web analytics
Categories
Feminism Film Metaphysics of race / sex Patriarchy

La Belle et la Bête


This film, Beauty and the Beast was released when the Allies were perpetrating the Hellstorm Holocaust on the defenceless German people.

It’s been so many years since I saw it on the big screen, that I only used to remember when Belle’s father enters the Beast’s castle and we see how the torches with human arms light his way; as well as the ending, the couple’s ascent, as the audience applauded (something very rare in cinema theatres). Yesterday when I saw it again, in French and with subtitles in my native language, I remembered some things, but many others I had forgotten.

Although I hadn’t seen it for decades, the reason I included it in my list of 50 films that influenced me is because what I do remember perfectly well is my interpretation. I thought, for many years, that this fairy tale symbolises women’s sexuality. At first glance, our urges seem bestial to little women. But under the sacred institution of marriage, the beautiful one begins to realise that behind the animal lies a prince, and then they can live happily for the rest of their lives. In other words, only from the moment Belle can assimilate sexual relations with a Beast like us, can she ingratiate herself with Nature.

Without mentioning that movie, The Double Flame, a book that has been translated from Spanish into English, the Nobel laureate in literature Octavio Paz, who was my neighbour before he died, talks about how the ‘red flame’ of the horny male becomes a ‘blue flame’ over time in a couple’s relationship. But let’s do some history.

There are multiple variants of La Belle et la Bête. Its origin could be a story by Apuleius entitled Cupid and Psyche. The first published version of La Belle et la Bête was by the French writer Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve in 1740, although other sources credit Gianfrancesco Straparola with recreating the original story as early as 1550. The best-known written version was a much-abridged revision of Villeneuve’s original work, published in 1756 by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. The first translation was made into English in 1757. Although there are many variants of the story throughout Europe, Beaumont’s version is the most famous and is the basis for almost all subsequent versions or adaptations.

It is a story that has circulated throughout Europe for centuries, both in oral and written form and, more recently, in film adaptations. In addition to the interpretation I was left with in my soliloquies (how women’s sexuality works), the fairy tale can also be interpreted as the love of a father, who adored Belle above her sisters, with pure paternal-filial love. But besides the fact that the girl perceives sexuality as something perverse, any man who feels a sexual desire for such an innocent creature can only be a beast.

The above-mentioned 1946 French film, directed by Jean Cocteau, is the first film version of the 1757 tale of the same name and is recognised as a classic of French cinema.

This adaptation adds a secondary plot, with the appearance of a villain: a suitor of Belle’s named Avenant. He intends to take advantage of Belle’s visit to her father to kill the Beast and steal his riches, while Belle’s sisters, the villain’s accomplices, delay Belle’s return to the castle. When Avenant enters the magical pavilion, which is the source of the Beast’s power, he is struck by a fiery arrow from the statue of the Roman goddess Diana, which transforms him into a beast and reverses the curse of the original creature.
 

1:50 pm update

I just reread some passages from a disciple of Jung that are worth including in this entry. On pages 137-138 of Man and his Symbols by various authors (first published in 1964), under the heading ‘Beauty and the Beast’, Joseph Henderson said:

Girls in our society share the masculine hero myths because, like boys, they must also develop a reliable ego-identity and acquire an education…

I saw an example of this in a young married woman who did not yet have any children but who intended to have one or two eventually, because it would be expected of her…

She had a dream at this time that seemed so important she sought professional advice to understand it. She dreamed she was in a line of young women like herself, and as she looked ahead to where they were going, she saw that as each came to the head of the line she was decapitated by a guillotine. Without any fear the dreamer remained in the line, presumably quite willing to submit to the same treatment when her turn came.

I explained to her that this meant she was ready to give up the habit of “living in her head”; she must learn to free her body to discover its natural sexual response and the fulfilment of its biological role in motherhood. The dream expressed this as the need to make a drastic change; she had to sacrifice the “masculine” hero role.

As one might expect, this educated woman had no difficulty in accepting this interpretation at an intellectual level, and she set about trying to change herself into a more submissive kind of woman… A universal myth expressing this kind of awakening is found in the fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast

The story can be said to symbolize a young girl’s initiation—i.e. her release from her bond with the father, in order to come to terms with the erotic animal side of her nature. Until this is done, she cannot achieve a true relationship with a man.

Compare this wise psychoanalyst with the anti-motherhood shit that the System tells young women these days.

Categories
American civil war Film Patriarchy

Gone with the Wind

I have already written on several occasions about this 1939 film, the third on my list of 50, and here I would just like to copy and paste what I have said in past years.

Above, we can see the image of the carpetbagger scene in Gone with the Wind, a war that freed the Negroes and occurred at a time when there were no Jewish-owned mass media and even before mass Jewish immigration began. (Oh, Judeo-reductionist racialists who don’t want to see that, in addition to the JQ, we have a Christian problem…!)

In a couple of those opera-type theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a kid and then as a teenager. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression on my youthful mind:

– Throughout the film, from the opening scenes in Georgia, women’s outfits duly concealed the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the dresses of the Southern beauties; and I don’t just mean Scarlett and the feminine elements of her family, but Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women. Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave again in the future ethnostate! (the actress who played Melanie died three years ago at the age of 104!).

– At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is interrupted by the declaration of war, all the women are taking the obligatory nap (except Scarlett, who escapes to the upstairs bedroom) while the men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman would have a say in such matters.

– Even after she is widowed, Scarlett is called ‘Mrs Charles Hamilton’, in the sense that her reputation remains in the shadow of a man who died in uniform.

– Similarly, following the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices carry out a night-time raid on a shanty town after Scarlett, driving alone, is attacked by Negroes resulting in Frank’s death. Needless to say, on this night the wives of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature.

– Once married to Rhett Butler, ‘Captain Butler’ was always greeted first by pedestrians in the street as he strolled with Scarlett. She, faithfully at her husband’s side on these street strolls, was only mentioned after pedestrians greeted Rhett.

– Let us never forget Scarlett’s marital rape when Rhett lifted her in his arms and said, ‘This is the one night you’re not going to throw me out’.

In those luxurious cinemas of yesteryear, when I was young, the film depicted wholesome Western mores, before values were corrupted and completely reversed in our darkest hour. I even remember that my mother, who wasn’t racist at all, felt compassion for the Southerners in the scene where the carpetbagger we see in the image above appears, and we both resented the presence of the black singer who took advantage of the situation. That must have happened about forty-five years ago in one of those theatres.

Categories
Feminism Film Game of Thrones Manosphere Music Patriarchy

Walk of punishment

‘Walk of Punishment’ is the third episode of the third season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 23rd episode of the series.

‘I want you’, poor Stannis said to the witch Melisandre on the beach, almost begging her to stay with him instead of going on a boat in search of someone to sacrifice. One might think that women cast a spell on us. But as some of the MGTOW have noted, that isn’t the case. It is our desire to possess them that makes us annul ourselves at their whim when we are in heat.

Of course, this wouldn’t happen if we had patriarchy like Republican Rome, when women were treated as property. And even in a softer patriarchy, like what we read in Jane Austen’s novels, no stupid laws had been enacted regarding marital rape. We only make a fool of ourselves when we empower them and give up the power with which Nature endowed us to the degree that we allow ourselves to be handled like puppets. That wouldn’t happen if the West regained its judgment and transvalued its values if not as far as the Roman world, at least as the values in Austen’s world.

In the episode Melisandre sees with open contempt the lust of poor Stannis. Declarations of love don’t work. We give them the power to say ‘no’. A king like Stannis Baratheon who can’t control the woman who was always by his side—compare him with the way his brother Robert Baratheon treated women—is not a true king.

In Astapor, on the other side of the world, we heard a dialogue between Jorah and Dany about war. The theme of the sword always reminds me of how feminised white nationalists are:

Jorah: You know what I saw? Butchery. Babies, children, old men. More women raped than what you can count. There’s a beast in every man, and it stirs when you put a sword in his hand.

Dany then scolds his two loyal advisers, Jorah and Barristan, when they advised her not to sell one of her dragons in exchange for an army of mulattos. The scene represents a very bad message for the white viewer. And the irony is that Emilia Clarke, the actress who played the role of Dany in all seasons, has a very feminine character in real life; so much so that she had difficulties filming scenes in which she appears as a dragon-woman in full command of her leader personality. But that’s the point of Game of Thrones: to reverse male-female roles in the perennial campaign of the media, government and universities to brainwash the white man. Dany’s dialogue with the mulatto woman Missandei, the translator she just got in Astapor while trying to sell one of her dragons, epitomises the feminist message:

Dany: And what about you? You know that I’m taking you to war. You may go hungry. You may fall sick. You may be killed.

Missandei: Valar Morghulis.

Dany: Yes, all men must die. But we are not men.

Missandei smiles. But in the penultimate episode of the last season, during the war of the bitches Dany and Cersei (note that the most powerful were queens, not kings), the latter orders Missandei be beheaded in front of Dany. But back to the episode ‘Walk of Punishment’, in the scene at Littlefinger’s brothel the Jewish director manages to keep the viewer from craving any of his white whores. I can imagine if the Germans were in charge of the cinema instead of the Jews. What would whites be watching now on the small screen?

The degenerate music of the end credits is the final insult, after Locke cut off Jaime Lannister’s hand (in the novels Locke is a cruel man sworn to House Bolton, considered by Roose Bolton as his best hunter). Again, if the Germans had won the war what music would we hear in the end credits of films today?

Categories
Feminism Feminized western males Game of Thrones Liberalism Patriarchy Rape of the Sabine Women

Baelor

‘Baelor’ is the ninth and penultimate episode of the first season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones. As I did in the last entry, I won’t be reviewing everything that happens in it but I use the episodes to express my philosophy: in this post, what I think about the psychosis suffered by the white race, including those who claim to defend it. Thus, I will focus on a single scene in Baelor.

Lady Catelyn appears before the feudal lord Walder Frey, the head of House Frey and Lord of the Crossing (a bridge) to negotiate the crossing of the troops of his son in their war against the Lannisters, who are about to execute Ned Stark. Although Lord Frey is an old man (the actor who played his role was known for playing Argus Filch in Harry Potter), he still maintains a very active role in managing his household.

After the West collapses, the white man will find himself at a crossroads. Both paths will lead to the return of patriarchy, as feminism is but an astronomical and massive psychotic breakdown that cannot be sustained for more than a century (the group that suffers from it is extinguished as their women cease to breed). The Jew Lawrence Auster was right in saying that liberalism, in the sense of the principle of non-discrimination that includes antiracism, feminism and sexual orientation is the most destructive ideology of all times.

Well then: before the crossroads of the two roads that lead to the return of patriarchy, the white man will have to decide what form of patriarchy will return: if his white women will belong to the Muslims of Europe and the blacks of America, or if the Aryan finally regains his sanity and reclaims them for himself.

In the episode Lord Walder Frey, opposite Lady Catelyn Stark, grabs his wife’s buttocks and then spanks her when he goes to negotiate privately with Lady Catelyn. After clearing a room full of his descendants, Lord Frey addresses the surprised Catelyn with these words:

‘You see that? Fifteen, she is. A little flower [licking his lips in lust]. And her honey’s all mine [chuckles]’.

In my soliloquies I call that delicious honey a Caperucita, and it is a shame that the supposed defenders of her race don’t see the naked truth of what Catelyn replied:

‘I’m sure she will give you many sons’.

A decade ago, when I still subscribed to white nationalism, I didn’t understand why some of their articles left me depressed. It didn’t take me long to realise that many nationalists had betrayed their principles by subscribing to at least some form of feminism. Ten years ago I reproduced the response of a critic of Alex Kurtagic since the latter dared to label ‘defectives’ those from the racial right who didn’t subscribe to feminism. Looking back, it seems clear to me that the only defective was Kurtagic himself, who like me was raised in Latin America. Now I can say that except for Andrew Anglin white nationalists continue to blind themselves as to how we should treat women.

If the white man chooses the right path when he reaches the crossroads, after the Day of the Rope he won’t behave like the men of Murka II in Covington’s fiction (see ‘Freedom daughters’ in my Daybreak). Since the pendulum has swung to the extreme left its inertia will carry it to the extreme right, and if whites wake up the warlords, the new Walder Freys, won’t be the exception but the rule. And even if the white man chooses the wrong path women will still be subdued, but this time like the Muslim women I saw the year I lived in Manchester.

Part of the feminisation of the white man lies in not wanting to even fix his own bedroom. Before killing the enemy he must control his women, at least through an internal transvaluation of values as the police would stop any actual transvaluation. He who doesn’t fuck won’t fight and many white nationalists don’t do it because, as good neochristians they are, they believe they should ask permission.

Sex is to be taken as the feudal lord Frey took it, at least in the most primitive stage of civilisation: what looms again after the collapse. There is already this situation with the massive rapes of Caperucitas in the UK, but the System only allows non-white wolfies to eat them.

Much of the revulsion I feel for white nationalism lies in that they tolerate this reversal of values. The critic of feminism, Roger Devlin, speaks like a conservative; not like the MGTOW people do and much less as I speak. A man who in one of the forums in which Devlin discusses would talk like Walder Frey, licking his lips while imaginarily savouring a Caperucita, would be annihilated by the thousands of Kutragics that swarm today’s racialism, and they would not answer any of the most elementary realities about the subject of feminism that I have linked so many times on this site.

That’s why I will continue to say that white nationalism is a fraud, and that to recover our lands we must first wage a great internal jihad that allows us to think as we were before, even in medieval times: as Martin’s prose about the lands of Riverrun.

Categories
Civil war Feminism Feminized western males Hate Patriarchy Racial right Roger Devlin

On Roger Devlin

Not long ago, in ‘Andúril: the broken sword’, one of my essays that appear in Daybreak, I complained about a video by Jared Taylor with these words: ‘Finding ourselves on the brink of a civil war or rather an anti-white, exterminationist war that gets closer and closer to Ward Kendall’s novel Hold Back This Day, Taylor gives counsel like getting married, having a good job, and trying to do politics without overtly revealing our true colours’.

Something similar happened yesterday to me while listening to an interview of F. Roger Devlin about Incels (who was annoyed by the Nazi salutes headed by Richard Spencer in that famous 2016 video because, according to Devlin, the alt-right shouldn’t endorse National Socialism). Although the interview was good, especially Devlin’s insights about feminism, he is the typical alt-right intellectual who, as we have seen, more than a ‘white nationalist’ is actually an American nationalist. (The term white nationalism suggests fighting a civil war to create a nation only for Aryan Man, something that the alt-righters don’t recommend openly.)

By the end of the interview, Devlin advises the same that Taylor recently advised: to get a good wife. The advice is quite dishonest because Devlin himself concedes in the interview that the laws of our time make it very hard for the white man to get properly married. For example, the divorce industry hasn’t been challenged, let alone eliminated along with the stupid laws that prevent males to have sex with their wives whenever they want, etcetera. Without the normal state of civilisation, patriarchy, marrying bitches that steal our children in courts and a law that commands you to send them money while she’s living with another guy is insane.

I think in the comments section I’ve already mentioned the case of a very, very Catholic family, friends of my mother since she was in Grammar School. One of their members, married to a traditional Catholic woman, after a severe illness the woman put him in an asylum and she stayed in his house with their daughter. The man is younger than me and is already committed in an asylum! His late parents were so Catholic that the Opus Dei folk were their clients. (Incidentally, they are a white family: the image of the many blond nephews of this guy now come to my mind when they were kids.)

That family proves that what Devlin said by the end of the interview is wrong. Even if you marry the most traditional girl, under the current laws the bitch can betray you to the degree that—as happened to our friend—not letting him attend even his own daughter’s wedding! The poor man stayed in the asylum during the wedding! When not long ago we visited him at the asylum, this very Catholic man came up that, despite everything, he should never hate…

The repulsion I feel for anything related to the American racialist movement can be summed up in one sentence: like this man they don’t want to hate, let alone fight. Just compare Devlin’s stance to Robert Morgan’s recent comments that I’ve collected on this site. It is more than obvious that, like Taylor, Devlin and the rest of the American racialists are held back by Christian morality. If Devlin & Co. didn’t subscribe to Christian ethics but National Socialism, they would know that only a bloody revolution could bring us back our women.

As long as male racialists don’t amalgamate their soul with the spirit of The Turner Diaries their whole movement will remain a women’s club.

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Deranged altruism Friedrich Nietzsche Patriarchy Racial right Transvaluation of all values

Heisman’s suicide note, 9

Judaism for the Gentiles?

When Christian social conservatives reach for their cultural roots, they embrace the uprooting force of Christianity. Christianity began a long process of uprooting gentiles from their pagan past. Monotheism substituted an alternate past and an alternate view of themselves as heirs of Hebrew ancestors. In some sense, Christianity brought non-Jews to serve in what was originally a Jewish mission. Has Christianity molded Christians in a Jewish moral image?
In The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche declared:

Jews are the most catastrophic people of world history: by their aftereffect they have made mankind so thoroughly false that even today the Christian can feel anti-Jewish without realizing that he himself is the ultimate Jewish consequence.

Christian antisemitism is a kind of Jewish self-hatred. In worshipping a Jew named Jesus as their God, and dedicating themselves to essential Jewish values, Christians have dedicated themselves to a form of Judaism.
Because Jesus’s preaching of hatred for the family must be subverted in order for Christianity to function as a normative, societal religion, there must be cases where the ambiguity between the alpha altruism and omega altruism becomes so obscured and perverted that Christianity becomes a vehicle of racism.
Take, for example, white American Christian racists. They hate blacks. They hate Mexicans. They hate Jews. And, incidentally, they worship a Jew as the son of God. It is only natural that such Christian racists should pray to Jesus to save them from the Jews.
The fact that modern Christians tend to be associated with the conservative values of the family is a product of Christianity as a societal tradition, not Christianity as an implementation of the words of Jesus. What would happen if a Christian took Jesus’s message seriously? The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, in Attack Upon “Christendom”, wrote:

And this in my opinion is the falsification of which official Christianity is guilty: it does not frankly and unreservedly make known the Christian requirement—perhaps because it is afraid people would shudder to see at what a distance from it we are living… when Christ requires us to save our life eternally (and that surely is what we propose to attain as Christians) and to hate our own life in this world, is there then a single one among us whose life in the remotest degree could be called even the weakest effort in this direction?… let us not wish to gloss over the Christian requirement, so that by suppression or by falsification we may bring about an appearance of decorum which is in the very highest degree demoralizing and is a sly death-blow to Christianity.

American politician Patrick Buchanan, by contrast, has attempted to resurrect Jesus just enough to achieve his racist, politically Darwinistic goals. It would appear that the conventional Christian virtue Buchanan admires most is hypocrisy. He laments the loss of the good old-fashioned Christian hypocrisy in which a thinly veiled pagan morality edified the slaughter of a Christian’s fellow men under the banner of Christian love.
If Buchanan were to examine himself with Kierkegaard’s eye, it might dawn upon him that he is attacking the Christian churches for being Christian: “We were wrong to accompany the old conquistadors, wrong to impose our faith on native peoples, wrong to be handmaidens of empire. We confess, we beg forgiveness from those against whom we and our fathers have sinned.” He then points out, “Now this may be the way to heaven, but it can lead to hell on earth.” Buchanan and other likeminded Christian racists made it their mission to ensure that the meek do not inherit the earth.
Much of what Christian conservatives are trying to conserve is actually pagan, not Christian. Christianity did not invent the family. Christianity became guilty by association with that kind of social conservatism.
An authentic Christian conservatism would amount to the conservation of the subversion of family patriarchy. Christianity fundamentally redefined the horizons of what became “conservatism”, closing the extreme horizons of the gentile political right represented by Rome, and thus pushing normative Christian ethical horizons towards Jewish norms. A real conservative can be witnessed in the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (c. 331-363 AD), the enemy of Christianity who converted to the paganism of his ancestors in 361.
Every single accusation of the defamation and dethroning of gods and heroes that Buchanan hurls at secular leftists can be slinged with more profound justice at Christianity. Buchanan himself portends what he calls the “death of the West” precisely because the solution he posits is Christian. His solution to the “problem” is the cause of the “problem”. What Buchanan criticizes is ultimately rooted in Christianity’s spiritual revolution over Rome.
Christianity inspired gentiles to deracinate themselves from their original pagan gods, naturalistic values, and ancestral traditions. Liberalism continues this deracination. The political left casts out those final surviving remains of politically pagan sentiment in the name of radicalism almost akin to Jesus’s attack on normative Pharisaic Judaism.
Christianity decontextualized and recontextualized patriarchy and altruism, subverting the pre-Christian assumptions and social conditions they evolved and originated in. Jesus’s influence effected a softening of the kinship core of patriarchy. From this softened core, liberal social dismantling took administrative control over the hypocrisy industry that Christianity launched. Pat Buchanan himself demonstrates the great reaping of what Christianity has sown: neutralization. Buchanan’s racist cause was effectively neutralized by the victory of Christianity’s melting of racism’s kinship core.
Christianity disempowers and disenfranchises kinship relations. It does this by radicalizing the logic of altruism beyond its sociobiological foundation in kinship, subversively making kinship appear inferior in comparison with its higher, more “universalistic” concerns. In secularized terms, this makes kin selective values, which can include racist values, appear inferior in value.
The Christian moral attack against hereditary social relations is at the root of the modern Western social project of systematic kin selective insanity, i.e. the modern idea of leftward social progress. It was liberalism’s Christian inheritance that made a virtue of kin selective insanity. Genetic self-preservation is immorality when genetic suicide is morality. To literally follow Jesus’s example is to follow the example of celibate priests and implement the extinction of the biological human race.
Mixed marriages between Christianity and racism persist nonetheless. Perhaps the most famous product of the union of Christianity and racism is the bastard child known as the Ku Klux Klan. Caught between white supremacism and Christ supremacism, the Ku Klux Klan has solved the problem of incompatible ethical commitments through a hybrid creed that offers the worst of both worlds. Their greatest feat of all has been to corrupt both the Christianity that they profess to believe in and their own racist cause in one stumbling stroke.

Categories
Ancient Rome Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Feminism Feminized western males Marriage Patriarchy

On the white sharia meme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Deranged altruism Feminism Feminized western males Marriage Patriarchy Real men Women

Traditional women

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Patriarchy Real men

In defense of white sharia

by Sacco Vandal

Donald Thoresen recently wrote a criticism of the White Sharia meme, wherein he alleged that the proponents of the meme may perhaps be suffering from “self-hatred… and the internalization of white subservience.” As one of the genuine originators of the meme—which was first promulgated on my podcast, The War Room, in late 2016—I assure you: this is simply not the case.

In his piece, Thoresen wonders why anyone on the Alt Right would be “attracted to the brutality of the Islamic world” and advises those who enjoy the White Sharia meme to “decolonize themselves.” Unfortunately, it is Thoresen who needs to decolonize himself. He seems to have internalized the attempts of the darker races to meme our men into pacifistic, overly-civilized weaklings. Our enemies have facilitated this lie precisely in order to disarm us before moving in for the kill. But, in reality, barbarity is not foreign to us whites.

We should never forget that Faustian man was once, not so long ago, the most vicious and barbaric player on the world stage. Oswald Spengler referred to early Western man as “the red-haired barbarian” of “Frankistan.” Whites did not conquer the entire Earth by being nice or civilized; Whites conquered the world by sailing into foreign lands and taking those lands by force. Vikings, Crusaders, and Conquistadores alike were all practitioners of rape, pillage, and plunder.

But, alas, we have lost that barbarity. Our enemies have successfully memed us into cowardly weaklings.

____________

Read it all: here

Categories
Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Feminism Manosphere Patriarchy Roger Devlin Tacitus Women

Patriarchy vs. feminism

redgirl_and_knight

I have just deleted the PDF “War of the sexes.” The section where I quoted the blogger Turd Flinging Monkey was long-winded. I have extensively reviewed it for inclusion in the 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. This abridged and reviewed version is now available in another PDF for a more comfortable reading (if the visitor wants to print it):

https://westsdarkesthour.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/turd-flinging-monkey.pdf

The article shows that feminism will die and patriarchy will be restored in Europe, either by regenerated Whites or by Muslims. Pay special attention to what we say in the last three pages.
 
Thursday update

An “angel of the library” visited me. Lately I have been reading Tacitus’ Germania very slowly, opening his book written in 98 AD once in a while. Today, in the edition of Ostara Publications, the bookmark I had left on page 8 opened the book here:

Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband’s power. Having cut off the hair of the adulteress and stripped her naked, he expels her from the house in the presence of her kinsfolk, and then flogs her through the whole village.

Although it is feminist rubbish, we saw something like this in the chapter “Mother’s Mercy” of Game of Thrones: the punishment of adulterous Queen Cersei.

The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit another husband. No one in Germany turns vices into mirth, nor is the practice of corrupting and of yielding to corruption, called the custom of the Age…

They receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state.

Here I lean toward Roger Devlin more than Turd Flinging Monkey: marriage was instituted to control hypergamous women, not brutish alpha males. It seems to me that, since we men are morally superior to women, our male ancestors had no choice but invent marriage as a rock-solid institution. It is the only way to avoid that female hypergamy, a residual instinct so natural in prehistoric times, destroys an incipient culture or civilization.

The wisdom of the ancient Germanics in Tacitus’ passage (thanks angel!) can be fully understood if we take a look not only to the PDF linked above but also to Devlin’s seminal paper.