Category: Patriarchy

War of the sexes, 14

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

The traditionalism cycle

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.”

—Oscar Wilde

The reason that I initiated this series with excerpts from John Spark’s book on the science of animal sexuality is that it is the basis to understand human sexuality. The blogger seems to agree: “In order to understand society one must understand reproduction and sexual dimorphism.” In both animals and humans patriarchy is a system in which the males have the power, not the females. Power here means which gender controls reproduction and the resources of the species.

We have seen in Sparks’ excerpts something that we may call Tournament mating. In tournament species the male skull is larger; males are bigger and stronger but have shorter life spans than females; males compete for or select the females (hence the word “tournament”) and after mating often abandon the family. On the other hand, in Pair-bonding species the skulls are of the same size and shape as well as the bodies of the two genders; they have about the same life spans and the females selects the male; sometimes the female abandons the family. In both forms of mating, the blogger says, “we are addicted to pussy because that’s how reproduction works. Without that pussy addiction humanity would have died a long time ago.” In his videos this blogger mentions other bloggers of the manosphere, and he often quotes them by their pennames. He devoted five videos to one of his favorite subjects, the first under the title “The traditionalism cycle.”

In this blog I have referred several times to The Course of Empire, the paintings that Thomas Cole painted in 1833-1836. The Course of Empire reflected popular sentiments of the times when many saw pastoralism as the ideal phase of human civilization, fearing that an American empire would lead to gluttony and inevitable decay. Cole’s paintings remind me the stages that the blogger tries to explain in his civilizational cycle. Let me rephrase his exposition and add a little input of my own.

The Savage State

Brutal patriarchy. Very harsh for women. In the most primitive or barbarous stage of human prehistory, little reds riding hoods are just the property of the wolves. They can be raped or even killed at the discretion of the lycanthrope in question. There is low child survival and early sexual maturity. Both males and resources are scarce and reproduction is prioritized. Endless tribal wars to obtain young females and resources. The male-female relationship is a master-slave one. Polygamy reigns and the way that males get access to the rather cute bodies of their little reds is through tournament mating (see my excerpts of Sparks’ first chapter).

The Arcadian or Pastoral State

Humane patriarchy. This is the point when civilization began thousands of years ago. Men stop killing each other in tribal wars and women have already some rights. Survival is prioritized and there is more male stability. Polygamy starts to be abandoned (cf. my excerpts of Starks’ last chapter). Soft patriarchy also marks the beginning of monogamy and a pair-bonding society. The master-slave relationship is replaced for an adult-child one, where men are the adults and treat women as grown-up children. In this society civilization starts to thrive. The economy of the tribe grows and the population develops patterns to work around the environment. There is still high fertility rate but late sexual maturity. Resource stability increases. Although the laws explicitly favor men over women, an embryonic form of feminism begins. Today’s feminists claim that they were oppressed during the humane or soft patriarchy. “They really weren’t,” says the blogger. “It was a very balanced society if you think about it.”

The Consummation of Empire

Feminism. High child survival. Low fertility rate and late sexual maturity. Resource stability increases but the welfare state starts to replace the male provider. Women are exempted from their former responsibilities—marriage, motherhood, submissiveness—but men are still obliged to provide resources even after their wives have applied for divorces. Women obtain authority that traditionally was a privilege for men but liberated women cannot be drafted—again, they enjoy authority without responsibilities while men are expected to have exactly the same responsibilities they had in the patriarchal society. The laws favor women and more laws are being issued at the expense of men. The welfare state cannot be reformed because of universal suffrage, and women consist of 51-52 percent of the population. “Once women can vote the slow death begins and cannot be stopped democratically.”

Destruction

Feminism run amok. Harsh for men. The women have now completely betrayed us by claiming that they don’t need us anymore. Since egalitarianism cannot be enforced by laws in a dimorphic species like humans, it devolves into open misandry: an anti-male society, or more specifically an anti-white males society. Right now we are in this terminal stage. All those horror stories of the divorce courts we hear in the men’s rights movement describe this late stage. We can see it in Japan too, even though the Japanese don’t suffer a Jewish problem. If Third Reich Germany was destined to become an Empire of the Yang, what we might be calling the Empire of the yin reigns today throughout the West. According to the blogger this is our paradox: “The more peaceful or successful a society becomes the closer it becomes to collapse.” There are no matriarchal civilizations in recorded human history because it is men who carry civilization over our own shoulders.

Desolation

Economic collapse. Marriage is abandoned. The welfare state becomes overburdened and finally crashes. The demographic winter of whites ends in societal collapse. Once civilization collapses “the whole system resets back to traditionalism.” According to the blogger the best way to keep women at bay is through poverty. More specifically, in order to reestablish patriarchy three factors must come together: a hostile environment, male scarcity and resource scarcity. The blogger believes that there cannot be a return to patriarchy without the three factors because, to use his crude words, women would still use their pussies to obtain what they want. In a non-collapsed milieu they won’t submit yet but trade sex for food and protection. But we represent survival for the weak sex. Once these factors come together women will beg us to protect them as in times of yore. If there are no men around women, the latter start dying like flies.

* * *

As I said, the blogger devoted five videos to explain the cycle that I am paraphrasing here, injecting bits of pro-white concerns absent in his YouTube channel.

In one of his videos he used the paradigm of Ancient Rome, when the father was the judge, jury and executioner of the family (pater familias). Roman history does not even register how many apprentices of feminists were executed by their husbands or fathers, as women are still executed today by husbands and fathers in the Muslim world. In our culture, decadence started after the Second Punic War, when a vital law was abolished. Lex Oppia restricted not only a woman’s wealth (it forbade any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold) but also her display of wealth. 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 mudblood 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, especially in England. 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. From the 1990s feminism transformed itself into runaway feminism. In 2010 the welfare state was expanded again to include Obamacare. The beneficiaries of this state are women, especially single mothers, not men. Marginalizing the engine of society will end in economic collapse, something that I believe will happen under the watch of the next US president, whether Clinton or Trump.

For the blogger, the most important question is exactly when we handed power over these creatures of long hair and short ideas. “We dropped the ball when we ceded authority to women.” He illustrates the cycle in an elaborate diagram:

Tags Degeneracy, United States

Feminism Manosphere Patriarchy Women

War of the sexes, 13

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

Guide to the manosphere

According to the blogger, the manosphere can be divided in (1) Anti-feminists, (2) Men’s Rights Activists and (3) Men’s Going Their Own Way or MGTOW.

The blogger implied that Anti-feminists and Men’s Rights Activists are on half-way stepping stones at the middle of a turbulent river to reach the more radical MGTOW territories. What he said of 1 and 2 strongly reminded me my own awakening path: Counter-Jihadism, White Nationalism and finally National Socialism.

After the eleventh minute of another video, “MGTOW for dummies,” he says that “female nature is detrimental to men.” The only way a society could work is “if men control women—I mean physically control women with a strict patriarchy.” But as this is impossible in what I’d call an anti-white System, “there is no reason to associate with women” because “her nature is going to destroy him.” He adds that it is not the women’s fault: they are hypergamous by nature and we just cannot impose a patriarchal system in a gynocentric society. In other videos he explains these terms:

Hypergamy – The instinct that moves the females (of many species I would add) chose the males for their capacity to obtain resources; thus she can change mates at any time. Hypergamy is materialism plus opportunism plus selfishness. In the case of our species, women want to get married into a higher caste system or social group.

Gynocentrism – A society centered on or concerned exclusively with women; taking the female, or specifically a feminist, point of view. More broadly from a meta-historical perspective, gynocentrism is male disposability. The female is to be protected while the male is disposable.

Feminism – Women using the government to obtain men’s resources by proxy. The welfare state replaces the male provider of the traditional family, and the laws favor women over men.

When I listened the blogger’s words, that we cannot impose a patriarchal system on a gynocentric society, my mind flew over a cute ginger-hair girl I used to fancy while living in England. I indeed had an opportunity—she was the one who approached me on the street—but ultimately I could do nothing. I needed money to move somewhere the System could not interfere with a traditional family. Otherwise the precocious nymphet would escape my patriarchal Diktat.

The blogger also speaks with incredible crudity: something unconceivable for older generations. But that’s the way we must speak out while the fair race, so emblematic in this English girl, is facing extinction. In “Let’s talk about solutions” he proposed that, to fix the problem, our women—:

Should not be allowed to vote
Cannot have property
Cannot work without the permission of their husbands
Cannot apply for divorce and
In divorces the children go with the father.

In one of my autobiographical books I tell an early 1960s anecdote. It was the first time that I heard about an unheard of happening: a boy said in our Peugeot he knew of a couple that was divorcing. My father was driving and simply could not believe it!

The bulleted draconian measures are not enough. The final chapter of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation must always be in the radar of the architects of the ethnostate, as well as LOTR’s penultimate chapter. Later in his video the blogger says, “in order for traditionalism to work we’ll need to give up technology and go back to farming instead of offices.” Unfortunately, he knows nothing about Mammon, energy devolution and the main thesis of the history of the white race in the books of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp. Moreover, I am afraid to say that the blogger’s idiosyncrasy is often as nihilistic and degenerate as that of the typical liberal.

But there are salvable aspects in his philosophy. In the next entry we will see what is perhaps the blogger’s most original contribution to the manosphere, the Traditionalism Cycle.

Tags Degeneracy

Axiology Degenerate art George Lincoln Rockwell Individualism Nordicism Painting Patriarchy Rape of the Sabine Women

Ethnosuicidal nationalists

Post author By C .T.
Post date January 1, 2016
121 Comments on Ethnosuicidal nationalists

Henry Wallis: The Death of Thomas Chatterton. The subject of
the painting was the poet who died after he poisoned himself.

______ 卐 ______

“‪Even the pro-white ‘movement’ seems beholden to this irresistible death-wish.‬”

—‪Joseph Walsh

The revelation has come to me that liberals, conservatives and white nationalists are, ultimately, on the same fucking page. The only behavioral difference between them is speed.

Gentile liberals, led by the Jews, are driving the train on the road to white extinction on high speed. Non-Jew conservatives are merely trying to lower the speed by softly hitting the break here and there to slightly hinder the liberals’ ways. White nationalists, already outside the train, are heading exactly toward the same direction but at a much slower, walking pace.

Let us compare the values of the self-styled White Nationalists with the real defenders of the Aryan race, the National Socialists:

• Hitler and the NS men organized themselves in a political party—the very first, elemental step to make a difference in the real world. The WN cyber-based “movement” on the other hand refuses to leave the homely comfort zone. Nationalists who are doing this: Every single “neonazi,” white nationalist, southern nationalist or conservative racialist today, including old internet sites such as Stormfront, American Renaissance, VDARE and Majority Rights. None of them has dared to form a racist party. (In the case of Greece’s Golden Dawn, they are not Aryans.)

• The NS men clearly defined their race as Germanic (which includes Austria, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland and even some parts of the old Soviet Union; furthermore, Hitler dreamt to share the world with the Anglo-Saxons, especially with the English Empire). Those who advocate WN on the other hand are predominately anti-nordicists, and anti-eugenicists to the core. Like the American “conservatives” of the Republican Party who treat mestizos as equals, in order not to offend Mediterranean sensibilities they refuse to acknowledge that the standard for whiteness is the Nordic type. Many have no objection to grant amnesty to the off-white population in Europe, even if that means the eventual mongrelization of the real whites. Nationalists who are doing this: Most bloggers and commenters over the boards, especially at the WN webzine Counter-Currents Publishing.

• Hitler and the inner NS party abandoned Christianity, a Levantine-inspired religion which only enfeebles the Germanic peoples. Many WNsts, incapable of radical departures from our parents’ religion, unabashedly proclaim their Christianity and have blinded themselves about the toxicity of the Galilean cult. Nationalists who are doing this: Stormfront, the Traditionalist Youth Network led by the two Matts, James Edwards of The Political Cesspool, Occidental Dissent, the neonazi Daily Stormer and even Metapedia.

• The NS men, even the Catholics and Protestants, gave up Christian axiology and became pragmatic Nietzscheans. On the other hand Christian and secular WNsts subscribe it: both groups strive to appear as the proverbial “good Christians.” The neonazi Carolyn Yeager and the historian Arthur Kemp even have tried to rationalize away the Germans’ legit will to conquer those Slavs who had delivered their nation to the Bolshevik Jews. (Clarification: George Lincoln Rockwell and William L. Pierce flourished before the term “white nationalist” became fashionable. They were not WNsts but rather followed the spirit of Hitlerian National Socialism. Neither subscribed the Christian scruples regarding our interaction with the radical Other.) White Nationalists who still subscribe Christian axiology: With the exception of VNN Forum virtually all of them. Moreover, like Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent and many commenters in those forums, racialists freak out piously when a lone wolf makes a scene leaving some enemy casualties behind. Even Irmin Vinson, who wrote an apologetic book about Hitler, did this.

• Hitler and the NS men took for granted sexual polarity. Like all militaristic Western cultures they subscribed patriarchy—no woman was allowed in the leadership class. WN males on the other hand have become feminized beyond recognition. Most of them have no problem at all with the feminism that has been wreaking havoc in the fair race and the morals of the fair sex since the 1960s. The NS men had an absolute will to biological fertility. Feminized WNsts have no problem allowing career women in their conferences or practicing ethnosuicidal birth control. Nationalists who are doing this: With the exception of Andrew Anglin all notable WN websites and conferences, including the London Forum which admits women speakers, and even “revolutionary” or eccentric groups like those of Harold Covington and Sebastian Ronin.

• Ethos. The German National Socialists simply and straightforwardly pursued the fulfillment of their duty to the point of dying heroically for the fate of their race. Like the Republican Romans their ethos was severe, Stoic and brutal. Feminized WNsts on the other hand still live under the illusion of the American dream, or the infantile pursuit of universal happiness. Like the late imperial Romans they are hedonists. They lack the Teutonic spirit of tribal sacrifice and the saying, “We don’t stand a chance unless our men become killing machines and our women birthing machines” sounds like antimusic to their ears. Nationalists unwilling to sacrifice themselves for the 14/88 words: All of them! Who lusts to become a bloodthirsty soldier or literally force our spoiled women to become birthing machines? With the exception of the late David Lane, Who treasures in his heart the history of the rape of the Sabine women which gave birth to the virile Republican Rome?

• Enemy #1: materialism / consumerism. Hitler and the NS men pursued collectivism, honor, structure, order and militarism always in harmony with the aesthetic drive of the Aryan soul. In Uncle Adolf’s table talks for example the subjects of the most beautiful Western architecture, painting and classical music are omnipresent as the blueprints of what the Reich would be after the consolidation of his conquests. On the other hand, even those WNsts who think like real men and advocate a final solution to the non-Gentile problem pursue the freedom of the civilian societies and, to boot, the cult of the atomized individual: libertarianism. In WN forums you don’t see much criticism of larger factors of white decline than the Jewish problem such as the mercantile societies that degenerated in capitalism and, presently, full-blown hedonistic materialism: the uttermost corruptor of the Aryan soul for any honest reader of the History of the white race. Nationalists who have not assimilated the wisdom behind the saying “The Cathedrals were built to the glory of God; New York was built to the glory of Mammon”: countless, including Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network.

• The NS men aimed for war and conquest. Adolf Hitler said: “Any other course that does not lead to the strongest race ruling mankind, means mankind has passed the peak of its development and the end will not be the reign of any supreme moral idea, but degeneration into barbarism and eventually chaos.” Feminized WNsts on the other hand cherish democracy, pacifism and even the secularists make the sign of the holy cross when sighting true Aryan militarism. Compare the Führer’s words with a statement of Kevin MacDonald during an interview by a Jew (!) about the differences between WN and NS: “The white advocacy movement, as I see it, is not exterminating anybody. It is simply going to assert our interests within the democratic form of government that we have… It doesn’t advocate conquering Mexico, you know—anything like that. There are lots of differences.” White nationalists who think like the professor and his Occidental Observer: All Christian nationalists; the (European) New Right and the American New Right—which are not Christian—, the poseurs of Alternative Right (and Richard Spencer’s Radix). In his videos David Duke even shares the Christian sense of compassion for the colored races.

• Finally, Hitler and the NS men recognized the problem of cultural degeneracy in general and degenerate music in particular. Hans Severus Ziegler opened the exhibition “Degenerate music” in 1937 in Düsseldorf. Later, it was presented in Weimar, Munich and Vienna. The hedonist WNsts on the other hand enjoy themselves with the American-Negro phenomenon of rock antimusic. They are basically wiggers. The commenter whose words I quoted in the epigraph has also said: “Degenerate music leads to the extinction of the White race. It is racially suicidal.” Here is a good quote from Encyclopedia Dramatica:

Whereas the original Nazis actually maintained their German culture, celebrating, appreciating and reveling in German art, literature and music, modern-day Nazis get their culture by listening to a lot of White Power Rock’n’Roll. Never mind the fact that rock’n’roll is essentially African-American folk music borrowed by the White Man, and that “borrowing” something from another culture is the definition of multiculturalism and that Hitler devoted an entire chapter of Mein Kampf describing how the degradation of Aryan culture would lead to the extinction of the white man.

Nationalists who have promoted degenerate music: countless since the old podcasts by Kevin Strom, and more recently Alex Kurtagić, Greg Johnson and many, many more. Virtually all male hosts, guest speakers and listeners of WN radio podcasts love simian music, including some internet shows hosted by one of our best European minds, Tomislav Sunić. In a nutshell, presently all white racists, even the sophisticate, are inadvertently committing racial suicide.

My priesthood

From this post henceforth I’ll add further entries only if I see big events in the news (more spectacular events than the Jihad attacks in Paris and San Bernardino last year). The inescapable fact is that in WN there is no actual resistance against the genocidal mass immigration of non-whites and forced fraternisation with them. Apparently George L. Rockwell was the last National Socialist of the West. Being a true Nazi involves forming a fascist party in Europe, or much more difficult, in North America—something that contemporary racists not dare do.

Trying to summon or discipline bourgeois racists that don’t leave the internet destroys the morale of the true fanatic: the priest of the 14 words. Unless these cowards become brave, unlikely in a race that is presumed dead, I must do something else. Pity!: with no Aryan men offering real resistance to the System I have no choice but to try to fulfill my priesthood alone.

Here’s my plan as a hermit. My books on childrearing ^[1] could help the future ethnostate, which capital should already be in Berlin had it not been for the Anglo-Saxons. But this State would only be reborn if this race repents from its unforgivable sin—if that is possible.

[1] I refer not only to Hojas Susurrantes but to two more series of several books each: Extermination and From St Francis to Himmler.
My working hypothesis is that non-abusive childrearing will prevent both mental disorders and even treason in the Aryan ethnostate.

September update

Michael Bell has recently authored “The caste system of the Alt Right” that shows an image of the Egyptian pyramids at the top. Instead, the editor should have chosen the symbol of the truncated square pyramid, so common in the architecture of the Mesoamerican civilizations.

In his flawed caste system Bell places white nationalists at the top of the pyramid, but they in fact belong to a lower caste, as explained above (see also the recent interview of me by Jake that has been published at The Right Stuff).

It is the National Socialists and a couple of American fighters, Rockwell and Pierce, who were at the top of the complete square pyramid. Bell also omitted Linder who, as an exterminationist (and an anti-Christian) could share a place at the top.

This said, after Hillary Clinton’s blunder in delivering an anti-Altright speech, it has been mainstreamed. Bell’s article may still be useful. Newcomers can now map the Altright thanks to that article, especially the castes at the very bottom of the pyramid.

Tags Adolf Hitler, Christian problem (CP), Feminized western males, Materialism / capitalism, National Socialism

Conservatism Islamization of Europe Mainstream media Patriarchy Women

Coming with the wind

“Patriarchy is coming back. It’s just a question of whether it will be a White Patriarchy or an Islamic one.”

—Brothermattiex

Watching the hypocritical Fox News these months I’ve seen many times Sean Hannity criticizing what he calls “radical Islam.” He has been saying that the clash of our civilizations consists that Muslims under Sharia don’t allow women to go outside their homes without a male companion. He has also been saying that, unlike us, Sharia Muslims don’t castigate marital rape or the “denigration” of women as second-class citizens; and that in Saudi Arabia women must cover themselves as their husbands want, etcetera.

I am about the age of Hannity and use the word “hypocrite” because the guy is concealing the fact that, in the last decades, sexual mores have shifted almost a hundred and eighty degrees in this continent.

In a couple of those opera-like theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a child and then in my teens. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression in my juvenile mind:

• Throughout the film, since the opening scenes in Georgia, the costumes of women of society always hid the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the southern belle dresses; and I am talking not only about Scarlett and the female elements in her family but of Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women (Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave in the West)

• At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is disrupted by the declaration of war all women are taking their mandatory nap (except Scarlett who escapes the upstairs bedroom) while men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman had a voice in such matters

• Even after Scarlett is widowed she is called “Mrs. Charles Hamilton” in the sense that her reputation still belonged to the shadow of a man who died in uniform

• Similarly, after the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices make a night raid on a shanty town after Scarlett is attacked while driving through it alone, resulting in Frank’s death. It goes without saying that in that night the women of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature: what women were expected to do

• Once married with Rhett Butler, “Captain Butler” was always greeted first by street pedestrians while walking with Scarlett. She, faithfully beside her husband in those street walks, was only mentioned after the pedestrians greeted Rhett

• Never forget the marital rape of Scarlett when Rhett carried her up in his arms telling her, “This is one night you’re not turning me out.”

In those fancy theatres of yore when I was young, the film depicted very healthy Occidental mores—before values got corrupted and completely inverted in this darkest hour of ours.

Have Hannity et al lost memory of history by implying that our culture has always subscribed feminism? What is going on in their “conservative” minds? I tell you: they are liberals, phony traditionalists. Racists should treasure Gone with the Wind instead of a thousand movies of this century as every film today, and TV program without exception, contains ethnosuicidal messages. Mention any movie filmed after the 1960s and, if I’ve seen it, in the comments section I’ll tell you the ethnosuicidal message. But of course: this is something that phony traditionalists, like every Fox News host, will never acknowledge.

Pace conservatives and even quite a few white nationalists, patriarchy is coming back throughout the West with or without a great awakening in the white race. Demography is destiny and, with dozens of millions of Muslims in Europe, the wind has already started to change. The only question is if the coming patriarchs will behave like Clark Gable or, more probably, like towelhead decapitators.

Arthur Schopenhauer Intelligence quotient (IQ) Patriarchy Women

On Women

Post author By C .T.
Post date August 15, 2015
11 Comments on On Women

by Arthur Schopenhauer

In his chapter “On Women” of the very brilliant collection published in English as Essays and Aphorisms, Schopenhauer wrote the most insightful thoughts about women I have ever read, of which I’ll quote some sentences (no ellipsis added between excerpts):

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, “man”.

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of his life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy.

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and more slowly does it mature. The man attains the maturity of his reasoning powers and spiritual faculties hardly before his twenty-eight year; the woman with her eighteenth. And even then it is only reasoning power of a sort: a very limited sort. Thus women never see anything but what is closest to them. To consult women when you are in difficulties, as the ancient Teutons did, is by no means a bad idea: for their way of looking at things is quite different from ours, especially in their propensity for keeping in view the shortest road to a desired goal and in general what lies closest to hand, which we usually overlook precisely because it is right in front of our noses.

It is for this reason too that women display more pity, and consequently more philanthropy and sympathy with the unfortunate, than men do. Thus, while they possess the first and chief virtue [compassion], they are deficient in the secondary one [reason] which is often necessary for achieving the first.

Fundamentally, women exist solely for the propagation of the race. Men are by nature indifferent to one another; but women are by nature enemies. Because in our case a hundred different considerations are involved, while in theirs only one is decisive, namely which man they have succeeded in attracting. Another reason may be that, because they are all in the same profession, they all stand much closer to one another than men do.

Man strives for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But women is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e., amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have provided incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value. What there ought to be is housewives and girls who hope to become housewives and who are therefore educated, not in arrogant haughtiness, but in domesticity and submissiveness.

Patriarchy Real men Women

Caperucitas

The hilarious preface of Griffin’s biography about Pierce—my previous post: here—shows what I have been trying to say: that Little Red Riding Hoods, as I call women in my soliloquies (“Caperucitas” in my native language) have no place in a Syssitia guild for priests of the 14 words.

Las Caperucitas think with their emotions, not with their heads. Our guilds must be Boys Only Clubs.

Here in Mexico the only whites who have remained pure blooded Aryans for generations are the Mennonites. They forbid their Little Reds to learn Spanish—the language to contact the mud world—and know only a sort of German dialect.

After The Day of the Rope the surviving wolves will have to reinstate old fashioned marriage, patriarchy and control their women.

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.)

Covington 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).

Blacks Friedrich Nietzsche Miscegenation Patriarchy Rape of the Sabine Women Real men Women

New Aryan code

Yesterday at Counter Currents a Jarl commented in an article about miscegenation:

My wife’s sister is married to a Ugandan and they have two children. She met him doing overseas charity work as a graduate nurse. She’s from a fairly conservative Christian family and no one had a problem with it, not even the grandparents who were born circa 1930. The eldest child of the marriage is going on three and speaking with his father’s accent. Needless to add, he looks more negro than white.

My wife knows my racial convictions and the result is profound cognitive dissonance that sometimes spills over into painful conflict between us. Obviously, the proper way to deal with a situation like this is to lie to some extent. Adopt a relatively respectable paleo-con type position a la John Derbyshire and say “I don’t have a problem with miscegenation, I just want a curtailment of mass immigration, a nation with a strong ethnic core, etc.” But I’ve been foolish enough to tell her my real views. So now we just agree not to talk out it. Fortunately we don’t see a lot of her family due to geography.

The political question that I think comes out of nasty situations like mine is, firstly, what should be our fully articulated, esoteric policy towards mixed race people, and secondly, does there need to be an exoteric doctrine for mass consumption?

What I find bothersome of this comment is Jarl’s feminized reaction. Not long ago, in a family meeting I told my sister that for a White to have children with a Negro is unforgivable as such behavior destroys Nature’s labor of millennia: it destroys it forever the bloodline of that particular family. She resented my comment but I care a rat’s ass for women’s sensibilities.

I used to believe that when women say anti-white things they should be talked back brutally. I now see that it is altogether useless to discuss with my sister.

Recently I elaborated a code of speech that avoids any feminization like the one endured by Jarl, so concerned about political correctness that is even afraid of being frank with his wife. This is a guideline for the priest of the 14 words. In your private life:

Thou shalt only speak to Aryan males.

You won’t believe it but this code avoids lots of trouble. I still can speak of inane subjects with women or coloreds, and believe me: there are millions of the later in the silly town where I’m living.

But about the real stuff I shall only speak with white males. If the Aryan guy happens to be brainwashed my code still makes conversation, or even discussion, much easier. At any event, what’s the point in trying to discuss with white women or non-whites? Women think with their emotions, and in these times of treason most of them have become the most notorious race traitors of history. A noble Aryan man, on the other hand, can understand that “the sin against the Holy Ghost,” i.e., the sin involving colored blood, destroys his gene pool forever.

As to “an exoteric doctrine for mass consumption” to use Jarl’s words, that certainly involves telling the masses that miscegenation is the ultimate sin. Never mind about their feelings or hysterical reaction. If the Jews are allowed to consider sinful marrying outside their group, why the hell can’t Aryans be allowed to do the same? If non-whites or women happen to listen that universal message it would be accidental. The sole purpose is that Aryan males get it.

Wives also should be treated according to my new guideline. There’s no point in trying to discuss with them when, by Nature, they side the current zeitgeist. And unlike the times of the painter Grant Wood, today the zeitgeist of the strong, the zeitgeist of the Judeo-liberals is certainly more powerful than the views of an alienated husband. We must fight for a society that puts women in their place, especially opinionated wives: Austen-like ethno-states where they will be prevented to sacrifice motherhood for careers. If a wife listens our hate speech that’s only because we invited our rude comrades to our homes and the submissive housekeeper happened to be serving them coffee.

“Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has a single solution: that is pregnancy” said Nietzsche. A good, marital rape like the one endured by Scarlett O’Hara when a drunk Rhett Butler carried her up the large stairs in his arms telling her, “This is one night you’re not turning me out” during that famous scene of Gone with the Wind will do the trick.

Feminism Hitler Youth Patriarchy Real men Women

Reestablishing masculinity

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 1, 2015
14 Comments on 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:

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:

Hi 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.

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.

Tags Feminized western males

¿Me Ayudarás? (book) Autobiography Child abuse Ethnic cleansing Evil Hojas Susurrantes (book) Justice / revenge Neanderthalism Patriarchy Rape of the Sabine Women Real men

Extermination • II

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 23, 2014

“How much good it would do if one could exterminate the human race.”

—Bertrand Russell

Quoted in A Bibliography of Bertrand Russell

No one, to my knowledge, has written a thorough analysis of his parents. But what I said in Hojas Susurrantes (abbreviated HS this line up) about the murder of children’s souls only lays the foundation for a further and deeper elaboration of Psychohistory, which in the last analysis shows us that the human species is a failed species.

From a careful reading of HS it cannot but be inferred that most of the human species should be exterminated—on top of what is written there, because, as Schopenhauer wrote, if the world is hell, human beings are the devils of the animals. And if we want to save the animals from the human devils, there is no choice but to dispatch the latter.

That only some of the most beautiful specimens of whites deserve to continue living; so beautiful in body and soul that they have left human devilry behind, has become so obvious to me as that the cow is a mammal—as we shall see in this sort of continuation to HS.

By way of a prologue

Most of the text of HS is not original. There are original parts, yes: the long letter to the mother with which the book opens; my experiences to twelve years, and the final part where I analyze my fear of damnation as an internal persecutor begotten as a result of my father’s crimes. However, most of HS consists of long paraphrases of other peoples’ ideas, pastiches and re-workings of their works to present the trauma model (refuting, along the way, the fraudulent professions of “mental health”).

I believe that, as a didactic work to Aryanize the trauma model away from the Semitic or philo-Semitic hands of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause, HS honors its goal. But the problems I raised—remember how the fourth book in HS ends by mentioning the burning of children by their Semitic parents in the Ancient World, wondering if mankind had a right to exist—were left unsolved. Fortunately, this century will be crucial because of the energy devolution that is upon us, especially of oil, for Nature’s killing these humans that I hate so much and whose destruction has become my personal religion.

I will not live to see my day: that which for decades I have called the extermination of the Neanderthals, in which I include not only non-whites but those white traitors who brought them into the West. But the burden is upon me to bear witness to why I believe that the être supérieur should yearn, as so desperately I do, that the primitive version of modified apes, as in my soliloquies I call the humans of today, both white and of other races, becomes extinct.

Another huge issue never made onto paper is a detailed narrative of my agonizing experiences in 1976, when I was only seventeen, and ten years later, while living in California: experiences outlined in HS. Here I hope to talk more about those life lessons. So to confess why I hate humanity to the extent of wanting to exterminate it, at the same time being the first to analyze in detail his destructive parents—so that, after due extermination, in the Acadia of my most cherished dreams the treatment to children and animals be free of my hells—is the double helix of this new text.

But there is much more than that. In the Neanderthalesque literature that I run into the bookstores I never see confessions about male sexuality that go to the merits. In HS I quoted an Austrian writer who said that autobiography is the most difficult literary art because the adept of self-portraiture has to betray himself. Of course! How it won’t be self-betrayal for a respectable writer to recount, say, his sexual fantasies? Previous literature to the “total autobiography” suffers from cowardice insofar a text that confesses everything could be posthumous. But the so-called giants of letters, that I find so small that I do not read, never reached such confessional level. They stayed in the pre-autobiographical phase of literature. Here I will try to amend this lacuna in the section entitled “In search of the soulmate.”

Quite apart from the autobiographical question, we propose the need to rescue and/or abduct Aryan women—only the very young and pretty—from what will become multiracial clans after the civilizational collapse pulls us over to strictly ethnic strongholds. To paraphrase George Lincoln Rockwell, “He who doesn’t rape won’t fight!” will be the motto of a Blonde Beast redivivus that, by getting his manhood back, will not only become genocidal of everything that does not resemble him. The Beast will hunt for his females once the collective unconscious falls back to its original form by historical inertia forces. The brutality and savagery resulting from the collapse of the rule of law, together with the most elemental Darwinism, will mercilessly weed the feminized white males. Thanks to the energy devolution of our century the yin where today is pending the psyche of these whites will swing, like a pendulum of kilometric arc, to the Yang extreme of the right.

We won’t only lucubrate to kill non-whites around the globe and renaming cities currently inhabited by people of brown, yellow or black skin with names like “Pierce City” or “Himmler City.” The idea is that, alongside the extermination of Neanderthals, the Beast will have to go on the hunt for females, abandoning a masturbation currently afflicting millions of feminized males. The Aryan sperm injected involuntarily into those who had fornicated with the colored will fulfill the fourteen words during a holy war that will cover the world—and this time fulfilling them by brute force. The obvious objective will be to form families thank to the same élan vital that breathed life into the ancient founders of Rome by abducting, and raping, their attractive Sabine neighbors. In other words: if every nation, not just ancient Rome, is born with violence, after the darkest night of the West the Aryan Nation can only be born with extreme violence: from limit to limit of the pendulum’s arc, from the extreme yin to the extreme Yang.

Basic historical inertia: the swung pendulum is rushing toward us with vengeful force because of the incredible liberal lengths it reached in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. So far it swung toward the dark side that the “Day of the Rope” so dreamt by William Pierce in The Turner Diaries, a novel written in the 1970s but projected in the 90s, won’t be enough. We will go further. Neither Pierce nor Covington—much less Covington: a de facto feminist novelist in Freedom’s Sons—dared to predict the abduction of the new Sabine women. They did not seem to have considered that if the ancient Latins (Aryans) abducted and raped the Sabines (Aryans who copulated with Aryans), with much greater reason will be legitimate to direct our rediscovered sexual primitivism over those who delivered themselves to non-whites!

Returning to the subject of total autobiography. The victim of his parents and the fucking society who has lost everything requires getting revenge against those who spit on his cross. Only revenge heals the soul, and as I cannot settle scores with the Neanderthals at least I can tell what they did. Going into detail of what I omitted in HS will show how the evil that infected my parents also infected my siblings and how some of them, in turn, voluntarily surrendered to evil after reaching adulthood. Also, when analyzing my family, relatives, acquaintances, close and distant persons I met and even strangers whom I only interacted over the net, we will see how their behavior helped me realize that the human being is so obsolete a version of Homo sapiens as the niggers of the seedy hostel with whom I spent a night.

Finally, my exterminator conclusions I have come regarding all these people have relevance for understanding the darkest hour of the West. This topic sucked my recent years to the point of putting on a blog in English and its ramifications over a thousand entries summarized in two books: The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour and Day of Wrath (which I will be abbreviating as FR and DW). The book Extermination, that I now start, is relevant because the evil that ails the white man is the same one that destroyed my tree and its leaves and my dear family of Palenque.* And if I can unravel the evil that destroyed me I will probably unravel the evil that destroys the white race around the world, including the mass migration of non-whites in London I witnessed last month.

In other words, the evil I saw in my parents and the people I met (cf. HS) and the evil I see in westerners who are committing ethnic suicide (cf. FR and DW) is, down to the core, two sides of the same coin. That alone deserves my venture into this new literary genre: the vindictive autobiography.

Mexico City
September 2014

___________________________________________

(*) Note that this book is written for those who have already read my previous books, including HS, and understand exactly what I mean, for example, with the word “Palenque”: the house where I experienced happiness before the catastrophe of my adolescence.

Tags Feminized western males