web analytics

Category: Feminism

Categories
Egalitarianism Feminism Liberalism Wikipedia

Liberalism, 21

Other regions

In Australia, liberalism is primarily championed by the centre-right Liberal Party. The Liberals are a fusion of classical liberal and conservative forces and are affiliated with the conservative International Democrat Union.

 

Impact and influence

The fundamental elements of contemporary society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularized economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and parliamentary authority. One of the liberal triumphs involved replacing the capricious nature of royalist and absolutist rule with a decision-making process encoded in written law. Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and of association, an independent judiciary and public trial by jury, and the abolition of aristocratic privileges.

These sweeping changes in political authority marked the modern transition from absolutism to constitutional rule. The expansion and promotion of free markets was another major liberal achievement. Before they could establish markets, however, liberals had to destroy the old economic structures of the world. In that vein, liberals ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies, and various other restraints on economic activities. They also sought to abolish internal barriers to trade—eliminating guilds, local tariffs, the Commons and prohibitions on the sale of land along the way.

Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights. In the 1960s and 1970s, the cause of Second Wave feminism in the United States was advanced in large part by liberal feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women. In addition to supporting gender equality, liberals also have advocated for racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights, and a global civil rights movement in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals.

Among the various regional and national movements, the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s strongly highlighted the liberal efforts for equal rights. Describing the political efforts of the period, some historians have asserted that “the voting rights campaign marked…the convergence of two political forces at their zenith: the black campaign for equality and the movement for liberal reform,” further remarking about how “the struggle to assure blacks the ballot coincided with the liberal call for expanded federal action to protect the rights of all citizens”.

Lyndon-B-Johnson

The Great Society project launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson oversaw the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, the establishment of Head Start and the Job Corps as part of the War on Poverty, and the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964—an altogether rapid series of events that some historians have dubbed the Liberal Hour.

Another major liberal accomplishment includes the rise of liberal internationalism, which has been credited with the establishment of global organizations such as the League of Nations and, after World War II, the United Nations. The idea of exporting liberalism worldwide and constructing a harmonious and liberal internationalist order has dominated the thinking of liberals since the 18th century. “Wherever liberalism has flourished domestically, it has been accompanied by visions of liberal internationalism,” one historian wrote.

Categories
Conservatism Feminism Karl Marx Liberalism Wikipedia

Liberalism, 17

agisbert

Execution of Torrijos and his men in 1831 by Antonio Gisbert. Spanish King Ferdinand VII took repressive measures
against the liberal forces in his country.

 

Criticism and support

Liberalism has drawn both criticism and support in its history from various ideological groups. For example, some scholars suggest that liberalism gave rise to feminism, although others maintain that liberal democracy is inadequate for the realization of feminist objectives.

Liberal feminism, the dominant tradition in feminist history, hopes to eradicate all barriers to gender equality—claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order. British philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society.

Less friendly to the goals of liberalism has been conservatism. Edmund Burke, considered by some to be the first major proponent of modern conservative thought, offered a blistering critique of the French Revolution by assailing the liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and to the natural equality of all humans. Conservatives have also attacked what they perceive to be the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, arguing that such preoccupations undermine traditional social values rooted in community and continuity. However, a few variations of conservatism, like liberal conservatism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including “small government and thriving capitalism.”

Some confusion remains about the relationship between social liberalism and socialism, despite the fact that many variants of socialism distinguish themselves markedly from liberalism by opposing capitalism, hierarchy, and private property. Socialism formed as a group of related yet divergent ideologies in the 19th century such as Christian socialism, Communism (with the writings of Karl Marx), and Social Anarchism (with the writings of Mikhail Bakunin), the latter two influenced by the Paris Commune. These ideologies, as with liberalism and conservatism, fractured into several major and minor movements in the following decades.

Marx rejected the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the developing capitalist order of the 19th century. Today, socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents leading national governments in many countries. Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it. Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy; instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods. Principles that can be described as “liberal socialist” have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe. Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, and R. H. Tawney. Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.

Social democracy, an ideology advocating progressive modification of capitalism, emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Yet unlike socialism, it was not collectivist nor anti-capitalist. Broadly defined as a project that aims to correct, through government reformism, what it regards as the intrinsic defects of capitalism by reducing inequalities, social democracy was also not against the state.

Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist even calling American liberalism “bootleg social democracy” due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States that liberals have tried to rectify. Another movement associated with modern democracy, Christian democracy, hopes to spread Catholic social ideas and has gained a large following in some European nations. The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against the industrialization and urbanization associated with laissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century.

Categories
Feminism Liberalism Wikipedia

Liberalism, 8

Radicalism

The radical liberal movement began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man (1791) was a response to Burke’s conservative essay Reflections on the Revolution in France.

paines-bookAn ensuing revolution controversy featured, among others, Mary Wollstonecraft, who followed with an early feminist tract, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Radicals encouraged mass support for democratic reform along with rejection of the monarchy, aristocracy, and all forms of privilege.

The Reform Act 1832 was put through with the support of public outcry, mass meetings of “political unions” and riots in some cities. This now enfranchised the middle classes, but failed to meet radical demands. Following the Reform Act the mainly aristocratic Whigs in the House of Commons were joined by a small number of parliamentary Radicals, as well as an increased number of middle class Whigs. By 1839 they were informally being called “the Liberal party.”

The Liberals produced one of the most influential British prime ministers, William Gladstone, who was also known as the Grand Old Man: the towering political figure of liberalism in the 19th century. Under Gladstone, the Liberals reformed education, disestablished the Church of Ireland, and introduced the secret ballot for local and parliamentary elections.

Categories
Feminism Kali Yuga Sexual "liberation" William Pierce Women

Feminism

wlp_bas_relief

Excerpted from a 1996 interview
with William Pierce by Kevin Strom:

 
Feminism is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem. But when a society begins to decay—when the men lose their self-confidence—then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it’s a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it’s a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman’s primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It’s not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It’s based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we’re all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There’s no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I’m not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I’m not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there’ll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won’t have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m not so optimistic as to believe that I’ll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there’s a very good chance we’re going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It’s not simply a matter of our deciding that we don’t like Mother Nature’s plan because it’s not fashionable any longer, and so we’ll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can’t change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there’s hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women.

It’s true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for normal men and women.

What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children.

If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes about feminism being fashionable.

Categories
Feminism Patriarchy

Phony traditionalists

One of the most bothersome aspects among today’s racists is their feminism, so much that I’ve been tempted to quote the many feminist passages in Harold Covington’s Freedom’s Sons. (Covington is supposedly the toughest neo-Nazi in America insofar as he is planning a violent revolution to takeover the Northwest for whites.)

1950s American family valuesCovington aside, what should be accepted wisdom among real traditionalists, patriarchy, is altogether missing in many quarters of white nationalists. Andrew Anglin’s recent articles exposing these phony traditionalists are worth reading (e.g., here and here).

Categories
Feminism Hitler Youth Patriarchy Real men Women

Reestablishing masculinity

by Andrew Anglin

 
Okay, so there are three separate main issues involved with Feminist Podgate 2015 that need to be cleared up for those who aren’t clear on them so far. These are:

a) The idea of women being involved in political movements
b) This site maintaining a male-centric character, and
c) My exact position on the nature of women and the role of women in society

These issues are linked closely, but they are not the exact same thing. Let’s talk about all of them at the same time.

Firstly, the issue of women being involved in the site has never really come up until now. I have published news articles by women, and never really thought much of it. We have also posted radio shows with women. We have a few female commenters, and surely quite a few female readers.

That said, this site has never held the view that it was appropriate for women to play a role in politics or public life in general, as the concept has always struck me as bizarre. There is no historical basis at all for women having a role in politics, it is a completely Jewish concept. Of course, you can dig up some historical individual women who did whichever political thing, but the mere fact that you have to bring up the names of individuals proves my point: there was no time in history when this was an accepted norm.

Currently, because of the Jew-altered social norms, there are women in right-wing political parties, sometimes playing prominent roles. On the political scene, I will support these women because of their views, for purely practical reasons, but as an ideological concept, I am entirely opposed to women being involved in politics.

To be honest, I had otherwise thought little about the involvement of women on the site, as I assumed that female readers understand this position—which I state often—and still continue to read.

Then this show happened and I realized that a new policy was necessary, as I was very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman giving her views about how men should be behaving, and was also very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being a “voice” on the site, as I believe that is unprofessional and ridiculous. I am not commenting on the particular woman involved at all here, as I believe she is a very fine lady. I am speaking of the concept.

And though this view is apparently shocking to a large portion of the White Nationalist community, by any historical gauge, those who disagreed with me would not only be shocking to the people, but appear to be completely insane. This website is a public speaking platform. The internet has only existed for a very short time, but we have a very long history of public forums, going all the way back to ancient Greece. Women were never allowed to speak in these. Depending on the era, locale and the specifics of the situation, sometimes they were allowed to hang out and listen to men speak, sometimes they were not.

For instance, the Roman Forum—Roman civilization lasted for 12 centuries, and always had a forum. There is a feminist website, called Women in World History, which in discussing the forum brings up two instances where women got involved:

During the years of the Roman Republic, women had no political rights. They were not allowed to vote, directly address the Senate, nor mill about in the forum. Respectable women who spent time in public places were frowned upon. Nonetheless, there were times when women used the power of public protest to get what they wanted. One was the demonstration of women against the Oppian Law. Another ws Hortensia’s speech to the forum.

I am sure there were more such instances, but I’m also sure that in every such instance, the entire population—women included—were either like “hmmm, this is weird” or they got really angry.

You could clearly go through the entire history of White civilization and see the exact same pattern: women were not involved with public life, at all. Is there really a need for specific examples though? Is there anyone actually making the argument that women traditionally played a public role in society? The feminists themselves are constantly on about how they have these thousands of years of oppression.

I do not see that there is a debate here on the traditional role of women in Western (or any other) society. We can probably all agree about that. So then, comrades: my position is the default position, historically and traditionally—objectively. That means that those who disagree with my position are not arguing for something traditional, they are arguing for a form of social progressivism. The argument is: “I’m not a feminist, but…”

“…but the Jews did have a few good points.” I mean, right?

No, that’s not fair, and I wouldn’t make that argument. I am open to discussing the idea that some form of social progressivism is good. I don’t think there will ever be any point at which I agree with it, but I am open to discussing it. However, this is not what I am seeing from many of those responding to this drama. They are not openly admitting that they are advocating for some degree of social progressivism—however limited that advocacy may or may not be—and are instead accusing me of whichever thing: “alienating women,” “excluding women,” “attacking women,” “being afraid of women,” “creating a male version of feminism,” “must be gay,” “small penis,” and on and on.

What it is is a reaction to the programming you’ve undergone in a Jew-controlled system being questioned. Your entire education and the whole media apparatus have pounded it into your head that women are equal, and so if someone questions that, there must be something wrong with him. Because there can’t possibly be anything wrong with female involvement in public life.

I am arguing for the exact type of social norms which existed all throughout history before the last hundred years. In order to condemn my position as objectively wrong, you would also have to condemn the entire history White civilization as wrong, which makes very little sense to me. I am definitely not saying something unique or ground-breaking here. It only comes across that way to you because you’ve been brainwashed by modern society to oppose the basic order of nature.

Either that, or I’ve communicated my positions poorly, and I am willing to just assume it was the latter, which is why I’m writing this piece to try and clear everything up.
 

So, misconceptions

Hunter Wallace—who I like, I am not bringing this up for drama purposes, but simply because he articulated well some ideas others stated—made this comment on the show I did yesterday with Sven:

brad-n-wife The “men’s rights” movement. It’s a reaction to contemporary feminism. It is heavily influenced by feminism and the gay rights movement. You could say that the two exist in symbiosis. There’s nothing “traditional” at all about PUA or male identity politics. Traditional societies interpret gender roles in terms of a greater whole.

Gentlemen’s clubs and fraternities, for example, existed in the Old South. That’s not the same thing though as group therapy sessions for aggrieved and victimized men who are embittered and hostile toward all women for ideological reasons. Elliot Rodger isn’t the solution to contemporary feminism. Insofar as men begin to sound like Elliot Rodger, it just makes a bad situation even worse. I don’t think more Americanism is the answer to the extremes of Americanism.

To which I responded:

AndyHi Hunter,

Firstly, bringing up Elliot Rodger is unfair. He was just a mentally ill Eurasian who realized he was never going to get laid.

The reason that “male identity politics” were never a thing is that all political identity was always male. It is the same reason there were no White identity politics before non-Whites entered the equation. You wouldn’t say “there is nothing traditional about opposing NAMBLA” simply because no anti-NAMBLA sentiment existed before the creation of NAMBLA. Same thing for anti-abortion movements, anti-homosexuality movements, gun rights movements and on and on. By definition, a reactionary movement has to have something to react to. So it isn’t really a valid point to say that it is not traditional, as ideally it is a modern movement to re-establish tradition, which would not have been necessary before the destruction of tradition.

That having been said, I basically agree with you about current “Men’s Rights” movements being similar to feminism or gay activism, though possibly for different reasons. I used the word “ideally” above, because in practice, these movements are not geared toward re-establishing tradition, but simply going issue by issue, advocating for men to have some of their basic rights restored. They use the term “real equality.”

In contrast, I am unapologetically arguing for a full-on return to Medieval gender norms—quite literally. “How dare you interrupt while men are speaking?” type stuff. There is some commonality between my position and the various positions of the Men’s Rights movement, because the issues they bring up are symptoms of the core issue, which is that women should not have any “rights” at all. And this is the default position, all throughout history, so there is no way to claim that this position is not “traditional.”

Modern Nationalist movements appear to pick and choose on issues of tradition, and it often appears that they are choosing based on what they perceive to be the most “inclusive” positions. I approach feminism in the same way that I approach Nazism and the Holocaust, which is without any attempt to soften the reality of the situation. And it should be noted that I do so not solely for ideological reasons, but also—and most importantly—because I don’t think anything else can possibly work.

I explained my reasoning behind embracing Nazi imagery and holocaust denial in some detail during the assault on my base by Colin Liddell and others. Perhaps it would be prudent to do something similar on the issue of feminism.

So, my position is not “men’s rights” advocacy or a form of feminism for men. It also has nothing to do with pick-up artistry, which I find faggy and weird.

There is also some confusion with this idea that I “don’t want women in the movement.” This is more difficult to respond to, as it is so broad and vague. As I have said, I don’t want women in political positions and I don’t want women playing a role of a political voice on my website. That doesn’t mean I don’t want women to come to rallies in support of nationalist causes if they feel like they need to or (much more likely) are dragged along by their boyfriends or husbands. They could have some special area to get together and talk about whatever it is women talk about with each other.

It is the nature of a woman, if she is not being influenced by a man with fringe beliefs, to return to the belief system which represents the status quo. This is a rule to which there are of course exceptions, but the fact that it is a rule is the point here. Women are naturally attracted to power, and if they are not being swayed by the individual power of an individual man, they will return to the power of the system itself.

To me, when I see nationalists talking about how they’re going to “get women involved in the movement,” as in market a political ideology to a woman, it just sounds kooky. Besides the fact that it’s not really possible, what could possibly be the point? And what are we talking about, exactly? I mean, are we talking about single women? So that nationalist websites, demonstrations and other events can turn into singles meet-ups? What sort of idiot childishness is this?

But ah—we do need “women in the movement”! What we need is nationalist men to have girlfriends and wives. Because if a man has a nationalist perspective, so too then does his female counterpart (unless he is some faggy failure at life being leeched off of by a parasite). The natural desire for a woman is to hold the political views of the male figure in her life.

And if we are going to have healthy men in healthy relationships with women, we are going to have to do away with feminism, not embrace it by saying “yeah let’s convince women to join our movement so they can tell us what we should be doing.”

Because it is an eternal law of the universe that if you do what a woman tells you to do, she doesn’t have respect for you, and thus she won’t follow you. And there is no way to sway women by trying to convince them of things. You must demonstrate power, because whether you guys like it or not, that is the only thing a woman’s essence is naturally capable of responding to. It is basic and obvious evolutionary biology, because within nature, a woman did not have the ability to defend and provide for herself and her children.

Status = Power, Muscles = Power, Money = Power. Power is to a woman what physical beauty is to a man. Period. You might like things about her besides her looks, but the bottom line is always going to be her looks, and unless you are some fagged-out beta wimp, you can admit that to yourself. There’s no shame in it. Yes, you’re superficial for looking at her ass and she’s superficial for looking at your wallet, but it’s just basic human nature.

We didn’t ever advance. We’re still the same animal we were before the invention of the steam engine. It’s hard to accept, I know, but it just is what it is. I’m not the bad guy for telling you. This applies to both individuals and groups or institutions. Once more: Women are attracted, magnetically, to all forms of power, because in the natural order from which we emerged, they needed to be attached to that power in order that they and their children would survive.

So, I simply don’t believe that this “okay let’s half way embrace feminism but just claim we aren’t actually doing that because maybe women will like it for some reason and then help us somehow” method is ever going to work out very well at all.
 

The absolute importance of this issue

Some people are taking the position of “well, sure this is important, but right now we have to focus on these Jews and their Brown hordes.” And obviously, the invasion is the most important issue, as it is the only one which can never be fixed. However, feminism was the basis for the destablization of society. The importance of the Eden myth cannot be overestimated. The root cause of all of these other problems is the feminization of our society—the feminization of men through the introduction of women as social and intellectual equals.

The only way we are going to be able to stand together and fight this thing as men is if we are men. And in order to reclaim our masculinity, we must understand what we have lost, psychologically, emotionally and physically through the Jewish process of distorting gender norms. No man is going to be capable of fighting a foreign enemy while he remains a slave to women.

Beyond that, by putting a focus on male issues, our movement is offering something to young men who are looking at their world. Whereas race can be an obscure concept for young Whites who haven’t been forced to deal with other races directly, and the Jewish problem can be downright esoteric, the problem of being forced into subservience to women, having your basic dignity taken from you as you are subjected to a level of degradation no man in history has ever been subjected to, is something we have all experienced as young men raised in a feminist society.

As such, the offer of “we can free you from women and give you back your masculinity and your power, as well as your tribal male-bonding patterns” means a whole lot more in real terms to young men—who currently have the option of living comfortably and playing video games, rather than fight for anything at all—than “we have to stop these Jews for the sake of future generations.”

On an instinctual level, I think most young men who grew up in this system will perceive a movement which allows women power is simply more of the same.
 

So, the direction of this site

I have been talking for a while about making this site more focused on male issues, and I want to work to do that. What that will mean is that I will necessarily have to say things that will offend at least most and probably all women, because there is no way around that. I have held back, to some extent, and that just has to stop, regardless of feelings.

I know for a fact there are women flipping out right now about what I’ve just said here about their sexual fixation with power. Because in the same way a man will tell a woman he’s interested in her personality and a relationship in order to get laid, women constantly put on that they are interested in men’s kindness in order to manipulate them and drain emotional or physical resources (generally without providing them with sex). They will do the same thing to political movements, pretending they understand or care about the ideology on some intellectual level, when in actual fact they are only judging its ability to provide them with resources.

Note that many of the resources women seek are emotional, so modern women often get involved in male spaces in order to cause chaos and direct male emotional energy towards themselves in order to boost their self-esteem, while simultaneously attempting to see if there is a man in the group willing to stop them from doing this and thus prove his worth to her.

Women very often react with rage when they hear someone say these things plainly, as they are now holding it as some sort of a secret, collectively (it’s obviously a bit more complicated than that, but we’ll get into that at a later date).

I had somewhat assumed that readers were up on these issues relating to the behavior patterns of women as individuals and as a collective. While some readers obviously are, I have no good reason for having assumed it was a majority, and recent comments sections have shown that this is definitely not the case. I regularly mention these issues on the site, but have never really gone into the necessary detail, and I am going to try and do that more. Can’t promise a regular schedule or anything, but I’ll be both writing and talking on the radio about these issues, and this will be a permanent feature of the site.

Also, just to be a hundred percent clear here: yes, this is now officially a boys club. Male space is needed and this needs to be a male space. There will not be any articles or radio shows from women, at all.

hitleryouth

Feminism is a war against both women and men. And it has hurt all of us, deeply. But the only possible way of fixing this situation is to return to the traditional norm, and in order for the traditional norm to be restored, men are going to have to come to terms with some very uncomfortable truths about the nature of the sexes.

Categories
Conservatism Democracy Feminism Liberalism Real men Sexual "liberation"

Deal with it!

Further to my previous post. Andrew Anglin has now steamrolled a cockroach in the “right whinge” of white nationalism, a racialist liberal who cannot understand that anti-Nazi is simply a codeword for anti-white (see also Alex Linder’s input here). Below, the last section of Anglin’s overkilling piece. Pay special attention to the paragraph where he states that National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization.


Daily_Stormer

The sheer idiocy of pro-white liberalism

The last point in the entire debate is that no matter what you do, if you are attempting to restore traditional European society, you are going to look and act basically exactly like Nazis. Because NS was the post-industrial revolution embodiment of traditional Europeanism. It was scientifically formulated as such.

What happens is that the further you try to get away from the label of “Nazi,” the more you necessarily have to compromise, because in fleeing the label, you abandon stances and doctrines with similarities to those of the NSDAP, and so are forced to abandon key aspects of a nationalist platform.

Basically, what the Right Whinge are trying to do is combine modern liberalism with a whites-only society. And though I want something very much more extreme than that, if I thought it was possible to achieve that, I might put aside my agenda and embrace it. After all, a whites-only society, whether based on liberal principles or not, would at least give us more radical folks the option of existing how we wish to exist, free from harassment by the system.

We would also end up voting our way into power anyway through the liberal democracy system that the pro-White liberals would doubtlessly leave in place, as conservatives are still the majority in America if you get rid of the Jews and non-Whites, at which point we could form a one-party system and end the vote.

However, this plan for a liberal White revolution can’t possibly work. Even if you could manage to combine liberal thought with the concept of a Whites-only society (and you couldn’t, as is evidenced by Johnson’s attempts to do so, which contain endless inconsistencies and outright contradictions—one of the most blatant being complaining about the White birthrate while celebrating homosexuality) it would be incapable of achieving victory over the present system, largely due to the fact that liberals are weak and gutless cowards, as evidenced by Liddell and others continually speaking out against “hate” and defaming anyone who ever accomplished anything that mattered.

As I have said, they are also fundamentally incapable of rallying the masses.

What rallied the masses in the sixties, when liberalism began its conquest of the West, was seduction. They offered free sex, drugs and a general lack of any personal responsibility. Plus a lot of really good music. But the people now have all of these things. So what would you then rally them behind? Just “we need rid of these foreigners and Blacks, so we can have peace”?

It cannot work. Yes, of course people are fed up with foreigners and Blacks, but that idea alone cannot maintain a new Zeitgeist. It cannot stir the youth to revolution. What can stir the youth to revolution is a critique of the entire system of the Jews, and the way it has affected all of us on a personal level.

The fact that we can see all of these people invading our countries and feeding off of us like buzzards on a still breathing man is indeed powerfully upsetting, but at this point those who are inspired by liberal thought—who are definitively a part of a very specific socio-economic class—can still avoid them, for the most part, and it doesn’t much matter if in thirty years they are the majority, because who cares what happens in thirty years? Certainly childless middle class White liberals do not.

However, if we look at the entirety of the effects of Jew liberalism on us, the levels of alienation we’ve suffered in our individual lives, the way our families have been torn apart, the way we have been undermined by the fairer sex which was created by God to be our faithful companion, the way our masculinity has been stripped from us, the way our identity and sense of belonging has been crushed into powder and swept out into the sea—then we are left with material fit for Total Revolution.

We are vocalizing an idea which appeals to the masses, a full-on rebellion against modernity. Hitler is the ultimate symbol of that, because Hitler is Old Europe, and Old Europe is what our very bones are calling out for. National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization. In order to progress forward, we must first return to that point.

This is the only plan which can possibly work. Thus we should relish in extremism, not avoid it. It is all or nothing. There is no halfway. Halfway is impossible. The entire Jewish system must be removed.

Unlike Johnson, I won’t attack “mainstreamers” as useless, as I believe they ultimately move things in the right direction, even though they don’t go the whole way.

However, in the end, the only way we are going to fix society is through hardline National Socialism.

The Jew system doesn’t accept apologies for being White and I wouldn’t be willing to offer one anyway.

I am White.

I am a National Socialist.

And I am not sorry.

Deal with it.

Categories
Axiology Christendom David Irving Ethnic cleansing Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Feminism George Lincoln Rockwell Heinrich Himmler Helmut Stellrecht Holocaust Nordicism Turner Diaries (novel) Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Why I am not a neonazi

This is my "Final report" about my compilation
of articles in The Fair race's Darkest Hour:



Virtually all white males have been brainwashed about what really happened in the Second World War. To boot, they have been feminized. Characterologically they are basically the antipodes of the Spartans, the Vikings or Himmler’s SS men. Even white nationalists are reluctant to repudiate the conquests of “feminism,” and by this I don’t only have in mind allowing women to vote (keep in mind the last paragraphs of Yockey’s essay), but allowing their “right” to inherit wealth or property (also keep in mind what we said about Austen’s novels and the causes of Greco-Roman decline in Pierce’s long text).

The humiliating empowerment of white women throughout the West is directly proportionate to the cretinization of white males. Now that I reproduced my translations about the prime example of polar Yang in Aryan history, Sparta, I would like to qualify that what we need is Aristotle’s proverbial golden mean. Sparta produced the best soldiers in world history but perished because it ignored what we now know: that enslaving non-whites is fatal in the long run. What we need is the Hegelian synthesis between yang Sparta and yin Athens: a sort of modern Rome. That is exactly what National Socialism was all about. Inspired in Rome, and let us remember the virile Roman salute, the Third Reich incorporated and eliminated—Hegel’s aufheben—the contradictions in both extremes: it was highly cultured as well as a tough military state.

I consider myself a spiritual inheritor of the Nationalist Socialist legacy. But I reject neonazism. Why?

Because neonazis are basically white nationalists plus Nazi paraphernalia. We have already seen that, unlike the NS men, these groups love degenerate music, Judaized Hollywood and non-reproductive sex. Many of these décadents are also anti-Nordicists who would dismiss the command cited in the very first lesson of Stellrecht’s Faith and Action already quoted in previous pages: “But if your blood has traits that will make your children unhappy and burdens to the state, then you have the heroic duty to be the last.”

The surreal thing is that even the pure Aryans hate Nordicism. Conversely what I love about Himmler is that, precisely because he was not handsome, he admired the hyper-Nordics of a Norwegian town he visited and harbored the thought that its people could become a paradigm for the Reich. Remember Stubb’s words about white nationalists:

Not only does it [Nordicism in general and National Socialism in particular] retrigger all the anti-racist conditioning they thought they’d gotten rid of, but it makes them ask “where does it end?” “At what point can we finally stop paying attention to each others genetic (and non-genetic) flaws?”

The answer is that it doesn’t end: that all life is struggle and hierarchy and that the Aryan race will never be perfected nor entirely freed from threats. But that’s not what they want to hear. Pierce made eugenics the core of his religious outlook as a means of protecting the eugenically-selecting society. But I see little concern for the subject among modern white nationalists. Can you imagine a racial state with a comprehensive eugenic policy which didn’t consider the reversal of mongrelization to be a major objective? [Stellrecht’s “heroic” advice] That it wouldn’t make its population look more like Swedes and less like Sicilians, as time goes on? It’s hard to do so, which is why I believe “anti-Nordicism” in white nationalism has, among other things, shut down much of the discussion on the subject.

On September 2013, in Harold Covington’s Northwest Front blogsite, several commenters subscribed politically correctness by bashing Covington in order not to offend the feelings of contemporary Greeks. A saner Northwest Front commenter said, “Those among us who don’t have the ability to look at a picture of half-Turks and tell they’re not White weren’t ever going to amount to anything on behalf of the White race.” The other side, the “revolutionary” neonazis, ignored that DNA tests have even revealed nigger genes among quite a few of the Portuguese; and we have already seen El Greco’s painting of crossbreed Spaniards as well as Pierce’s statement that “a 5 percent decline in average IQ would cause our civilization to collapse,” which applies to Sicily and Greece even before the Turkish invasion.

This cowardly lack of recognition of the very Letter A in Indo-European studies is not the only thing that annoys me about the embryonic movement known as white nationalism. Over the internet boards I find it bothersome when typical neonazis demand that I dismiss the Holocaust stories as hoax; and that if I fail to do it my morals are beyond the pale.

As someone who has spent many years studying controversial subjects (the pseudoscience in both parapsychology and biological psychiatry), I know perfectly that you must spend at least a decade of your life trying to digest the scholarly literature of both sides of an academic debate. I am in my middle fifties now and don’t have the time nor the motivation to research the Holocaust claims and counter-claims. For me it is enough to point out that two former Holocaust revisionists, Mark Weber, the director of the Institute of Historical Review, and David Irving, our best historian of the Third Reich, have changed their minds over the years, both accepting now that a few millions of Jews probably died during the war. Irving’s forthcoming book on Herr Himmler quotes historical records proving that, even though the six-million figure is an invention, a couple of millions of Jews probably died as a result of harsh Nazi treatments.

irving08-12

David Irving in 2012

But I would like to go beyond Irving’s scruples. Rephrasing a passage of Peter Helmkamp in Controlled Burn, an Irish commenter stated in my blog: “The truth is that the glad stirrings of genocide lurk in the heart of every man, yet only the Nazis had the courage to acknowledge the truth.” Another commenter, a Swede, went even further:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean “Christian morality.” Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think:

1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners
2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do
3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous
4) Every human life has the same value

None of these statements ring true to a man who rejected Christian morality. In fact, even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathize with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you.

It must be comical for the Nietzscheans of the North that, unlike the monocausalism ubiquitously present in the neonazi and white nationalist movement, Himmler acknowledged other factors: “Our people’s thinking was misled by the forces of the Church, Liberalism, Bolshevism, and Jewry.” And let us never forget Hitler’s own words in one of his table talks: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.” If neonazis were true Nazis and had transvalued Christian/Neo-Christian values they would be trying to demonstrate that Himmler’s Posen Speech in 1943 is genuine, not a hoax as they claim, and even find genocidal inspiration from the speech.

Of course: they will never do it because all of them are Neo-Christian pseudo-Nazis. Speaking with a little humor I would say that neonazis, white nationalists, and American southern nationalists subscribe what we may call the Harry Potter approach to the Jewish problem. Throughout those novels for children, the female author presents us a Harry who never uses “Avara Kadavra,” the killing spell against the bad guys; Harry only uses the disarming charm, “Expelliarmus.” But only in novels and movies for kids the good guys, who never are depicted as cold assassins, can win. In real life you have to make a transition to the dark side, to Himmler’s ways, to become a soldier.

I have read The Turner Diaries twice. When I read it for the first time, or rather listened the audio version with Pierce’s own voice, I was still struggling with the last remnants my Neo-Christian programming. I didn’t like the Breivik-like cruelties such as dispatching an entire group of pro-white warriors for not taking care of the Jewish problem in Toronto. And in the novel’s Day of the Rope I was troubled by the description that many innocent young whites also die. Then I read most of Covington’s Quintet and sensed a moral difference. Covington’s characters are not so bloodthirsty, not so genocidal exterminators. I could imagine myself doing the things in Covington’s novels but in the past some passages of the Diaries made me wonder…

But now that I have definitively left behind Christian axiology I can see that Pierce was ultimately right. As NS soldiers in the coming racial wars, altogether imbued in the martial qualities of gravitas and severitas, we must behave. The huge difference between the Quintet and the Diaries is that in Pierce’s world not only an ethno-state is born: in the final pages it is described that only the white race shall inherit the Earth. In Covington’s world that is dismissed because it would mean genocide on a scale not even performed by the Bolshevik Jews. But as Pierce said in Who We Are, already cited way above:

The hard lesson taught by the different results of the European colonization of North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, India, and southern Africa is that the only type of colonization with lasting significance is racial colonization; and that racial colonization can succeed only when Whites are willing and able to clear the land of non-White inhabitants and keep it clear.

This item of both Who We Are and the Diaries is so strong meat that I will elaborate on it only in Day of Wrath, and in the autobiographical books in Spanish that I’ll write after the completion of the present one.

Feminist quotas in the Northwest Front

Rockwell was assassinated in 1967; Pierce died of natural death, more than thirty years later. None of them were properly white nationalists. (“White nationalism” is a term introduced in the middle 1990s for the internet.) Their worldview was much closer to the thoroughgoing Yang reaction in National Socialism against the feminizing forces of degeneracy.

Presently in the American racialist scene Harold Covington, called “The Kid” in the times of Rockwell and Pierce, is considered the most radical (“Yang”) element as ideologically he is a revolutionary, not a mere reactionary. But Covington does not believe that millions of Jews died as a result of harsh treatment by the National Socialist Germans. Unlike us, he is stuck in Neo-Christian values. (I would dare to say that the stirrings of genocide should lurk in the heart of every transvalued white, which means accepting as grim necessity what seventy years ago happened to the subversive tribe.) In Covington’s quintet the purpose is not to reconquer the whole United States for the race, but to form an ethnostate within a few Northwestern states by means of secession; leaving the rest of the US territory to the blacks, mestizos, Jews, and white traitors. In fact, in Covington’s plan the nuclear weapons of mass destruction are left in the power of the federal government of the United States!

In thousands of pages the plots of Covington’s quintet—The Brigade, A Distant Thunder, A Mighty Fortress, The Hill of the Ravens and Freedom’s Sons—are situated in a balkanized, anti-white and dying America until freedom fighters create an independent White Republic in a corner of the territory. In 2010 I purchased copies of the first four novels of the saga and devoured them with uttermost interest (The Brigade particularly contains good advice as to how to conduct a racial war in the 21st century). While I felt uncomfortable that the last pages of A Mighty Fortress featured a female director of movies in the newly created Republic, I let it pass because National Socialist Germany also allowed the career of filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. But Riefenstahl was the exception, not the rule. In NS Germany women were generally not allowed to carry out official functions: they were excluded from positions of responsibility.

In Covington’s saga the ethnostate is clearly depicted as a self-styled National Socialist state, even during the revolutionary period before the creation of the Republic (“‘You a Nazi, sir?’ ‘I am’”—page 278 of The Hill of the Ravens; “…a lot of us are outright Nazis”—page 74 of The Brigade). And I cannot agree more with what Covington said on page 53 of A Distant Thunder, “When a race of people loses its women, it loses everything.” (This, incidentally, is what moved me to reproduce a Maxfield Parrish illustration of an ethereal nymph on the cover of this book.) On pages 187-189 of the Ravens Covington even enumerates his “Ten Principles of National Socialism,” some of them cited below:

Be Honest. A National Socialist faces a fact whether he likes it or not. Dishonesty is the mark of the enemy, who has falsified man’s conception of life, past and present. National Socialism represents the truth of life in its purest form.

Be Faithful to your Race. No one must be allowed to spoil what nature created in eons of racial evolution. Your highest purpose in life must be to carry on that evolution toward a better, stronger more beautiful mankind. The purity of the highest race is basic requirement for ever-higher evolution.

Fight for your Race. Fight for the holy ideals of National Socialism, which is the heart of our great race.

Nothing is Impossible. Where there is a will, there is a way. Everything falls before the man of indomitable will. It is necessary for us to suffer many cruel sacrifices because we must harden ourselves for the most decisive struggle in history.

Reject Decadence. Everything must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race. Anything and anyone who hinders either the existence of our race or its perfection must be rooted out and destroyed.

But Covington violated this last principle by playing rock music in some of his radio podcasts. Furthermore, in his last novel, the only one that I did not purchase (Covington kindly sent me a PDF draft), he makes huge concessions to runaway feminism. Page 16 of the draft he sent me states: “A number of Nationalist soldiers wearing NDF tiger-stripes—mostly female…” On pages 18-19 a feat is described about one of these female tigresses, and on page 38 it is stated that “The new government department consisted of 342 people plus himself, about evenly split between male and female.” The most offensive line in Freedom’s Sons is found on page 50 which contains a dialogue: “A lot of Christians and general Neanderthal male chauvinist type want to go back to an all-male army.”

I confess that as a potential revolutionary I used to listen Covington’s Radio Free Northwest shows, and loved his urgent plea to invite all conscious whites to move to the Northwest corner in preparation for the civil war. However, when Covington included the voices of a couple of women in his podcasts I completely lost interest…

More than a year passed and I learnt that one of these women betrayed Covington. She flipped sides to the point of becoming anti-white, and in her website she even disclosed what happens in some “Secret Nazi Meetings” attended by the supporters of Covington: male supporters who had indeed taken the trouble to move to the Northwest in preparation of Covington’s civil war.

The Old Man had violated his first principle, “Be Honest,” because a National Socialist honestly faces the biological fact that women are simply not interchangeable with men and that, in genuine NS, positions of responsibility belong to the Boys Only Club. Covington’s big tent may have won some female adepts for his cause, but in me he lost a real soldier.

* * *

White nationalism is only a stone at the middle of the rapid-flowing waters of a dangerous river; an over-the-water large stone that can help us in our endeavor to jump to the other side. I myself used that stone during my crossing from Christianity and Liberalism to National Socialism. In fact, I could even write down such a spiritual odyssey in a text that might be titled “From St Francis to Himmler.”

But even accepting my metaphor that the stone is not meant to be a permanent residence let me say that, on a very generous estimate, the contents of this book are incomplete. Its intellectual content must be balanced with another book about what happened before, during and after the Second World War: a book that will detonate an emotional bomb in the reader’s mind: Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947 by Thomas Goodrich (reviewed way above).

Only after assimilating Hellstorm, together with the present book, will the reader be ready to take the final leap across the river.

Categories
Axiology Feminism Patriarchy Sexual "liberation" Women

Downton Abbey

downton-abbey-wallpaper-8

I have said that, of all recent TV series I have seen, I only found inspiring the first episode of The White Queen. Now I might recommend a series which message, at least until the first season that I watched, is not necessarily negative.

Downton Abbey is a series created by English actor and novelist Julian Fellowes, first aired in Britain on September 2010. The series depicts the lives of the aristocratic Crawley family and their servants in the post-Edwardian era starting with the sinking of the Titanic. Of the only season I’ve watched to date my favorite line upon which the entire drama evolves—that in the recent past women had no right of inheritance—is a dialogue between two humble servants:

“It is the law.”

“Well: it is a wicked law.”

These well-intentioned Britons were naïve of course. We know better now. We now know that from the corruption of women all evils follow. Just compare the decent world of Downton Abbey with today’s Hollywood degeneracy (that incidentally even quite a few white nationalists like).

Remember for instance that filthy film, Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone, during the interrogation scene, shows her pubic hair to the male interrogators. That’s what happens when women are allowed to inherit immense fortunes from their late parents, as Catherine Tramell (Stone) did in Basic Instinct. Remember also when the detectives visited her Pacific Heights mansion to find only Catherine’s lesbian lover, etcetera.

My dream is that later in this century and the next one the West will revert to the mores of Jane Austen in the ethnostate. What I most loved about Downton Abbey, which rather depicts the late Victorians of the early 20th century is that, with the exception of a Turk who died in the aristocratic mansion, non-whites simply don’t exist in that world.

Categories
Egalitarianism Ethnic cleansing Feminism Homosexuality Miscegenation Nordicism Racial studies William Pierce

Stubbs on anti-Nordicism

Or:

Saying the truth about race throws even White Nationalists into fits

“Most white nationalists are merely lefties who, understandably, loathe Jews and niggers, etc. They want the 1960s (sex, drugs & rock’n’roll, abortion, absence of any duties, etc.) without the unpleasantness of the aforementioned groups in their midst. The herd needs a great deal of culling.”

—Patrick

 
felix_von_luschan_skin_color_chartIt’s really a microcosm of society at large isn’t it? I know a swarthy Italian and he’s really pro-White! If you alienate Greeks they won’t vote for you or buy your stuff! I’m not Nordicist: some of my best friends are black (-haired)!

But it goes beyond that. How many White Nationalists are willing to outright say that women, as a biological class, should not have the same legal powers as men? That homosexuals are mentally diseased and shouldn’t be allowed to run rampant? That most people simply aren’t intelligent enough to make important social or political decisions, and that society needs to restrict their behavior unless it wants to become a consumerist MTV hellhole? That in many cases good people should be stopped from reproducing because they have bad genes? That industrial society will always cause genetic devolution unless a comprehensive and mandatory eugenic system is in place? That the world’s resources are finite and bloody conflict over them is an existential fact, unless one faction already has uncontested martial supremacy? That religion and culture can uplift or destroy a society, and cannot be left a “personal choice” by a true revolutionary? That biologically and mentally superior groups of humans lived before us and will probably live after us, and we will never be their equals? That The Beatles mostly sucked?

So it’s definitely an axiomatic thing. Modern Whites can’t accept that a human can be unequal to another—and thus superior or inferior—as an existential quality, and not as a result of some “choice” or sin. This does indeed seem like a problem greatly inflamed by Christian metaphysics, where equal essential being (the soul) is assumed, and only “free will” (faith or sin) distinguishes humans from one another in an ultimate sense.

“Nordicism” among White Nationalists is almost identical to the response to “racism” in society at large. Thus, White Nationalists treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat mestizos: they put emotional non-sequiturs up against biological facts, and they wind up trotting out “token Italians” because accusations of an organization being “Nordic” in White Nationalism are taken like accusations of an organization being “all white” in the mainstream. We’ve just fallen into the same mentality.
 

nordic

This tone, very light grey and near the colour of ice,
is the eye colour par excellence of a pure White Nordid.

I’m not even really in agreement with Covington; I don’t consider the Greeks to be basically Turks, I place them on the White side of the line, but I can recognize they’ve undergone some degree of mongrelization and that this would constitute genetic damage in an Aryan nation. Not all genetic damage is caused by mongrelization, and my guess is that all humans have genetic flaws of some type. Nonetheless some are much more damaged than others; in extreme cases this results in classification as a non-White or as a deformed/botched White, with exile in the former case and total sterilization or euthanization in the later case is the most sensible solution. In less severe cases the damage should be handled by a comprehensive eugenic system, which would use racial purity as a major (but not the only) determinant of genetic quality.

Psychologically though, I don’t think the “Nordicist” thing is being handled well, and the “transvaluation” thing comes back to light.
 
I said…

“WNs treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat mestizos.”

Lol! Another quotable quote.

“I don’t consider the Greeks to be basically Turks, I place them on the White side of the line…”

You meant on the Olive side, not on the White side. Click on pic of the table at the top of the entry. On the left column you will see there more subtle white gradations of color, undistinguishable at first glance if you don’t click it.

With the exception of Greeks like the girls in the image of my most recent entry about Greece (today’s entry), most modern Greeks fall in-between real whiteness and the colored.
 
Stubbs said…

I meant in terms of allowing them in the Aryan state and attempting to repair any genetic degradation versus banishing them from the state and telling them to form their own country. I don’t think, for instance, that we’d bother trying to “restore” the Aryan genotype of someone like Obama: we’d just tell him to go live in New Liberia or wherever. At some point a human drifts so far from our race we write them off as an alien politically, but I don’t think many Greeks are there yet.

The problem is White Nationalists still have an equality-based mindset. They think once you pass through the walls of the 4th Reich and get a stamp that says “White” on it you’re just like everyone else inside the walls. Basically they want America without niggers, like you said; universal suffrage, freedom of religion, gubmint stayin outta my business, no biological program once everybody in the country is “White enough” to gain entrance, utilitarian goals for making people “happy” and “free” at the expense of anything higher, etcetera.

Pointing out an obvious fact like some “Whites” being purer than others (did you really expect the people who were occupied by the Moors or Turks for 300 years to be comparable to the Swedes?) throws them into fits. Not only does it retrigger all the anti-racist conditioning they thought they’d gotten rid of, but it makes them ask “where does it end?” “At what point can we finally stop paying attention to each others genetic (and non-genetic) flaws?”

 
sicilian-man

A Sicilian

The answer is that it doesn’t end: that all life is struggle and hierarchy and that the Aryan race will never be perfected nor entirely freed from threats. But that’s not what they want to hear. [William] Pierce made eugenics the core of his religious outlook, with nationalism as a means of protecting the eugenically-selecting society, but I see little concern for the subject among modern White Nationalists. Can you imagine a racial state with a comprehensive eugenic policy which didn’t consider the reversal of mongrelization to be a major objective? That it wouldn’t make its population look more like Swedes and less like Sicilians, as time goes on? It’s hard to do so, which is why I believe “anti-Nordicism” in White Nationalism has, among other things, shut down much of the discussion on the subject.

_______________

The above comment of Stubbs was posted in this article/thread.
See also the related articles: here and here.