web analytics
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
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
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)?

Categories
Egalitarianism Jane Austen

What Germany was trying to prevent (cont.)

English roses are the perfect Caucasians. One of my favorite films (see my YouTube trailer: here) depicts two English sisters marrying their kind in Jane Austen’s world.

Alas, yesterday my brother lent me a DVD of another British movie filmed this century. Orwellianly titled Love Actually, in this “comedy” one of the English actresses that starred in the Austen movie marries a Negro.

This made me extremely upset. I mean: even today I didn’t say any “Good Morning” to my bro, who had insisted that I watched the movie. But besides the marriage the other traitorous content of the film isn’t worth of more of my bile. Suffice it to say that, from a white nationalist perspective, Love Actually was reviewed here.

Elsewhere I’ve mentioned the “Day of the Rope.” However much I crave for such a day, I understand that in this Age of Treason a Nazi flag cannot touch anymore the vital keys of whites. Instead, to help deracinated whites understand why such kind of movies are sins against the holy ghost I need to make them see how the Zeitgeist of the post-liberal world, under the motto “There’s Only One Race” is not about love but about hate.

I just uploaded the image of a novel almost at the right top of this blog, Ward Kendall’s Hold Back This Day. It is a must read that has been tagged by one of the Amazon reviewers with these words: “Beware! You’ll be thinking about it after you read it!”

Today The Occidental Observer also reviewed Hold Back This Day and below I include an older review, originally published at Sormfront.

My brother may not be fluent in English: but I will nevertheless send him a link to my latest entries, including this review by a Sormfront member:


I have always been a huge Science Fiction fan, and I love any good story. Ward Kendall’s Hold Back This Day [available at Counter-Currents Publishing here] is a work of sci-fi that spins eternal truth in a mesmerizing web of technology, politics, and sociology.

Synopsis

Hold Back This Day examines the life of the protagonist, Jeff Huxton, a civil servant who functions as principal of a government school in what was formerly South Africa. I say “formerly” because the sovereign nations of the planet have ceased to exist as such in Kendall’s 22nd century.

In a global society of multi-hued brown, Huxton is an anomaly, a man of “sandy-gray hair,” “blue eyes and pale complexion.” Race or lack thereof, is not the only uniformity on this Earth of 19 billion humans. The planet itself is ruled from Beijing by one hedonistic, cosmopolitan bureaucracy. This is “World Gov,” the omnipresent and seemingly omnipotent ruler which is so reminiscent of “Oceana” and “Big Brother” in George Orwell’s 1984.

At this time, the Whites of Earth have been all but obliterated—primarily through government-mandated miscegenation but also as a result of mass executions following the Unification, a cataclysmic moment when the non-whites of the world were let loose to ravage and annihilate their technologically and intellectually superior brethren of European descent.

The result: Slavery in the name of freedom, monoculture in the name of diversity, perpetual famine in a gluttonous world, and technological stagnation—even regression—as a consequence of the unavoidable dumbing-down of global intellect.

To whom are the people slaves? To World Gov, of course! Despite their lofty rhetoric concerning “brotherhood” and “equality,” the leaders of the world actually demand a state of perpetual subservience from the global populace. They constitute an elite, and they stop at nothing to protect their status atop the swarm of starving mongrels.

Jeff Huxton, “skoolplex administrator,” has lived his entire life in this chaos. In his youth, he learned of the fallibility of the government. Nevertheless, any flickering doubts concerning World Gov’s righteousness are of no consequence: His indoctrination has been complete. To him, everything is justified in the pursuit of “cultural diversity.”

Huxton is reviled by his raceless contemporaries, and he likely would die as he lives but for one person, his son Adam. Like his father, Adam is of pure blood—wholly of European descent. He is ostracized at school, and he can find no satisfaction at home. Gradually, Adam finds the sense of belonging for which he yearns, but it places him and his father in extraordinary danger. Adam has found his own kind, not lost to the sands of time, but alive—on Mars.

Style

Hold Back This Day is an easy book to read; the sentence structure and diction are relatively simple. I estimate a fifth grader could understand 99% of the vocabulary.

Upon my first reading, I found no plot oversights that begged for resolution. However, there were several instances where I found myself thinking “Why are they doing this? Sensibly, one would have done ‘such and such’ but for one reason—literary suspense!”

In fact, much of Kendall’s work made me feel as if I were reading a sketch for a much larger and more detailed novel. At 179 pages [in the 2001 Nayra Publications edition; the Counter-Currents 2011 edition is 212 pages], Kendall bites off a lot to jam into such a small frame. While other readers may feel gypped, I commend the author for his ability to weave intelligently such a grand tale.

The question then remains: Why is Hold Back This Day only 179 pages? Without speaking with Mr. Kendall, one can only hazard a guess: Hold Back This Day is self-published. I don’t think Kendall is exorbitantly wealthy, and he likely packaged the text in what he felt to be the most economical form that is still true to his vision.

Substance

The tale told in Hold Back This Day is merely clothed in sci-fi garb. It is a story of eternal truth, but the fantastic backdrop Kendall creates takes nothing away from the message.

And what is that message? The White Race is on a collision course with disaster. Regardless of the causes, action must be taken now or all may be lost. Only a sci-fi plot twist saves Whites in Kendall’s book. The reader should not expect such Providence in reality.

I was very uncomfortable while reading the first four chapters of the book. Kendall’s writing is matter-of-fact and not prone to hyperbole or whining. It was this cold, unemotional exposition that was so disquieting. In this regard, Kendall should not be lauded for foresight. He is prophetic in the manner of a statistician: He looks at the present and extrapolates from that a logical conclusion.

It is flabbergasting to me that this book is available in wide distribution. The travails of self-publication notwithstanding, this book challenges the mindless treason of egalitarianism, which is worshipped (and increasingly demanded by statute) in every college, government institution, and most churches in the United States. Is it any wonder Kendall’s book wasn’t published by the masters of the media, who are directly responsible for the distribution of such filth?

Hold Back This Day is required reading for those who wish to peer into the foreseeable future. It comes in under the radar screen of political correctness, and may be a dangerous book to those who seek to establish the tyranny portrayed between its covers.

Categories
2nd World War Francis Parker Yockey Swastika Third Reich

What Germany was trying to prevent

swastikaHitler greatly admired the U.S. 1924 Johnson Immigration Act which sharply reduced the number of Jews from Eastern Europe who could get entry into America each year.

As far as Nazi doctrine goes, Alfred Rosenberg said that the swastika was the symbol of White Revolution/Rebirth which must someday save the entire West, including America. Rosenberg had extensive contacts with White Nationalists in every Western country. However, from a military point of view it was not Hitler’s duty to liberate America from Jewish domination. You must remember that the German Reich only had at maximum of—including Austria and the Sudetenland—about 100 million people. It is illogical to think that Hitler could have conquered America and we are foolish if we are disappointed in him because he could not do so.

The Third Reich was not just one thing. Yes, Hitler wanted an empire for Germany in Central and Eastern Europe in which the Nordic race would dominate but he also wanted the doctrine of Nazi racialism of the superiority of the White race to spread all over the world. Nazi policies on Slavs were largely tactical, the Slavs had to be labeled “inferior” to justify stealing their territory.

The “Anti-Semitic” doctrine of the Third Reich was sent to Muslim North Africa, the Middle East, South America, and even Japan. There was an Arabic language edition of Mein Kampf printed in Syria in 1938. The Arabic version deleted references to the Nordic race but all non-Jews were taught to guard themselves against the Jews who were the most dangerous foe of mankind. The ruler of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi, established close relations with Nazi Germany. One weekend while I was surfing the internet I found an Iranian website and several Iranians made the statement, “Iran has modern highways because of Hitler, Hitler built our roads.”

What I’m trying to say here is: The Third Reich had a doctrine but they knew when certain aspects of that doctrine needed emphasis under different scenarios.

If you are asking if Hitler cared whether America remained dominated by Jews, yes he cared. If the Germans had won WW2 they would have spread Nazi doctrine by radio, film, and television all over the globe and certain parts of America would have come under its influence. As Francis Parker Yockey wrote in Imperium, a political idea needs a state in order to expand across the world. Now if the Third Reich had become a massive Empire from the Atlantic to the Urals, the culture and philosophy of the Empire would have inspired large parts of the Western White world, including South America.


Commenter replies:

Good points, Otto. I can see Uncle Wolf’s problem. Imagine trying to tell 1940’s White America that in 50 years their country would be controlled by jew banking and media, overrun by third world scum, race-mixing with niggers, jew-led foreign wars that never end, Whites-only hate crimes, unheard of taxation, debt, usury, black power, mex power and faggot power!

They never would have believed it!

Commenter replies:

Yes, you are absolutely right and it’s also the reason why the senior citizens who did grow up in that 1950’s All White America still cling so strongly to the idea of Hitler as Demon. They never needed Hitler to be anything else but evil because they were protected and satisfied in their All White World, but for those of us who did grow up in later decades, either 1980’s or 1990’s see very clearly the minority-oriented Communist Jew chaos that Hitler was trying to prevent long before any of us were even born.

Let the truth be told: America really lost WW2 because they fought on the side of those who would one day enslave them.

______________

Originally posted on VNN Forum in 2004.

Categories
Arthur Schopenhauer Aryan beauty Beauty Blacks Christendom Conservatism Degeneracy Deranged altruism God Homosexuality Kali Yuga Mainstream media Maxfield Parrish Metaphysics of race / sex Philosophy Psychology Sexual degeneracy William Pierce

God and white nationalism

Pay me attention please: since I very rarely talk about God.

For my inner daimon, the most sacred entries of the previous incarnation of this blog are those categorized under the title “metaphysics of race.”

While I am definitively not a theist, for which I might be confused with an atheist, and while I am tempted toward agnosticism, deep in my heart I know there’s something panentheist about Nature (not to be confused with pantheism).

Today I received a hate comment precisely in the “metaphysics of race” entry that I treasure the most. I swiftly deleted it. Although I don’t believe in the existence of a personal God I still consider these sorts of comments blasphemous. The curious thing is that the blasphemer, in addition to his vulgarities that I won’t quote, stated that it is “a good thing” that “there will be no different races” in the future. For him my religious commitment to preserve the white phenotype of the most spiritual type of females in a post featuring Maxfield Parrish’s Daybreak, the embedded image within the masthead of my previous blog, is “hate” and, therefore, I must “stop the hating.”

There is no easy way to respond the blasphemer. The mental universe of the self-haters who say it’s good that the white race be melted in the pot along with the unfairer races, or that those who want to preserve it are the “haters,” is so upside-down that makes any rational discussion impossible. They are living in an inverted universe that, for me looking from its inside, is like an astronomically giant ping-pong ball where the space is white with tiny little black holes on the firmament that cannot possibly be… anti-stars?

Instead of trying for their inverted glove to be turned inside-out and get them back into the real world, where the space is black, love is love and hate hate, a wiser approach is to note how William Pierce tried to create a new religion among those who were already racially conscious.

The following is a transcription of a speech delivered by Pierce in 1976 that I discovered at Counter-Currents Publishing earlier this year (here). It reminded me my adolescent infatuation with Hegel’s metaphysics and why I believe that only the eternal feminine would lead the white race to the Absolute:


Maxfield_Parrish_Hilltop

Every day, I receive letters from our members across the country as well as from people here in the Washington area who have attended our meetings in the past. These letters and questions indicate that there is still some uncertainty in people’s minds as to what we are, what we believe, and what we intend to do. Questions, in other words, as to what it’s all about. I want to try again tonight to answer these questions as clearly as I possibly can.

I’m sure that one of the difficulties people have in trying to understand us is that they can’t figure out quite how to categorize us. They’re accustomed to putting everything they encounter in life into little, mental pigeonholes labeled right-wing, left-wing, communist, racist, and so on. And once they’ve done that, they think they understand the thing.

Now the trouble is that we don’t quite fit any of the customary pigeonholes. And that is because the doctrine of the National Alliance, the truth for which we stand, is not just a rehash of old and familiar ideas but is really something new to Americans.

Perhaps the best way to approach an understanding of the Alliance is to start by getting rid of some of the most troublesome pigeonholes altogether. That is, by pointing out what we are not. We are not, as many people tend to assume at first, either a conservative or a right-wing group. And I’m not just trying to be cute when I say that. I’m not just trying to emphasize that we are a special right-wing group or a better right-wing group. In fact, our truth has very little in common with most right-wing creeds. We’re not interested, for example, in restoring the Constitution. The Constitution, written 200 years ago, served a certain purpose well for a time. But that time is now passed. Nor was its purpose the same as our purpose today. We’re not interested in states’ rights, in restoring the former sovereignty of the individual states. We do not believe, as our conservative friends do, that a strong and centralized government is an evil in itself. It is, in fact, a necessity in overcoming many of the obstacles which lie ahead of us as a people.

What else is dear to the hearts of right-wingers? Do we want to restore prayer and Bible reading to the public schools? Hardly. Anti-fluoridation? Nonsense. Income tax? Abortion? Pornography? Well, we may sympathize more with the right-wing position on these issues than we do with the left-wing position, but they are still only peripheral issues for us. They are not the reason why we are here. They are not the things we are prepared to die for.

There are, in fact, several issues on which we are closer to what would ordinarily be considered the left-wing or liberal position than we are to the conservative or right-wing position. One of these issues is the ecology issue: the protection of our natural environment, the elimination of pollution, and the protection of wildlife. And there are also other issues in which we are closer to the liberals than to the conservatives, although I doubt that we agree with them completely on any issue; just as we seldom, if ever, agree completely with the right-wing on any issue.

The reason for the lack of complete agreement, when there seems to be approximate agreement, with either the right or the left is that our position on every issue is derived from an underlying view of the world which is fundamentally different from those of either the right or the left. That is, to the extent that they have any underlying philosophy at all. Often there is none, and a great many people who identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or moderates simply have an assortment of views on various issues which are not related to any common idea, purpose, or philosophy.

Before we turn to a positive look at the Alliance, let me inject just a few more negatives. One thing we are not trying to do is to find any quick or easy solutions to the problems confronting us as a people. We have enormously difficult problems. If we are to solve them at all, we must tackle them with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than they have ever been tackled before. We must prepare ourselves mentally and spiritually for a very long, bloody, and agonizing struggle.

We mustn’t imagine that we are like a squad of soldiers about to assault a cave full of robbers and that the only preparation we need is to be sure our bayonets are fixed and that our powder is dry. This seems to be the attitude of most patriots these days and it is not a realistic one. “Throw out those bums in Washington,” they say “and our problems will be over.”

No. We must think of ourselves instead as the beginning—the barest beginning—of a mighty army whose task is not to clean out a cave full of robbers, but is to conquer an entire hostile world. Before the first shot is fired we must build our invasion fleet with thousands of ships and siege engines. We must lay in massive supplies of cannon balls, powder, and all sorts of other munitions. And we must do a hundred other things.

In other words, we must prepare ourselves for our political struggle before we can count on it yielding anything other than the invariable failure which has rewarded patriots in the past. We must build a foundation which will sustain us for a very long campaign.

Let me give you another analogy. We are like a tribe of hungry, starving people living in a land which, although the soil is fertile, provides relatively little to eat. These people find a few berries growing on bushes and a few edible roots in the ground. All they can think about is that they are hungry and they must fill their bellies. This is their immediate problem. They spend all of their time, day after day, year after year, hunting for those scarce berries on the bushes and pulling an occasional edible root out of the ground. And they never really fill their bellies; they always remain hungry and on the edge of starvation. That is because no one has ever taken a few minutes off from berry hunting and thought further ahead than the immediate problem of filling his belly, now, for this meal. No one has proposed that while some continue to hunt for berries, others in the tribe should tolerate their hunger pains for a while and make themselves a few simple tools, a simple plow from a tree branch perhaps, and a hoe, and then use these tools to plow up some of the most fertile areas of their land and plant a few berries in furrows and keep watch over them so that the birds don’t scratch them up. They could weed their furrows and perhaps divert a portion of a nearby stream for irrigation. If they did this, if they thought beyond their immediate problem, and, to the extent possible, tackled a much larger problem, they would eventually, even though it might take years, solve the problem of hunger which they could never solve when that was all they thought about. The solution to the problem of keeping their bellies full would be to develop an agricultural basis for their berry-picking and root-digging.

Now we need a philosophical and spiritual basis for our political struggle. A basis, of course, which tells us why we must fight and what we are fighting for. But we also want a basis which will tell us how to build a whole new world after we have won the political struggle. In other words, we are not building a basis to use for a month, or for a few years, but a basis which will last a thousand years and more. We are building a basis which will serve not only us, but also countless future generation of our race. And it is high time that we did this. We have drifted without any sense of direction, without any long-range perspectives, for far too long. It’s time that we stopped fixing our sights on next year, or the next election, and fix them instead on eternity.

You know, we Americans are famous for being a practical people, a hard-headed, no nonsense people. We are not great thinkers, perhaps, but we are real problem solvers. We don’t fool around; we plow right into things. That’s how we settled this country. We didn’t agonize about whether we were being fair to the Indians when we took their land; we just walked right over them and kept moving west. That’s what we had to do. We just followed our instincts and used our heads and, more often than not, we did the right thing.

But we also made some mistakes, bad mistakes. Because the southern colonies were ideally suited for certain types of crops which required lots of hand labor, there weren’t any machines back then of course, we brought Negroes into the country. That seemed to make pretty good economic sense at the time. But we really should have thought harder about the long-range consequences of that move. We wouldn’t have had to be real wizards to foresee the future. History provides a number of instructive examples for us to study.

We kept on making mistakes: mistakes based on shortsightedness mostly, mistakes from not being able to give any real weight to anything but the immediate problem, mistakes from not thinking far enough ahead. Analyzing the situation a little more deeply, we can say that we were shortsighted because we had no really firm basis for being longsighted. We had no solid foundation on which to stand in order to evaluate the long-range consequences of our decisions. And, as a result of this, we were suckers for various brands of sentimentality, strictly here and now sentimentality, sentimentality rooted only in the present. It was this sort of fuzzy sentimentality, this Uncle Tom’s Cabin sentimentality, which led to the war between the states and to the dumping of some three million Blacks into our free society a hundred years ago. It also led to our failure to properly control immigration into this country, our failure to prevent the flood of Jews which poured in after the Civil War.

These things troubled many good people. Lincoln was troubled over the potential consequences of freeing the Negroes. Later, others were troubled over the dangers of uncontrolled immigration. But the fuzzy sentimentalists prevailed because those who knew in their hearts that the country was making mistakes didn’t have a really solid basis from which to oppose the sentimentalists. They didn’t have their sights fixed on eternity. They had no all-encompassing worldview to back them up.

And the same problem of shortsightedness is far worse today. A person goes to church and hears his minister tell him that we are all God’s children, Black and White. And although his instinct tries to tell him that the minister is leading him astray, he will not challenge the minister because he has no firm convictions rooted in eternity to back up his feelings. The same is true of the whole country, and of our whole race, today. We are like a ship without a compass. Various factions of the crew are arguing about which way to steer, but no one really knows where the ship is headed. We’ve lost our sense of direction. We no longer have a distant, fixed star to guide us. Actually, it’s even worse than that. We have lost our ability to follow a distant star even if we could see one. We are like a nation, like a race, without a soul. And that is a fatal condition.

No purely political program can have any real value for us in the long run unless we get our souls back, unless we learn once again how to be true to our inner nature, unless we learn to heed the divine spark inside us and base all our decisions on a clear and comprehensive philosophy illuminated by that spark.

Let me tell you a little story, which I believe illustrates our problem. Several years ago, I spoke to a class at a private high school in Maryland. It was the Indian Spring Friends’ School operated by the Quakers, but with a student body which seemed to be about equally divided between Jews and gentiles, with a few token Blacks thrown in. Throughout my talk to the class, a blond girl and the only Negro in the class were sitting next to each other in the front row and kissing and fondling each other in an obviously planned effort to distract me. The subject of my talk was the importance of White Americans developing a sense of racial identity and racial pride if we are to survive. When I finished, a White student, about 17-years-old, rose to ask the first question. His question was, “What makes you think it’s so important for the White race to survive?”

I was flabbergasted and at a loss for words. And while I stood there with my mouth open, a young Jew popped up and gave his own answer. “There is no good reason at all for Whites to survive,” the Jew announced, “because they have contributed nothing to the human race except the knowledge of how to kill people. Other races have contributed everything worthwhile, everything which allows people to be happier and more comfortable.” And then he rattled off a list of five or six names: Freud, Einstein, Salk, and a few others—all Jews. I then asked him if he himself were a Jew and he replied with as much arrogance and contempt as he could muster, “Yes I am and proud of it!” At this point the whole class, Whites included, rose and gave the young Jew a standing ovation. The teacher at the back of the room had a big grin on his face.

Needless to say, my talk was pretty well wasted on that class. The White kids in there had been subjected to so much moral intimidation, they had been pumped so full of racial guilt and self-hatred, their minds were so twisted, that it’s doubtful whether anyone could straighten them out. Certainly no one could in an hour’s time.

But the thing which bothered me even more than the phony collective racial guilt which had been pumped into those boys and girls, was my inability to answer the White kid’s question. Why should we survive? That’s one of those questions like, why is good better than evil? Or, nowadays, why is heterosexuality any better than homosexuality? If two people want to have sex together, who are we to say that it’s better that they be a man and a woman than that they be two men or two women? A related question concerns racial mixing: why shouldn’t a Black man and a White woman, or vice versa, live together if they can be happy? These are questions which most White people, even normal healthy White people, cannot answer satisfactorily today.

A hundred years ago, before the Jews came flooding into our country and taking over our mass media and our educational system, we might not have really needed answers. We just knew that it was important for our race to survive and to make progress. We knew that homosexuality and interracial sex were wrong. Our intuition told us this. The answers were in our souls even if we couldn’t express them in words. But then the Jews—who are clever people, very clever people—came along, and they began asking these very questions. And when we couldn’t answer them, they began providing their own answers.

Now all of us here tonight know what the Jews’ answers are. We read them in our newspapers and hear them on television every day. Some White people, in fact a majority at first, did oppose the Jews’ plans. But their reasons for opposing them were all the wrong ones. For example, when asked “Why shouldn’t your son or daughter marry a Black?” their answer was “Well, two people with such different backgrounds won’t be happy together. They will have children of mixed race who won’t be accepted by either Whites or Blacks. There’s a better chance for a marriage to work out if both partners are of the same race. The world just isn’t ready for inter-marriage yet.” Well, of course, the Jews made pretty short work of such shallow and superficial objections. The problem was that our people had already accepted most of the basic Jewish premises. Our criterion for choosing a marriage partner was happiness—happiness! –either ours or our children’s. No one had any really solid answers, answers based on something fundamental. Certainly the churches, whose role should have been to provide the right answers, were of no help. They in fact were, and are, in the forefront of the Jewish assault on all our values and institutions. They are so much in hock to the Jews that they are busy now trying to figure out how they can rewrite the New Testament, removing or changing all the parts that Jews consider offensive, such as the Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.

The Jews were able to continue hammering away at White Americans—probing, prying, asking more questions, raising more doubts—until we had lost all faith in what we had earlier known intuitively was right. Our ethics, our code of behavior, our values, our feelings, and our aspirations all went down the drain. What they gave us instead was the new “morality” of “if it feels good, do it.” Our children are taught in school that progress means more happiness for more people. And happiness, of course, means feeling good. The whole thing is summed up in a Coca-Cola commercial. I’m sure you have all seen it on TV: a ring of twenty people or so, of all colors and both sexes, obviously as happy and care-free as they could possibly be, are all holding hands and singing, “I’d like to give the world a Coke.” Now who but the meanest and most narrow-minded racist is going to criticize something like that?

The average American—even one who does not approve of racial mixing—doesn’t know how to respond to a clever appeal like the Coca-Cola commercial, certainly the average White kid in our schools today doesn’t. And once he has unconsciously accepted the hidden premises in that commercial—and the entire attitude toward life from which it is sprung—the question I was asked at the Indian Spring Friends’ School naturally follows. Since people of all races are equal and essentially the same—Whites, Negroes, Jews, Gypsies, Chinamen, Mulattoes—and since they can all be happy doing the same sorts of things, why should we worry about what a person’s race is, or even about our own? Wouldn’t sex be just as pleasurable for us if we were Black instead of White? Wouldn’t a Coke taste just as good? What difference does it make if our grandchildren are Mulattoes so long as the economy is still strong and they can all afford nice cars and 25-inch color TV sets?

Now, one can attack this Jewish fantasy world with facts. One can point out that although Jews are clever, they haven’t done everything worthwhile in the world. White people have done a few things besides kill other people. And one can point out that racial differences are more than skin deep. One can talk about IQ scores; one can cite historical examples in which civilization after civilization has declined and crumbled when the race that built that civilization began intermarrying with its slaves. But none of that is really going to convince the kid whose main concern is whether the consumers of the world—whether the happy Coke drinkers—will be any less happy in a world without Whites.

What we failed to do in the past was to understand the deep inner source from which our feelings and intuition about race and other matters sprang. We had no really sound and healthy worldview to offer that White kid in place of the slick, plastic, Jewish worldview of the Coca-Cola commercial. And so we couldn’t really answer his question about the survival of the White race any more than we could give him a really convincing reason about why he shouldn’t do just anything that feels good—whether it is taking dope, or sleeping with Blacks, or experimenting with homosexuality.

You may think of that kid as an extreme liberal case, but he is really no different than the average—and I mean the average—businessman in this country. He used to be a segregationist a few years ago, but he became an integrationist when the Blacks started rioting and burning things in the late 1960′s. After all, riots are bad for business. Their individual views of the world may be a little different, but the businessman and the kid in Maryland both base their thinking on one and the same thing—egoistic Jewish materialism. The kid who believes that the purpose of life is happiness, knows that there are not many things on this earth happier than a bunch of pickaninnies splashing in a mud puddle. And the businessman who believes that the purpose of life is to make money knows that a Black customer’s money is just as green as a White customer’s.

A person who accepts that sort of basis, indeed, cannot see any really convincing reason why the White race should survive. His aim is to live a “good life.” And for him that means a life with lots of money, lots to eat and drink, plenty of sex, new cars, big houses, and constant diversions. Entertainment: that is all he lives for, all he cares about, and all he understands. Talk about purpose to him and his eyes go blank. Talk about eternity and he laughs at you. He knows that he won’t live forever, although he doesn’t like to think about that. He intends to get as much out of life as he can. Anything beyond that means nothing to him. What a difference that is from the attitude toward life that our ancestors in northern Europe had a few hundred years ago. They were greedy for money like we are, of course, and they liked to enjoy themselves when they could, but that was not the meaning of life for them. Their attitude toward life and death was perhaps best summed up in a stanza from one of the old Norse sagas. It goes like this:

Kinsmen die and cattle die,
And so must one die one’s self,
But there is one thing I know which never dies
And that is the fame of a dead man’s deeds.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer expressed essentially the same idea when he said that the very most any man can hope for is a heroic passage through life. Greatness, in other words, instead of happiness, is the mark of a good life. Now I don’t mean to suggest that we must all think in terms of becoming famous or of dying heroically on the battlefield with sword or gun in hand. Some of us may be granted that, but what is important, what all of us can do, even those who think of ourselves as basically unheroic, is to adopt the attitude toward life and toward death which was implicit in the old sagas and in Schopenhauer’s statement.

The attitude of living for the sake of eternity, of living with eternity always in mind instead of living only for the moment; the attitude that the individual is not an end in himself, but rather that the individual lives for and through something greater—in particular, for and through his racial community (which is eternal)—seems to have eluded most of us today. It is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the Jewish attitude of egoism and materialism. And yet it is the alien Jewish attitude that has been adopted by most Americans today. We have chosen happiness instead of greatness, the moment instead of eternity. We have become a nation—a whole race—of full-time self-seekers, a race concerned with one thing: self-gratification.

The average man, of course, has always been pretty shortsighted and his interests have always pretty much been limited to his own welfare. So the materialism of today that I’ve been talking about is a matter of degree. It has a somewhat stronger grip on the man in the street than it formerly did. But what is worse is that today it also has a grip on our leaders, on our teachers, on our poets, on our philosophers, and even on our priests. It has so thoroughly saturated the souls of all of us that we have reacted to it by becoming spiritually ill. And this spiritual sickness, this loss of our souls, is why we are in such a mess today. And it is why we will be in a worse and worse mess as time goes on. We will never overcome the problems facing us until it is cured.

And please do not misunderstand me. I am not talking about the “wages of sin” in the sense with which many of us may be familiar. I’m not talking about some anthropomorphic deity, some heavenly father sitting on his throne in the sky punishing us, keeping us from overcoming our enemies because we are not fulfilling his commandments. No, that’s nonsense! We are not being punished by any supernatural being. We are in trouble for the same reason that an explorer in a harsh and trackless wilderness is in trouble when he loses his compass and cannot see the sky through the dense foliage. He no longer knows which way to go. That is our most fundamental problem—we do not know where we are going. We have no sense of direction. We have stumbled off the path.

But that is something I really should not have had to tell you because everyone here today knows this. Even if he doesn’t understand yet how or why he knows it. He still knows that the present course our society has taken is wrong. It is unnatural. It is evil. We all know that it is wrong to accept the “I’m all right, Jack” attitude which prevails today. We know that it’s wrong to live only for the present, to forget the past and to ignore the future. It is wrong to have instant self-gratification as our only goal. That’s why we are here. We know that there is something more, something else, a better way. We know this for the same reason we are attracted to beauty and to nobility and are repelled by the ugly and the base, regardless of the artificial fashions of our day. We know it because deep inside all of us, in our race-soul, there is a source of divine wisdom, of ages-old wisdom, of wisdom as old as the universe. That is the wisdom, the truth, which we in the National Alliance want to make the basis of our national policy. It is a truth of which most of us have been largely unconscious all our lives, but which now we have the opportunity to understand clearly and precisely.

Our truth tells us that no man, no race, not even this planet, exists as an end in itself. The only thing which exists as an end in its self is the whole. The whole of which the things I just named are parts. The universe is the physical manifestation of the whole. The whole is continually changing and always will be. It is evolving. That is, it is moving toward ever more complex, ever higher, states of existence. The development of life on earth from non-living matter was one step in this never-ending evolutionary process. The evolution of man-like creatures from more primitive forms of life was another step. The diversification of these creatures into the various races and sub-races, and the continued evolution of these different races in different parts of the world at different rates, have been continuations of this process. The entire evolution of life on earth from its beginning some three billion years ago, and in a more general sense, the evolution of the universe over a much longer period before the appearance of life, is an evolution not only in the sense of yielding more and more highly developed physical forms, but also an evolution in consciousness. It is an evolution in the self-consciousness of the whole.

From the beginning, the whole, the creator, the self-created, has followed, has in fact embodied, an upward urge—an urge toward higher and higher degrees of self-consciousness, toward ever more nearly perfect states of self-realization.

In man—in our race in particular—this upward urge, this divine spark, has brought us to a new threshold. A threshold as important as that which separated the non-living matter of three billion years ago from the living matter into which it evolved. Today’s threshold is a threshold in self-consciousness. We stand now on the verge of a full understanding of the fact that we are a manifestation of the creator, that we are the means and the substance by which the creator, by which the whole of which we are a part, can continue its self-evolution.

When we understand this, when we heed the divine spark within us, then we can once again ascend the upward path that has led us from sub-man to man and can lead us now from man to super-man and beyond. But we cannot do this, we cannot find the path, without this consciousness, without this understanding that the responsibility is ours, that we are not the playthings of God but are ourselves a manifestation of God and can become, must become, now a conscious manifestation. Only in that way can we fulfill our ordained destiny.

Let me emphasize again, in different words, what I told you earlier this evening about building a spiritual basis for our political work. The Alliance’s long-range approach is necessary, absolutely necessary, and unavoidable. The short-range approaches that other patriots are trying, and have been trying for many decades now, the thousands of ad hoc solutions of quick and easy one-issue approaches, whether of tax-rebellion or of bomb throwing, cannot solve the ultimate problems with which we are faced. They cannot give us back our souls. It may seem ironical that we should be trying to conquer and transform the whole world, that we should be planning for eternity, when no one else has been able to make a successful plan for achieving very much more limited goals, restoring the constitution, for example, or getting us out of the United Nations, or what have you. But it is the very shortsightedness of those working for these limited goals which has been the cause of their failure. And it is our rooting of our plans in eternity which gives us confidence for their ultimate success no matter how long it may take us.

So I tell you again, our approach is not just a matter of choice; it is necessary. There is no other way but ours. There is only one path. And there is something else we must understand. Our philosophy, our quest for the upward path, is not something that we should accept reluctantly because we see it as necessary to the solution of our race problem, our Jewish problem, and our communist problem. It is not something we accept because we cannot find an easier approach to these problems. No! If we look at it that way then we still haven’t rid ourselves of the shortsightedness that has been our curse in the past. We must understand that the truth for which we stand transcends all the problems of the present. Finding our way once again to the one true path transcends all questions of economics, of politics, and ultimately even of race, just as eternity transcends tomorrow. So let’s stop putting the cart before the horse mentally and spiritually. Let’s take off our mental blinders. Let’s realize that the truth has a value in itself and that dedication to the truth is a virtue in itself. This is all the more true in a world in which falsehood seems to rule.

The problems with which we are faced in the world today are serious ones and they must be solved. But the first and most important task, the task on which all our other problems must eventually depend for their solutions, but also the task which would still be just as important for us to accomplish if all our other problems didn’t exist, is the task, the one task, assigned to us by the creator. That is the task of achieving full consciousness of our oneness with the whole, achieving full consciousness that we are a part of the creator and that our destiny is to achieve the single purpose for which the universe exists—the self-realization of the creator.

Our truth is a very simple truth, but its implications are enormous beyond imagining. To the extent that we understand and accept it, it sets us apart from all the people around us. Our acceptance of this truth marks us as the only adults in a world of children. For implicit in what we believe is our recognition and acceptance of our responsibility for the future of the universe. The fate of everything that will ever be rests in our hands now. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility—a crushing responsibility. If we were only men we could not bear it. We would have to invent some supernatural being to foist our responsibility onto. But we must, and can, bear it when we understand that we ourselves embody the divine spark which is the upward driving urge of the universe.

The acceptance of our truth not only burdens us with the responsibility that other men have shunned throughout history, it bestows on us a mantle of moral authority that goes along with the responsibility, the moral authority to do whatever is necessary in carrying out our responsibility. Furthermore, it is an acceptance of our destiny, an unlimited destiny, a destiny glorious beyond imagination, if we truly have the courage of our convictions. If we truly abide by the demands that our truth places upon us, it means that while other men continue to live only for the day, continue to seek only self-gratification, and continue to live lives which are essentially without meaning and that leave no trace behind them when they are over, we are living and working for the sake of eternity. In so doing, we are becoming a part of that eternity.

For some, our task may seem too great for us, our responsibility too overwhelming. If they are correct, if we choose to remain children instead of accepting our adulthood, if we continue the shortsighted approaches of the past, then in the long run we will fail utterly. The enemies of our race will prevail over us and we and our kind will pass away forever. All our sacrifices, and all the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors, will have been in vain. Not even a memory of us, or our kind, will be left when the creative spirit of the universe tries, in some other place, in some other time, in some other way, to do what we failed to do. But I do not believe that we will fail. Because in working to achieve our purpose, we are finding our way once again to the right and natural path for our people. We are working once again with the whole. And we have a mighty tradition behind us.

Our purpose is the purpose for which the earth was born out of the gas and the dust of the cosmos, the purpose for which the first primitive amphibian crawled out of the sea three hundred million years ago and learned to live on the land, the purpose for which the first race of men held themselves apart from the races of sub-men around them and bred only with their own kind. It is the purpose for which men first captured lightning from the sky, tamed it, and called it fire; the purpose for which our ancestors built the world’s first astronomical observatory on a British plain more than 4,000 years ago. It is the purpose for which Jesus, the Galilean, fought the Jews and died 2,000 years ago; the purpose for which Rembrandt painted; the purpose for which Shakespeare wrote; and the purpose for which Newton pondered. Our purpose, the purpose with which we must become obsessed, is that for which the best, the noblest, men and women of our race down through the ages have struggled and died whether they were fully conscious of it or not. It is the purpose for which they sought beauty and created beauty; the purpose for which they studied the heavens and taught themselves Nature’s mysteries; the purpose for which they fought the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which, instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path; they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entailed.

Yes! They did these things, largely without having a full understanding of why, just as the first amphibian did not understand his purpose when he crawled onto the land. Our purpose is the creator’s purpose, our path is the path of divine consciousness, the path of the creator’s self-realization. This is the path which is ordained for us because of what we are, because of the spark of divine consciousness in us, and in no one else. No other race can travel this path, our path, for us. We alone must prove whether we are fit to serve the creator’s purpose. And if we are fit, if we once again heed the inner knowledge engraved in our souls by the creator, if we regain faith in the things we once knew were true without fully understanding why and if we now also teach ourselves why, then we will once again be on the upward path ordained for us, and our destiny will be godhood.

Those of you who are with us for the first time have, I hope, gained at least the beginning of an understanding of who we are and of what we want to do. I know that I have left many of your questions unanswered; questions about current political, social, racial, and economic issues; questions about concrete things. We do talk about those things in our meetings. We talk about them in a very concrete and down-to-earth fashion. I’ve discussed them in past meetings and I’ll discuss them again in future ones—the goals of overcoming the enemies of our people, of safeguarding the future of our race, and of building a new order of beauty sanity, strength, and health on this earth, so that our people can progress and mature until they are capable of fulfilling the role allotted to them by the creator. But now I want to be sure that you understand just one thing. If we ever are to achieve these concrete advances, these physical victories, this material renewal of our nation, of our civilization, of our race, then we must first make the spiritual advances that I’ve talked about here. Without the spiritual basis, the material victory will not be achieved.

As I said, in our future meetings we will explore many individual issues in much greater detail than we have here. We hope you will join us in these future meetings and further increase your understanding of our work, and we hope that you will begin to share our commitment to this work. And let me say this especially to those who are with us for the first time, we do not care who you are or what you have believed in the past, nor do we require that you agree exactly with us on a hundred different social, political, economic, and racial issues. All we require is that you share with us a commitment to the simple, but great, truth which I have explained to you here, that you understand that you are a part of the whole, which is the creator, that you understand that your purpose, the purpose of mankind and the purpose of every other part of creation, is the creator’s purpose, that this purpose is the never-ending ascent of the path of creation, the path of life symbolized by our life rune, that you understand that this path leads ever upward toward the creator’s self-realization, and that the destiny of those who follow this path is godhood. If you share this single truth with us, then everything else will follow and we invite you to make a commitment now, today, to join us and work with us.

Categories
Evil Holocaust Holodomor

The Holocaust perpetrated by Jews

by Wandrin

Hitler didn’t win an electoral majority. He won most seats and was given the Chancellorship by the German elite in 1933: the year after the Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starved at least six million Ukrainians to death. Can there be any real doubt that the threat of the Bolshevik terror influenced both the German voters and the decision to give Hitler the Chancellorship? Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

A poster by Leonid Denysenko.
Note that seven million is higher than
the claimed victims of Hitler’s holocaust,
and only in one year.

Tens of millions killed in the first industrial scale mass murder in history from 1917 onwards—the Red Terror and War Communism under Lenin and Trotsky’s leadership long before Stalin—culminating in the deliberate starvation of six million Ukrainians in 1932 as revenge for past anti-Jewish pogroms. Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

Trillions of dollars and millions of man-hours have gone into creating a global memorial to the holocaust—films, books, indoctrination of millions of school children, countless museums—and absolutely nothing to commemorate the tens of millions murdered by the Jewish Bolsheviks. Not only a holocaust in its own right but the primary cause of the subsequent Fascist reaction they say came out of inherent evil of the Aryan nature: a position that would be impossible to sustain if Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik holocaust was more widely known.

So, compare and contrast the collective memorial to the Jewish dead with the collective non-memorial to the non-Jewish dead and you have Talmudic morality caught in the headlights. Every single penny they spent on building holocaustianity then works for us. Every film, every book, every museum highlights their denial of the Bolshevik holocaust and the value they place on non-Jewish dead: Zero. Use this to destroy their moral authority first and then their power to enforce taboos…

Go after the matador, not the cape.

 

Note of June 25, 2016

See also some excerpts of The Sixty Million: How Leading Jewish Communists, Zionists, and Neo-Cons Brought on a Dozen Holocausts.