There exists today a whole genre of self-help literature aimed at well-to-do professional women, promising to show them, as one author phrases it, “how to flatter, tease, dupe, and otherwise manipulate a man into marriage.” Obviously, most of those women are going to fail in their quest no matter how many self-help books they read or how much money they spend. There is still a boy for every girl in the world, but there is not a higher-status boy for every menopausal career girl who foolishly sacrificed her nubile years to achieving wealth and status for herself. These women, in other words, are victims of their own success; their lives are what they have made them.

In an affluent society, even men of well-below-average provisioning capability can easily reproduce at above replacement rate. They may, for that matter, be better husbands and fathers than most wealthy men. Considered rationally, therefore, general prosperity ought to lead to a flourishing society of moderately large families. But the female sex instinct, as the reader may possibly have noticed, is not rational. It is triggered by relative rather than absolute wealth, and so men’s sexual attractiveness is still determined by their status within the social hierarchy as perceived by women.

Hollywood comedy, for example, has long pandered to the primitive female instinct to seek a mate with limitless provisioning capability. A stock hero is the handsome, jet-setting bachelor. His wealth is simply there.

In That Touch of Mink (1962), Cary Grant flies Doris Day to Philadelphia in his private jet for a plate of fettuccine. She tags along as he addresses the UN. They go to a Yankees game and sit in the dugout with the players (he owns the team, apparently). He furnishes her with a new wardrobe complete with private fashion show. He buys up all the tickets on a peak-season flight to Bermuda so she can have the airplane to herself. None of this fantasy is based upon the heroine’s rational concern that the children be adequately provided for; it is pure female luxury. Grant is played off against a “creepy” rival whose unworthiness consists in his having to hold down an ordinary office job, vacationing in East New Jersey instead of Bermuda, and dining on TV dinners and inexpensive wine.

This movie, along with the many others like it, actually gets cited as an example of wholesome entertainment from a more innocent age. The average dull-witted conservative media critic cannot perceive anything objectionable since there is no explicit or extramarital sex. In fact, such “romantic” pictures amount to a kind of gold digger’s pornography. In contrast to Jane Austen’s plot lines, where real risks and difficulties are encountered and moral lessons can be learned, these movies are mere wish fulfillment. They set women up for disappointment by teaching them to have unrealistic expectations about love and life. And, of course, they create absurdly unattainable standards for men.

Or consider the related phenomenon of pulp romance fiction. The market for such books mysteriously exploded around the same time women began entering the workforce in large numbers. The pioneering company, Harlequin Enterprises Ltd., saw its earnings grow two-hundredfold in the decade of the 1970s. Today, Harlequin has many competitors, and some sources report that the romance genre accounts for over half of paperback sales in the United States. The lesson to be drawn, it seems, is that when women become able to provide for themselves, they do not cease to think about men; instead, marriage to a real but imperfect provider is replaced by endless fantasizing about being swept up into the arms of impossibly perfect provider-mates. I once knew a professionally successful registered nurse who owned thousands of those books; the walls of every room in her house were lined with them. She must have read them every waking hour not devoted to working or eating. Not coincidentally, she had neither husband nor children.

Warren Farrell explained as early as 1986 why such literature is the functional equivalent of pornography for women. But while a great deal has been written to deplore the spread of pornography in our society, almost no serious attention has been directed to the causes and effects of romance fiction. My hunch is that its influence is actually more pernicious than pornography, because women have so much greater natural power than men to determine real-world courtship and marriage patterns.


5. No Property Rights within the Traditional Family

According to a paper recently published in Current Anthropology, better use of the sexual division of labor may even be what gave modern humans the decisive competitive advantage over Neanderthals. I would not wish to place too much weight upon an emergent and possibly untestable theory. But for many years, critics of feminism have been routinely dismissed as Neanderthals and Cavemen. It would be a gratifying vindication for us should it turn out that man’s more primitive predecessors actually became extinct through “equality in the workplace.” (It is also amusing to consider how our pampered feminists might have fared in the “hostile work environment” of the Middle Paleolithic.)We are fortunate indeed that the men of ancient Mesopotamia had no feminists around to convince them it was “sexist” to deny property rights to their wives. Those who generate wealth have a better idea of its value than those who are supported by others. It is doubtful whether civilization could have arisen with women in control of the prehistoric purse strings.

Few things generate more feminist ire than this traditional absence of female property. The father, in his role as provider, had a duty to manage his family’s property for the long-term benefit of the family as a whole (including, of course, his wife). A man’s right to control the allotment of the wealth he himself produced was essentially tied to that obligation. Feminists, as usual, perceive only the man’s rights and not the responsibilities from which they derived.

The sexes have not changed much since the Neolithic age, even if our ideas about “rights” have. Even today one can find men with six-figure salaries who cannot get out of debt. They do not live beyond their means; their wives do. In Schopenhauer’s words, “Women think men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it.” One of the traditional goals of rearing daughters has been precisely to disabuse them of this “natural” feminine way of thinking.

The consequences of failing to do so may be seen in certain recent developments in Europe. In 1999, a female British Labour Party politician announced plans “to compel employers to pay men’s wages into their wives’ bank accounts… Wives will have sole discretion over whether or not they receive their husband’s wages directly.” Meanwhile, in Germany a law has been proposed that “would require husbands to pay pocket money to their wives. Failure to pay pocket money … could result in the offender being hauled into family court and ordered to pay.”

A woman’s traditional economic role is “family realization.” A woman dedicated to fulfilling that role might have been bewildered as to how she would benefit from property rights that were legally enforceable against other members of her own family.


6. Family as Primal Form of Community

Elementary economics textbooks dutifully inform students that the word economy comes from the Greek term for household management. But no significance is attributed to that bit of information, and it may be the last time a student of economics ever hears households mentioned. “Economy” can still be found employed in its original domestic sense by Samuel Johnson and other 18th-century writers. Only gradually was its meaning extended metaphorically into “political economy,” the household management of the entire state, as it were.

Once political economy had become a recognized discipline, “political” was dropped from the name as cumbersome and unnecessary to make the speaker’s meaning clear. Subsequently, the original sense faded from men’s minds. Factories and banks, not homes, came to be thought of as the principal settings of “economic” activity. Today we see journalists sloppily referring to the securities market as “the economy.” So completely has the market driven out consideration of the household that one economist, Gary Becker, has recently used marginal-utility theory in attempting to reinterpret the natural family itself as being the result of economically rational calculation.

A second difference is that the home does not have a money economy. When the housewife of old spun wool to make clothing for her family, she was creating wealth—adding human value to raw materials—but the wealth found no monetary or numerical expression. So she could not calculate inputs and outputs, or the return on her invested labor. For that reason, muddle-headed feminists refer to the premodern woman’s domestic labor as “unpaid.”

Advanced societies are often marked by a nostalgic “quest for community,” in Robert Nisbet’s phrase, but members of such societies often fail to appreciate that a return to community would necessarily entail a sacrifice in freedom of personal action—and possibly in material standard of living as well. These are the waters in which cult leaders and demagogues fish. Prominent among such false prophets in recent times have been feminists, calling the duties of married life “slavery” when they are in reality the indispensable basis for the family, and therefore of all real community.

Tönnies himself saw that his typological distinction is not sexually neutral: men can thrive in loose, competitive societies; women generally do not, or, if they do, they lose their femininity in the process. In prefeminist America… supporting a wife need not, be it noted, involve giving her money. But today, after several decades of a state-sponsored cult of individual gratification, Western Man might just require a course in sociology to grasp matters that the rest of the world has always considered too natural and obvious for explanation.


7. Consequences of “Unlimited Choice”

Most leftist utopias involve enjoying all the benefits of tightly knit communities while paying none of the costs in individual freedom such communities demand. Thus, feminists propose to liberate women from “domestic drudgery” and replace it with unrestricted personal choice. Yet the drudgery of marriage and its duties are, quite obviously, the indispensable basis of the family, the model and source for all real community.

It is true that there is a measure of free choice even in marriage: a woman may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, she will marry. But once a woman makes her choice by taking the vow and entering into the covenant, she ipso facto no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. When a woman keeps her choice of mate open forever, it is called “spinsterhood.”

Ultimately, the fantasies of feminism and sexual liberation rest upon a metaphysical confusion that might be called the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow women to choose without thereby diminishing their future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and lesbianism, the “right” to a career, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to women as ways of expanding their choices.

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. That is true only in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’s 31 flavors on 31 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, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal.

For every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. A woman’s sexual choices are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. 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 40 (as large numbers of women now apparently believe).

The liberated woman who rejects both committed marriage and committed celibacy drifts into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned by her man (in her mind, it is his fault in both cases). A popular German novel satirizing this pattern of behavior is titled With the Next Man Everything Will Be Different. In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene”… based upon the practice in homosexual bathhouses, but it is now being forced upon young men and women as the normative ideal to replace marriage. We behold the self-centered pursuit of short-term pleasure claiming the moral high ground against self-control and lifelong devotion to family.


8. Reasons for Considering Marriage an Irreversible Covenant

Sex belongs to one transient phase of human life, viz., early adulthood. The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something that most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of such an institution.

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, like Ulysses, he would eventually find such a life unsatisfying.

Such confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in the female, however. For that reason, it is misleading to speak, as old-fashioned men like to do, of young 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. One might even legitimately speak of a need to protect women from the delusions of feminism and liberation. Motherhood is what really forces young women to grow up.

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.


9. Natural Erosion of Male Role under Modern Conditions

Obviously the restoration of the marriage covenant is a necessary condition for the restoration of the family and any sustainable civilization. [But] the rate of female-initiated divorce is conclusive proof that dragging or driving the selfish bastards to the altar is not going to solve anything.

Economists have produced cogent refutations of the feminist “57 cents on the dollar” canard, critiques of “comparable worth,” “affirmative action,” and so on. But they usually limit themselves to pointing out why men are more productive, i.e., why men’s labor commands a higher price on the market than women’s. They seem to accept the premise that women and men are interchangeable agents of production whose efficiency can be arithmetically assessed; they ignore qualitative social-role differentiation. That tends not only to undermine the dignity of the traditional female role of wife and mother, as gallant conservatives have long pointed out, but also the specifically male bread-winning role. For men are not simply more productive than women (although they are that as well); rather, they have a natural provider role with social and familial meaning.

The economy is not Wall Street; it is Dad dragging himself out of bed at six o’clock in the morning to go to an unglamorous job because he loves his children. Family life transforms what might otherwise be mere drudgery into a vocation; the father’s work acquires a significance. It is, therefore, an insufficient response to the feminist slogan of equal pay for equal work to show that women are not doing equal work. We will eventually have to rediscover the forgotten concept of the “family income”.

In a postindustrial bureaucratic corporation there is little room for any of these.


10. Deliberate Erosion of Male Role by Feminism

British philosopher C. E. M. Joad once characterized cultural decadence as “a sign of man’s tendency to misread his position in the universe.” Feminism might usefully be viewed in this light as the decadence of European womanhood. It can only have been such a delusion of grandeur that led women with no experience of the world of industry to assert their “right” to a career—meaning, really, an easy and successful career. They pictured themselves, feet up on mahogany desks, barking orders at cringing male subordinates, and getting rewarded for it with fat paychecks and prestige.

The gullible women who entered the workforce at the urging of feminists quickly discovered that they did not like it very much (despite their feminine advantages enumerated above). Work turned out to be… well, a lot of work. Their response to the broken promises of feminism, however, was not to blame the ideologues for having made them or themselves for having believed them; it was to blame men. Men simply had to re-engineer the world of work until women found it “fulfilling.” And feminism would lead the way again. (One of the movement’s greatest strengths has been this ability to profit politically from its own failures.)

It would be difficult to calculate the number of laws and regulations promulgated in the last three decades with a view to the convenience of working women. No doubt that the new rules could only be used against bad men. At my own place of work there are posters prominently displayed to inform women of a toll-free number they can call if they dislike anything a male coworker does or says. There is no equivalent number for men.

Everyone knows what is going on, but no one says anything. The women have all read the stories about $6 million harassment settlements. The public pretense is that women are “advancing” in the workplace; in fact, they are being artificially hoisted on the backs of men.

Full-time year-round male workers in the United States have remained flat since 1973. In that year, full-time working women’s wages were 57 percent those of men; by 2005, they were “earning” (in a manner of speaking) 77 percent as much as men. The men, of course, need that money to start or maintain families; the women do not. Antifeminist women once warned that if their husbands’ family-wage jobs were engrossed by spinsters the money would get wasted on clothing, cosmetics, entertainment, travel, and other frivolities. One thing no economist will ever tell us, however, is how many babies have not been born thanks to women’s workplace “advances.”


11. Practical Consequences of Domestic Androgyny and Role Reversal

Feminists by preference focus on workplace issues, since their envy is directed at the primary male provider role. But they also have a program for revolutionizing our domestic lives: they call it “sharing the housework.” That may not sound particularly alarming to those still unaware that Spain has already passed a law providing for the arrest of men who fail to do half the housework. Similar moves are afoot in Germany.

The principal bait to women involved a promised 50 percent reduction in their housework—undoubtedly appealing on a first hearing. But men, too, were offered rosy prospects: having to bring home only half the bacon, and getting more time with their children. What sort of unfeeling beast could object to a proposal that would allow him to be a better father?

As today’s resort to police-state measures makes clear, however, things have not quite worked out as we were led to expect. What went wrong? One way to find out might be to study actual families that operate on feminist principles.

Feminist observer Janet Steil found that “couples will go to great lengths to conceal a high-earning wife’s income to protect the husband’s status as primary provider.” There is a sound reason for that: overt, prolonged role reversal is fatal to marriage.

Researcher Liz Gallese thought she had finally found an example of a happy role-reversal marriage: the wife’s career was more successful than the husband’s, so he began looking after their child to let her focus on work (the economically rational thing to do). The woman seemed proud of her accomplishments and happy with the arrangement; and Gallese must have thought she had a bestseller on her hands. The reality came to light only when she began speaking to the husband. It turns out that the couple had entirely ceased having sexual relations. Armed with that new information, Gallese began probing more deeply into the wife’s sentiments. The woman eventually admitted she wanted another child, but—not by her husband. “I absolutely refuse to sleep with that man,” she declared; “I’ll never have sex with him again.” Instead, she was now flirting with other successful businessmen. She did not divorce her husband, however; he was still too useful as a nanny for the child. Such would appear to be the thanks men can expect for accommodating their wife’s career and “sharing the housework.”

Some men will contentedly allow dirty dishes to pile up into the sink for days but insist that the yard must look like the putting greens at Augusta. From that alone it should be obvious why the feminist proposal of a “fifty–fifty” marriage is a recipe for endless strife. The traditional model based on sexual complementarity, on the other hand, is a 100–100 arrangement, in which both spouses fulfill their distinct roles to the best of their ability. Complementarity obviates conflict.

You cannot find out what people want by asking them, because their answers do not reflect the trade-offs necessary to get what they say they want. Many wives will answer “yes” if a feminist asks: “Would you like your husband to do half the housework?” But that only means they would like it ceteris paribus: if all other conditions were held constant. The feminist’s inquiry should be: “Would you like your husband to turn down promotions and cut back on his working hours in order to do half the housework?”

Women have difficulty thinking in terms of trade-offs. Some women, for instance, are wont to complain that their work-obsessed husband does not pay enough attention to them. He cannot permit an attention-seeking woman to come between him and his work in a vain attempt to remove all discontent from her life.

On the other hand, there are also some misguided men today who press their wife to stay in the workforce because they do not like to have the second family income cut off. These men are not ideologically feminist; they just do not want to give up the extra vacations or fancy televisions that their wife’s income makes possible. For reasons explained above, this is a devil’s bargain; instead, men should be acting to shore up their own role.


12. What is to be done?

How, concretely, can men do that? I believe two policy goals are fundamental: one for the home and one for the workplace. The linchpin of our family policy objectives must be the reestablishment of presumptive custody of children by their father. Women who wish to abandon their husband must forfeit their parental prerogatives and all claim to spousal support. That means dismantling the entire divorce industry. I have discussed these matters elsewhere. Second, and in connection with the subject of the present essay, men must reestablish their rightful position in the world of work: I propose the slogan “Take Back the Day.” This will require an end to antidiscrimination law as it relates to the sexes.

We need to reestablish a “masculine mystique” in the mind of young women, teaching them once again that they are insufficient unto themselves and stand in need of a man. That is rarely obvious to a modern young woman with a well-paying job and no children. A return to freedom of association, including the legalization of “discrimination,” would benefit the world of work itself as well as home life. Men share thought and behavior patterns that permit more effective cooperation in an all-male setting than in mixed groups. And feminism has created a “hostile working environment” for men in most industries. Plenty of men would be eager to work for firms that formally barred women, far more than would presently be willing to say so out loud. Under a regime of free competition, all-male companies might quickly rout their “gender-equitable” competitors from the field. I suspect a lot of feminists are perfectly aware of this.

These recommendations are not primarily motivated by material considerations. I cannot guarantee the reader that implementing such proposals would raise the value of his stock portfolio. But my position is that the economy exists for the family and not the family for the economy. Family scholar Allan Carlson likes to note that during the postwar economic boom the traditional expression “childless marriage” began to be displaced by a new coinage: “child-free marriage.” When a society values home entertainment systems more than children, something has gone terribly wrong.

Would Americans be able to accept a lower standard of living as a means to restoring the natural family? Probably not, but fortunately it does not matter what we can accept. Our long-postponed day of financial reckoning appears finally to be at hand, and it may well turn out to be something we should not wish away. When ordinary people are brought to understand that the State is unable to ensure their material well-being, children will again be perceived as long-term assets: necessary replacements for the Social Security swindle and state-seized or inflation-eroded private pension funds rather than obstacles to greater consumption. Amid the collapse of political finance, we may be able to regain a sense of the timeless purpose of labor and wealth. Our children may learn to find the satisfaction in the simple daily fact of family survival that we were unable to find in all our economic overreaching.

_____________

For the endnotes see here, here, here, here and here.

Categories
Jewish question (JQ) Spain

For Spaniards…




A younger
Chechar plays
in his home’s garden (ca 1960)



I have been busy these days with my new baby, Nacionalismo criollo as a space for white interests in Spanish language. Due to the many centuries during which the kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula struggled with the Moors, conservative Spaniards are generally more conscious about Islam than most of their Western European neighbors. Although the Spaniards also know the Jews pretty well, Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s work has not been translated to Spanish. This is remarkable, since Spain’s publishing houses are so prestigious that I own scholarly books originally written in German that have been translated to Spanish… but not to English!

As I have said elsewhere, key passages of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, a monumental work on the history of Russian-Jewish relations had to be translated in the Occidental Observer blogsite. The coward publishing houses in North America and the U.K. declined to translate Solzhenitsyn’s last major work, published since 2001-2002 in Russian.

Similarly, the Jewish Question, as a subject of legitimate inquiry, is taboo not only in the English-speaking world but in post-Franco Spain as well. The Spanish houses have not translated either Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together or Prof. MacDonald’s books.

Therefore, with Prof. MacDonald’s permission I have started to translate his trilogy to Spanish, here.

Categories
Feminism Feminized western males Women

Alt Right did not pass a “shit test”

Savitri Devi once said that she could never love a man who loved her more than he loved his ideals.

—Greg Johnson


My family was destroyed when my father became mentally and emotionally as codependent with my mother as a medusa attached to a snail (see the first comment below this article). My father never had any physical or mental illness: he simply chose the most abject form of marital codependence toward his spouse as his lifestyle. I mention this because these days at the blogsite Alternative Right the admins, contributors and some of the commenters behaved if not like my father, at least like typical feminized western males.

Of the article “The Woman Question in White Nationalism” by Greg Johnson, a reply to a feminist article, and a couple of feminized article follow-ups at Alternative Right authored by males, I only want to quote Karsten’s comments:

(Gentlemen’s club)


There are some very good things at Alt Right, but Janelle Antas’s feminist article [here] was the worst thing at that site in a while. It smacked of the worst kind of entitlement and stereotypical female self-centredness: “This movement isn’t to my liking, so it has to change to suit me.” That is standard, shopworn feminism, and the author’s defenses were laughable—saying that she’s not a feminist, even though she uses a standard feminist stratagem. “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,” as the saying goes.

If anything, her article gave an indication that if there is a lack of women in WN [white nationalism], that’s a good thing—or rather, if there is a lack of women such as she (i.e., self-centred women with a sense of entitlement that a movement must change to suit them), then that’s a good thing.

How predictable that rather than thinking that the absence of women in WN indicates something lacking in the majority of women—no, she sees this as evidence that there is something lacking in WN!

Focussing on attracting women (or any minority) is the standard recipe for how a movement kills itself. It’s how traditional conservatism was distorted into the abomination known as “neoconservatism.” First, it too asked, “Where are the women?” and became pro-feminist. Then “Where are the Jews?” and became philosemitic. Then “Where are the blacks?” and became “anti-racist,” and so forth, until this more “inclusive” conservatism had nothing conservative about it, and was just another kind of leftism.

It was the Janelle Antases and their equivalents among Jews, blacks, and other minority groups that destroyed the Old Right, because they whined and whined and wanted the Right to change to suit them, and sure enough, it did, until all of its principles were gone.

A great society is not founded by women or run by women. A great society is founded by men and run by men, and women are the wives and mothers. That is simply the nature of the species—men are concerned with principles, with ideals, with the race, and women are at their core shallow materialists concerned above all with their own personal gratification and security and well-being. (I speak generally, of course—just as one speaks of any minority in general terms. There are always statistically irrelevant outliers.)

The national socialists understood this, as they did everything else. That’s why there wasn’t one, single youth movement. There was one for boys, and one for girls, owing to the fact that the genders are different and have different interests. But the leadership of the movement was, and had to be, male.

That this is even a question for debate is a measure of how far left, even “radical traditionalists” have drifted. “Misogyny”? That is simply the modern slur for a clear-eyed recognition of gender differences, one that the majority of the public, from king to peasant, would have clearly understood in past centuries.

Don’t focus on attracting women. Win power, and the women will come, as they always do. That one famous line in the movie Scarface is as true in general political terms as it is in personal terms: “First you get the power, then you get the women.” Which is not to say that you get women by power; rather, simply that once there is power, women come of their own accord. That’s basic biology.

Miss Antas may do good work in her roles as Mr. [David] Irving’s secretary and in whatever admin she does for her imprint (although what really has she done?). But the narrow-minded ideas in her essay would be poison for radical traditionalists to adopt, for the reasons that I outlined in my [previous] post.

Someone can “do good things for the cause” as a secretary, or whatever, but be utterly ill-equipped as a thinker.

Let’s not indulge in affirmative action here and give any special consideration to Antas, or any other woman, just because she’s a woman. I recall a previous essay by Antas at Alt Right that basically consisted of her saying that she felt bad because people were insulting her and hurting her feelings, but she would make lemonades out of lemons. (I’m not even making that up—that was the tenor of her article.) If a male writer had submitted a piece as trite as that, there’s no way it would have been published, likely not even at Alternative Right.

If there is a place for women in the cause, then they must earn their place by merit (e.g. Leni Riefenstahl). For example, there was a female author who published a poem here recently (I can’t recall her name) that was a powerful and beautiful lyric. She could have a place as a bard of WN. But I doubt she would publish a self-serving, myopic essay like Antas’s.

And that’s the point. When women come along who, on the basis of merit, can contribute something to the movement, let them. Antas’s piece (and I would decry it just as much if it had been written by a feminist-leaning man) is an example of the familiar ploy by which feminists get weak-willed men to change a movement or a society or a culture to suit women’s wishes and tastes—to the detriment of that movement or society or culture.

Antas wasn’t calling for a place to be made for Joans of Arc. Joans of Arc need no special provisions made for them to enter. Antas’ essay was saying that the structure of the movement must be feminized. It’s no different from a Jew saying that the movement must be made more Jew-friendly. It’s a self-centred agenda that poisons the movement.

In fact, when a movement or society rejects the kind of affirmative action approach that Antas advices, that’s when women do emerge who legitimately have something to contribute—like Riefenstahl as a director, or like the Brontës as writers. No special privileges for either, just because they were women.

If Antas wants more women in WN, then let her help influence more women to be worthy of WN, not try to tell WN that it needs to distort itself to mollycoddle women and make them feel appreciated. Let her tailor a WN society/publication specifically to women’s tastes, as a supplement to what already exists (that would be constructive), rather than taking cheap shots at the current elements of WN and its members (which is merely a destructive act).

I would like to add two things.

1. I do not agree with Citizen Renegade on everything (certainly not with his anorexia fetish), but he’s absolutely right in pointing out that women, or at least a certain kind of immature women, (which is to say, the majority of women today), perform what he calls “shit tests.” In other words, such a woman will make an unreasonable, petty demand on a man, and paradoxically, if the man concedes to her whim, he loses the test, because she loses respect for him for being a pushover.

But if he does not concede to her whim, but stands his ground and points out how silly she is being, he actually passes the test, because he has proven his manhood to her, his ability to stand up to her when she knows she’s being unreasonable.

In essence, Antas’s article (and more broadly, its premise) is like one big shit test for the entire radical-traditionalist (or WN) movement. No exaggeration. The men who governed Western society in its times of greatness would pass this test, by telling her “No, you’re being ridiculous,” and going on and running society how it should be run. It will be a measure of WN’s ability to restore a great Western culture if it likewise passes this test and doesn’t bend to a petty female whim, or if it becomes a pushover to her whining and scolding.

2. Here’s the poem that I referenced earlier. This is the kind of woman we want in the movement, the kind who expresses such sentiments.

Note the difference. One emancipated, modern woman whines and scolds the men in the movement that she supposedly wants to join—but only on her terms, and which must alter to suit her wishes. But a very different woman pens a splendid lyric extolling the glory of her European heritage.

Which type of woman do we want in the movement? The answer is the poet, of course.

And actually, we will welcome the emancipated, modern woman too, once she expels the entitlement poison that modern society has infected her with and becomes a true ally, not a de facto fifth column for feminism.


Alex Kurtagic replied…

My thoughts on this issue can be found in my article for Alternative Right, Women as a Measure of Credibility.


Karsten replied:

I’ve been a fan of much of your work, Mr. Kurtagic, and your “Wanted: Something to Dream” essay remains the best thing Alt Right has ever published. My praise for it likely still exists in its comment section. But on this point, you’re as wrong as wrong could be. Amazingly so.

I never thought I’d see a worse litmus test for what constitute a worthwhile ally in the first for radical traditionalism than Jared Taylor’s “no anti-semites” rule, but this may indeed have reached a new bottom:

This means that defectives will also most likely be male. Said defectives poison the discourse through their cathartic (and often anonymous) expressions of bitterness toward women.

Egad. “Defectives”? Amazing. This is a classic example of a proposition that would divide an already tiny movement.

After all, who isn’t a “defective” these days, eh? Now we hear that someone who isn’t properly deferential to women is supposedly an undesirable “defective.” But then, AmRen implies that any anti-semite is an undesirable defective. The general Right believes that anyone who is “racist” is a defective. And so on.

So the position of Alt Right is that all of those cheap methods of pathologizing traditional outlooks are wrong, but this one, no, this one is true; this one really is a pathology.

How arbitrary. After all, many would decry a big chunk of the essays at Alt Right as “cathartic expressions of bitterness toward blacks” or “”cathartic expressions of bitterness toward Muslims” or “”cathartic expressions of bitterness toward Hispanics,” etc. But while we’re supposed to realize that those are mere facile, ad-hominem, leftist put downs, in this sphere (i.e., on women) suddenly the pathologizing tactic has validity? Please. Again, how arbitrary.

Rather, isn’t is possible that just as Alt Right has pointed out that some of the harshest criticisms of Hispanics, Muslims, black, etc., are true and valid, that the anti-feminist evaluations of women, in the grand tradition of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and the Greeks, are traditional outlooks that are valid too? If a writer is not a “defective” for criticizing Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics, or Muslims, then perhaps he’s not a “defective” either for criticizing women, right?

It’s another appalling example of a phenomenon in our movement that many have lamented, and that still needs a name: the impulse to scorn anyone to the “right” (i.e. more traditional) of the person doing the scorning. To the Republicans, the paleos are the defectives to be shunned. To the paleos, the national socialists are the defectives to be shunned. And so forth.

Meanwhile, on the left, everyone more progressive than the speaker in question is usually valorized as a purer, nobler leftist, almost envied as a better progressive.

I think we, in our movement, would do well to exhibit the same kind of solidarity.

Let me try approaching this a different way.

I think that where people are running into problems is that they have, for some strange reason, the idea of a unisex movement. This is where the problems start.

It’s is like asking for a unisex armed forces. It’s fundamentally wrong, and it leads to a weakened, schizophrenic entity. Such an unnatural hodgepodge results in appalling situations where, for example, a fine soldier might be kicked out of the unit just because he doesn’t treat women with due civility—despite the fact that he may have been the best warrior!

Talk about skewed priorities—instead of evaluating the soldier as a warrior, the soldier is evaluated for his ability to “get along.” It’s lunacy, and it cripples the unit and deprives it of its best talent.

That’s what this absurd, no-badmouthing-women litmus test would foster.

In a healthy society, when women participate in war, it’s not on the battlefield (Joan of Arc aside). It’s as nurses, or in their own women’s auxiliaries—in their own sphere. They participate, they contribute, but in organizations that are specific to their strengths and weaknesses. But the men do the leading and the fighting.

I could easily see a women-oriented WN site. (Think of a secular version of the fine website, Ladies Against Feminism, which is a Christian project, but has some fine material.) But that’s what it would be: It would a WN site where a majority of the writers would be women, applying the tenets of WN to women’s issues and concerns, speaking in their language. It would look like half of what Takimag publishes these days, the things that the male readers of the site groan at and ignore (e.g. celebrity gossip, or reviews of chick flicks).

Think of it as the difference, in aesthetics, between the Sublime and the Beautiful. Women-oriented WN projects would conform to the aesthetic of the Beautiful. But most current WN or radical traditionalist publications today are quintessentially masculine enterprises, embodying the aesthetic of the Sublime. And that’s their strength. This characteristic shouldn’t be diminished, but fostered. It allows men to write as men, to express warrior values.

And yes, that includes a few buddy-like put-downs of women. There’s nothing wrong with that. That builds male solidarity.

Categories
Blacks Intelligence quotient (IQ) Neanderthalism Racial studies William Pierce

The roots of civilisation

by William Pierce

Turn on a local television news program in just about any large city in this country, and the chances are nearly 100% that you’ll hear and see at least one Black announcer telling you what’s happening. He’ll be dressed and groomed just like the White announcers, and, in most cases, his enunciation will be so similar that you can close your eyes for a moment and almost convince yourself that you are listening to a White person.

In smoothly modulated tones the Black announcer will tell you about the intricacies of the latest financial scandal at city hall, give you a crisp rundown on upcoming cultural events, and perhaps even offer a sage comment or two on the state of public morality. Never once will he stumble over the polysyllabic words in his script or lapse into ghetto speech. At the end of the program he will engage in the customary few seconds of light banter with the other news announcers, and you can hardly help being overwhelmed by the conviction that, really, the only difference between him and his White colleagues is a matter of pigmentation.

That, of course, is exactly the conviction the directors and producers of the program intend you to be overwhelmed by. It is a conviction totally at odds with that held by most White Americans only a generation ago. Of course, the Amos’n’Andy image of Blacks hardly able to speak or tie their shoes was an overly simplistic image, but so is the one now created by today’s media managers. Blacks can be trained to read news scripts with competence, to get to work on time and sober, and to dress and talk almost exactly like the best type of Whites. But the differences between Blacks and Whites nevertheless run far more than skin deep. Those concerned with the survival of America and of Western Civilization need to understand these differences fully.

The difference which has been most widely discussed is the quantitative difference in the average Intelligence Quotient, or IQ for short, between Blacks and Whites. For many decades in this country, despite intensive efforts by educators, politicians and the testing companies themselves, Blacks have and still do consistently score 15 points lower than Whites on standardized IQ tests.

But there is also a qualitative difference in the intelligence of Blacks and Whites, and this difference is even more significant than the quantitative difference in IQs. Blacks, in other words, are not just on average slower to learn than Whites, but their mental processes differ in their essential nature from those of Whites.

At learning tasks which require only memory—for example, simple arithmetical operations and spelling—properly motivated Blacks can do nearly as well as Whites. But at tasks which require abstraction, or inference of a general rule from a series of instances—and this includes virtually all problem-solving operations—Black performance falls far below that of Whites.

This Black inability to reason inferentially and to deal with abstract concepts is reflected in the almost total absence of Blacks, despite decades of “affirmative action,” in those professions requiring abstract reasoning ability of a high order: physics and mathematics, for example. Government quotas have brought a sharp increase in the number of Blacks in American colleges and universities in recent decades, and Blacks have flooded into many professions as a result, but the sciences have remained virtually all-White. You may see Black nuclear physicists in the movies, but in real life the only Blacks you will find in physics labs are janitors and technicians—and not many have qualified as technicians.

This qualitative difference in racial intelligence is overlooked by many – and it is easy to see why this is so: most of us have a simplistic notion of human intelligence. We think of some people as being “dull” or “slow” and others as being “bright.” If a person is “dull,” he is slackjawed and unkempt, his speech is slow, and his vocabulary is limited; our vision of him is modeled on that of the classic village idiot. And we think of a “bright” person as one with a quick tongue and a neat appearance.

We have been taught by TV that our former classification of Blacks as a race of village idiots was in error. So now we make the opposite error of assuming that, since many of them have a quick tongue and a neat appearance, they are approximately as “bright” as White people.

Human intelligence is many-faceted. It cannot be adequately characterized by such terms as “dullness” or “brightness.” A good memory and a facile tongue—that is, what modern educators loosely refer to as “verbal skills”—do not imply an ability to deal with abstract concepts and solve problems.

The former and the latter are separate—and independent—facets of intelligence. The former is what we more easily notice, but it is the latter on which our civilization is based. And the latter is closely linked to race.

The racial dependence of abstract reasoning ability is no secret. Anatomists have been aware for many years of the morphological differences between the brains of Blacks and Whites, and neurologists and psychologists today understand that it is in precisely those portions of the brain which in Blacks are less developed than in Whites that abstract reasoning takes place.

But because Blacks do not suffer a corresponding deficiency in their ability to develop verbal skills, we allow ourselves to assume equality where there is none, and we try to explain away troublesome facts like low IQ scores with nonsense about “cultural bias.” One only has to look at the high IQ scores of recent Asian immigrants, who suffer far more than US Blacks from cultural differences, to put the lie to that argument.

This error in assuming Black intellectual equality on the basis of the skills displayed by Black news announcers or entertainers is just one aspect of a general tendency today to confuse style for substance. Attainments of substance require exacting analysis and prudent judgment,and an understanding of underlying principles. That’s too much like work for many moderns. We have, it seems, now come to prefer style to substance. This could prove fatal to our civilization.

“Verbal skills” may have a high survival value for the individual who possesses them, but they are not civilization-building skills. A smooth line of patter may help in selling rugs or insurance; the fast talker may more often land the good job or the pretty girl; the person with a large vocabulary and an easy, self-confident mode of expression usually makes a good impression on others—a “bright” impression. But it is the analytical thinker, the problem-solver, who, glib or not, is the founder and sustainer of civilizations.

The clever office-seeker, the successful rug merchant, the adaptable mimic, the fluent news announcer—all have more-or-less useful roles to play in civilized life—but the very existence of that civilized life depends upon men with an altogether different set of skills. That is true of Western Civilization today, and it will also be true of the future civilization we must build if the West continues on its downward spiral.

Today Western Liberals are working very hard to help the Third World become “developed”—that is, civilized. They want to prove that the Blacks and Browns of this world have just as much capacity for civilization as Whites do. And if one visits Kenya or Nigeria, one sees what does seem like a Black civilization: Blacks driving automobiles, operating elevators, using computers and calculators and telephones, and even flying airplanes.

But it is an illusion. It is the style of civilization rather than its substance. And to the extent that even the style is maintained, there is a White minority present to keep the wheels turning. In those African countries which forced nearly all Whites to leave, civilization has ground rapidly to a halt and the jungle vines have begun taking over again.

When a diesel tractor or an electrical generator or a telephone switching system breaks down in Africa, it stays broken down until a White man fixes it—despite all the Black graduates African universities have been turning out recently. And it is not a cultural problem or an educational problem.

In this country half a century ago few farmers had ever seen a university. Many had not even been to high school. Yet, when a tractor broke down they got it running again, one way or another. They pulled it into the barn, took it apart, puzzled out the difficulty, figured a way to fix it—and then did it, often using extremely primitive facilities.

It wasn’t a matter of culture. It’s what was called “Yankee ingenuity.” It’s a racial trait.

Today civilization is more complex than it was 50 years ago. A considerably higher degree of “Yankee ingenuity” is required to keep it running. Very few of us who talk glibly about space ships and lasers and computers realize that we owe the existence of these things to an extraordinarily tiny minority of our people. The technology as well as the science involved in producing something like a pocket calculator is quite complex. A lot of people can talk about it, but very, very few are capable of actually solving the problems—or even being taught to solve the problems—involved in designing and building such a device so that it does what it is supposed to do.

Another thing that many of us do not realize is what a thin thread it is which supports civilizations in general and our present technological civilization in particular. We are holding onto this thread only by the skin of our teeth, only by exerting ourselves to the utmost of our creative abilities.

I am afraid that the average American of today would assume—if he bothered to think about it—that if the average IQ of our nation were to decline by, say, five per cent as a result of racial interbreeding or a continuation of other dysgenic practices, it would perhaps cause a corresponding decline of five per cent in the level of our civilization.

Not so! A five per cent decline in average IQ would cause our civilization to collapse. That is exactly what has happened to many other civilizations in the past, far less technologically advanced than ours. Our situation is much more precarious.

The level of civilization that a people can develop and maintain is a function of the biological quality, the racial quality, of that people—in particular, of its problem-solving ability. That is why Blacks and certain other races never developed even a rudimentary civilization and are incapable of sustaining a civilization built for them by Whites—despite the apparent “brightness” of many Blacks. And it is why the race which built Western Civilization not only must regain exclusive possession of its territories, but must also act quickly to change those policies and institutions which are causing an increasing percentage of those born to our own race to be problem-makers rather than problem-solvers.

We must do this because it is the only way our race, nation and civilization can be rescued from their decline. But our civilization is not an end in itself. The tools of a civilization, once it has reached a sufficiently high level—and we have reached that level—allow us not only to weed out the problem-makers from our midst, but to insure that we will produce even more capable problem-solvers than we have produced in the past. That, in turn, will allow the achievement and maintenance of a still-higher level of civilization—which will even further enhance our capabilities for progress in every realm.

We stand today at a threshold. If we cross it successfully, we will be on the upward path toward a world of progress, peace, prosperity, knowledge, and wisdom beyond imagining. To cross this threshold requires a clear understanding of what it is that lies at the roots of civilization; it requires the ability to distinguish between style and substance; and it requires that we value substance above style.

Categories
Mexico Miscegenation

A Mexican lesson for Americans

Americans who have visited their southern neighbor or observed Mexican immigrants in California and Texas and observed their overwhelmingly Indian phenotype might find difficult to imagine that in the early 19th century — just before the War of Independence, in the country that would retake its ancient Aztec name, “Mexico” — whites constituted one-sixth of the population of New Spain. In modern Mexico, because of low white and high non-white birthrates, pure whites are almost on the brink of extinction. Thus the history of this nation should serve as a warning to the Americans against open borders, miscegenation, and affirmative action.

The following translation is taken from the chapter on “Independence” in A Brief History of Mexico (Breve historia de México, [México, D.F.: Ediciones Botas, 1944, first edition 1937], pp. 255–60). The author, José Vasconcelos, one of the most celebrated Mexican intellectuals of the 20th century, wrote: “El desprecio de la propia casta es el peor de los vicios del carácter” (Contempt for one’s race is the worst of character flaws).

(Mexican whites:
An endangered species)


The independence of the Latin American nations is the result of the disintegration of the Spanish empire. None of the nations of Latin America had, by a process of natural growth, reached the maturity required for emancipation. . . . . In the colonies, the men of clearer vision and greater patriotism, for example, the bishop Abad y Queipo, gave Mexico up for lost, and rightly so, after he saw that the independence was inevitable. . . .

From the beginning, the war was supposed to destroy the Spaniards, who represented the force and culture of the country, in the same way that later a fight against the criollo was developed, and today against the mestizo—all under the pretext of freeing the Indian—in order to uproot Spanish culture and replace it with American.

The two lands most imbued with Spanish influence, Mexico and Peru, resisted independence, which happened through foreign intervention. Peru was freed by Colombians and Argentines. . . .

In the United States, the independence movement was not a race war. For Morelos, for example, to be comparable to Washington, it must be assumed that Washington had decided to recruit blacks and mulattoes to kill the English. Instead, Washington disdained blacks and mulattoes and recruited the English of America, who did not commit the folly of killing their own brothers, uncles, and relatives, only because they were born in England. Quite the contrary, each participant of the American Revolution felt pride for his British ancestry and hoped for the betterment of the English. This should have been the sense of our own emancipation, to transform New Spain into an improved Spain, better than that of the peninsula but with its blood, our blood. The whole later disaster of Mexico is explained by the blind, criminal decision that emerged from the womb of Hidalgo’s mobs and is expressed in the suicidal cry: “Death to the Spaniards!”

The absurd idea never crossed the mind of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, or any of the fathers of the Yankee Independence that a redskin should be the President or that blacks should occupy positions held by the English. What we should have done is to declare that all the Spanish residents in Mexico were to be treated like Mexicans.

The idea that independence would tend to devolve power to the Indian was not an Indian idea. The emancipation, as already said over and over again, was neither devised nor consummated by the Indians. The idea of stirring up the Indians appears in the leaders of the emancipation who had not found positive reception for their plans from the educated classes. They resorted to the dangerous decision of starting a caste war because they were unable to carry out a war of emancipation. Not even Bolívar escapes this charge, since in Colombia he stirred up blacks against the whites in order to recruit his armies. For the people of the North, such procedures would have seemed insane, as they were.

It was therefore a crime: stirring up the underdogs against the top brass without any social improvement, merely to have soldiers. In fact, the idea of putting the Indian in front of the insurrection was an English idea. One of the first people to speak of confederating the Hispanic continent under the rule of a descendant of the Incas was Miranda. This idea was given to Miranda by the two biggest enemies of the Spanish in America, namely the French and the English.

If, during the US War of Independence, an agitator had said that the country should be ruled again by the redskins, surely he would have been shot by patriots as a traitor. But among us, talk of returning the country to the Indians is greeted with smiles. The English originators of this propaganda knew well that the Indians would not even hear it, but they counted upon the unseriousness, the vanity, and the folly of the criollos and mestizos, both of whom took sides against the Spanish. Once the Spanish were destroyed, these countries could be easily divided and thus fall prey to a new form of domination. Undoubtedly, a Mexico ruled by Indians and becoming Aztec again would be as easy prey as it was for Cortés.

Even if the Indians deserved this restoration, which is absurd to imagine, it is obvious that people do not go back three hundred years—much less in the case of Mexico, where the race itself, apart from the customs and ideas, had been transformed. Contempt for one’s race is the worst of character flaws.

___________

I translated this excerpt for Counter-Currents Publishing (here).

Categories
Islamization of Europe

Against Fjordman

Although I had promised never to comment at Mangan’s again, I could not resist responding to the last instance of psychological dissociation by Fjordman in this thread. Dennis Mangan seems to have deleted my comment, perhaps because what I had written about him here (something unrelated to Fjordman). The other possibility is that my comment turned invisible due to a Blogger bug.

Anyway: although my removed comment replicates what I had stated here in the first entry of this incarnation of my blogsite, the subject of Jew-blind counter-jihad is worth revisiting.

At Mangan’s Fjordman wrote yesterday:

“The obsession with Jews you encounter in some of the comments here does turn sensible people off. It’s stupid, and looks that way, too” (my italics).

Isn’t this like saying: “The obsession with Muslims you encounter in some of the comments at Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal and Ned May’s Gates of Vienna does turn sensible people off. It’s stupid, and looks that way, too”?

The counter-jihad movement in general and Fjordman in particular are in denial: they deny that there’s a Jewish Problem just as liberals deny that there’s a Muslim Problem.

Since counter-jihadists are notoriously philo-Semitic, they have had the nasty little habit of shunning true nationalists when the latter confront the counter-jihadists with their dissociation about the Jewish Question. No frank discussion about the influence of Jews in our civilization is possible within the main sites that alert the western world against the concerted effort by Islamic jihadists.

If counter-jihadists fancy themselves as defenders of western civilization why do they often resort to shunning genuine nationalists, Fjordman included? The straightforward answer is that, when the best minds in the counter-jihad movement dare to enter the arena, the nationalists thoroughly deconstruct their philo-Semitic views (cf. what happened to poor Larry Auster and poor Takuan Seiyo).

That’s what they fear.

Take a quick look at my latest exchange on the Jewish Question at Jihad Watch (search “Chechar” here). Look how, after their many insults and ad hominems, they became silent when confronted with their ignorance about Holodomor crimes in the former Soviet Union, perpetrated by Jews in the century when we were born. This is the kind of stuff that the likes of Fjordman will never address because it’s so obvious that what the Jews have done to native whites is far worse than all the Muslim terrorists acts against the West put together.

Counter-jihadists like Fjordman are just willfully ignorant about the Jewish Problem. How many of them know that Ashkenazi Jews performed eugenic, Mengele-like experiments on Sephardic children in Israel (1st of 5 YouTube documentary here)?