“If a woman has only manly virtues, we run away…”
—Nietzsche
Category: Women
Categories
Japanese proverbs
“Never trust a woman
even if she has borne you seven children.”
“The tongue of woman is her sword, which never rusts.”
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):
1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
8th April 1942, midday
Cowardice of the middle classes—The Nazi Party wins over the workers—Nuremberg, the citadel of Marxism—German workers and their Jewish masters.
Since the beginning of my political activity, I have made it a rule not to curry favour with the bourgeoisie. The political attitude of that class is marked by the sign of cowardice. It concerns itself exclusively with order and tranquillity, and we know in what sense to understand that. I aimed, instead, to awaken the enthusiasm of the working-class world for my ideas.
The first years of my struggle were therefore concentrated on the object: win over the worker to the National Socialist Party. Here’s how I set about it:
- I followed the example of the Marxist parties by putting up posters in the most striking red.
- I used propaganda trucks that were literally carpeted with posters of a flaming red, equipped with equally red flags and occupied by thundering loud-speakers.
- I saw to it that all the initiates of the movement came to meetings without stiff collars and without ties, adopting the free-and-easy style so as to get the workers into their confidence.
- As for the bourgeois elements who, without being real fanatics, wanted to join the ranks of the National Socialist Party, I did everything to put them off—resorting to bawled- out propaganda, dishevelled clothes, etc. My object was to rid myself right from the beginning of the revolutionaries in rabbit’s pelts.
- I ordered our protective service to treat our opponents roughly and chuck them out of our meetings with so little mildness that the enemy press—which otherwise would have ignored our gatherings—used to make much of the blows and wounds they give rise to, and thus called attention to them.
I dealt with the women from the Marxist camp who took part in the discussions by making them look ridiculous, by drawing attention either to the holes in their stockings or to the fact that their children were filthy. To convince women by reasoned argument is always impossible; to have had them roughly handled by the ushers of the meeting would have aroused public indignation, and so our best plan was to have recourse to ridicule, and this produced excellent results.
Julius Streicher rendered particularly valuable service in our struggle to gain the support of the working classes. And now it is he whom we must thank for the capture of Nuremberg, that one-time stronghold of Marxism. The population of that city—in so far as they were interested in any way in politics, and with the exception of the Jewish colony—was made up of working men who were members either of the Socialist Party or of the Communist Party.
By his unrelenting attacks on the Jews, Streicher succeeded in alienating the workmen from their Jewish masters. Even so, the workers of Nuremberg, engaged for the most part in the metal trades, were by no means an unintelligent lot, and they were most stubborn adherents of Marxism. Streicher’s success, then, is all the more meritorious, and he showed himself to be a master of tactics in the handling of a meeting. Not only did he annihilate the shop stewards with a torrent of ridicule, but he deprived them of any means of retaliation, and made use of their discomfiture as an additional weapon with which to convince the workers.
Categories
On Fox News’ bimbo
Megyn Kelly’s ambush on The Donald during the Republican presidential debate only confirms our view that no woman should hold a position of responsibility.
Yesterday night The Donald reacted hilariously telling CNN’s mulatto host: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her—wherever.”
This alludes to Megyn’s menstruation. The Donald implied that, a couple of days ago, Fox’ bimbo was in such mood because it was her time of the month.
Categories
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.
Categories
The Fame, 1
From The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds:
An Up-Close Portrait of William Pierce
by Robert Griffin
Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies oneself;
One thing I know that never dies:
The fame of a dead man’s deeds.
—Pre-Christian Norse poem.
PREFACE
It was a little after 7:00 p.m. on one of the pleasant summer evenings I had come to expect in the mountains of West Virginia. I was waiting for William Pierce in his cluttered, book-lined office in the National Alliance headquarters building. I had been living in this remote area on Pierce’s property for over two weeks at that point. When I had come to his office a couple of minutes before, I was surprised to find that Pierce wasn’t there. We were well into a series of interviews I was conducting with him in the evenings, and he’d always been here when I arrived. I assumed that something had held him up and that he would be along in a minute or two. I set up my tape recorder and went over the notes I had put together about the areas I wanted to explore during that night’s session.
I had just finished going through my notes when out of the corner of my eye I saw someone come in through the door to the left of where I was seated. It wasn’t Pierce but rather his new wife, with Pierce right behind her. That surprised me; always before, Pierce had been alone.
“Bob, could you and I talk after you talk with Bill?” Pierce’ s wife said in her halting, heavily-accented English and in her polite and gentle way. She had come from Eastern Europe to West Virginia less than a year before. She and Pierce had not met before she came, and after she was here only a month they married. Pierce’s wife is an attractive woman of about fifty I would guess, with auburn hair and very fair skin. She had taught art to children in her native country. I was taken by her calling him “Bill.” She was the only one who lived or worked on the property who did. To everyone else, including me, he was Dr. Pierce. She seemed on edge about something. She was usually smiling and upbeat, but not now.
“Oh, why don’t you two talk now,” Pierce interjected gruffly. “You don’t have to wait until later.”
With that, Pierce’s wife sat down on the nearest of a row of chairs that face Pierce’s desk. I was seated a couple of chairs away from the one she sat on. Pierce went around his desk and took a seat behind it.
There we were, the three of us. It was silent for a moment. There was tension in the air, but I had no idea what it was about.
Pierce’s wife turned and faced me. “I have something to ask of you,” she said. She seemed shaken.
“Is there something wrong?” I asked.
“I’m afraid,” she replied.
“Afraid?”
“Bill gets letters from people who say they are going to kill him. I was here for four months before I knew that. I didn’t know that!”
“You do look frightened,” I said.
“I’ve asked Bob [Bob DeMarais, an aide to Pierce] if something happens to Bill to help me return to my country.”
I didn’t know what to say, and up to that point Pierce hadn’t said anything.
“In your book,” she continued, “please don’t use my name or say where I am from. And please don’t show my picture. I am afraid something will happen to me if people know who I am.”
I said I didn’ t want to see her afraid like this, and that I would use some other name for her, and that I wouldn’t say what country she was from or use her picture.
“Thank you,” she said. “That is very nice of you.”
At this point, still seated, she dipped her hand into her pants pocket and pulled out a pistol. I jumped. “I carry this everywhere I go,” she said as she held the gun neck high in her right hand to display it to me.
I was speechless and stared at the gun.
“Don’t be waving that gun around, it’s loaded!” Pierce barked.
“You maybe think it is silly I have a gun,” she said to me, the pistol now in her lap. “But Bill wears a gun all the time. He has it right next to him when he goes to sleep.”
As a matter of fact, Pierce had a holstered weapon strapped to his waist at that very moment—I’d gotten used to that. I reiterated that I would protect her identity.
So I will call Pierce’s wife Irena in the book. It is the only name I have changed.
Categories
Feminism
Excerpted from a 1996 interview
with William Pierce by Kevin Strom:
Feminism is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.
When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem. But when a society begins to decay—when the men lose their self-confidence—then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.
Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it’s a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it’s a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman’s primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.
Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.
At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It’s not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It’s based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.
Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we’re all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There’s no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.
Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I’m not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I’m not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there’ll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won’t have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m not so optimistic as to believe that I’ll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there’s a very good chance we’re going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.
In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It’s not simply a matter of our deciding that we don’t like Mother Nature’s plan because it’s not fashionable any longer, and so we’ll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can’t change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there’s hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women.
It’s true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for normal men and women.
What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children.
If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.
A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.
Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes about feminism being fashionable.
7th July 1942, at dinner
The changing Spanish scene—Where Franco’s policy differs from National Socialism or Fascism—The first Falange—Anti-social elements, female Communists.
General Jodl told the Fuehrer of an incident which had occurred at the Spanish frontier on the occasion of the return home of some wounded of the Blue Division. These men were refused places in the South Express, and when they tried to get into the guard’s van, a company of infantry intervened on the orders of the Military Governor and ejected them. Marshal Keitel suggested that the Blue Division was in bad odour because of its name, the colour blue being a reminder of the old original Falange, which was not a disciple of the Church. In the new Falange admission could be obtained only with the approval of the local priest. The Fuehrer said:
The Spanish situation is developing in a deplorable fashion. Franco, obviously, has not the personality to face up to the political problems of the country. Even so, he started off from a much more favourable position than either the Duce or myself; for we both had not only to capture the State, but also to win over the armed forces to our side. Franco, on the other hand, had both political power and military force in his own hands.
One thing is quite certain. People speak of an intervention from Heaven which decided the civil war in favour of Franco; perhaps so—but it was not an intervention on the part of the madam styled the Mother of God, who has recently been honoured with a Field Marshal’s baton, but the intervention of the German General von Richthofen and the bombs his squadrons rained from the heavens that decided the issue.
Ambassador Hewel said the upper classes in Spain were both bone idle and quite impervious to adverse criticism. Hitler continued: Well, thank goodness, the discipline of both the Reds and the Falangists working in the Todt organisation is first class, and the more of them we can recruit, the better.
But the finding of people capable of clearing up the Spanish political situation will be much more difficult. The problems are more of an internal political, than of a military, nature; and the foremost of them—the food crisis—is, in view of the proverbial idleness of the population, about the thorniest of the lot.
Whether a General possesses the political acumen necessary to success, the future alone will show.
In a report on the disorders in Serbia, it was stated that over 35 per cent of the insurgents taken prisoner were ex-criminals. The Fuehrer said: I am not in the least surprised to hear it, for it only confirms my own ideas about revolutionaries, based on the experience of 1918-19.
If you wish to prevent a revolution by anticipation, the first thing you must do, as soon as the situation becomes critical, is to kill off the whole antisocial rabble; and you can do this only if you have already gathered them safely together in a concentration camp.
The theory that by thus putting them in prison you deprive this antisocial rabble of the benefits of the influence of family life is pure claptrap. If you allow them the blessings of family life, all you are doing is to build the foundation cells for a further brood of criminals. Children who grow up in the company of subversive-minded parents themselves become rogues, for their mothers are invariably of the same pernicious ilk as their rogue fathers.
Our period of struggle gave me valuable experience of this.
At the SS rallies it was the females of the Communist species who were the most despicable. These hags would pelt our men with everything they could lay their hands on, and when our men started to defend themselves, they would hold up their own children, regardless of the danger, as shields to protect themselves.
What better proof than that can you have of their complete disregard for the safety and welfare of their children, in which they show themselves to be the complete antithesis of the normal parent and faithful adherents to their own criminal, antisocial instincts?
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.