I was walking past WalMart’s aisle of literature when I noticed what appeared to be an entire section of books featuring hot Amish women longingly gazing out over the open plain. After a closer look, I realized that I had stumbled onto the new genre that I’ve being hearing about: Amish Porn. They’re a type of romance novel that take place in idyllic American communities.
To the modernist, this trend must appear very strange. American women are liberated from their homes, unburdened by the biological curse of motherhood, and treated by society like tiny castrated men. They’ve achieved the feminist dream! For some reason, a growing number of White American women aren’t even grateful for the cubicle that they’ve worked so hard for the opportunity to dwell in. They spend their lunches in the corporate break room, eating corporate food, in their corporate pantsuits, reading fantasy novels about being barefoot and pregnant in a country kitchen.
Early last year, I was reading National Geographic’s excellent article on the restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church and it suddenly clicked for me. I was peering into America’s future…at a future stage of the same historical process. Every White Advocate ought to take the time to read this article and envision a restoration of Tradition here in America. Picture the return of righteous indigenous authority. How can we spearhead or even trigger it? How can we lead by example?
Every few months, somebody in the White Advocacy movement writes an article lamenting the fact that our movement ought to have more ladies. Our atheists and materialists will keep writing these because they’re fundamentally incapable of offering what women want: Tradition. When I go to church, I’m surrounded by beautiful young women, women who outnumber the men. In fact, women even outnumber men at our monthly White Advocacy meetings. I believe that it’s due to our chapter’s unique emphasis on fostering a family-friendly environment, embracing tradition, and focusing on local community concerns.
People who see things through modern eyes often mistakenly perceive tradition as being oppressive toward women when it’s anything but. For example, the institution of marriage has always been an imposition on men on behalf of women, with traditional women as union members and libertine women serving as “scabs” undermining the collective bargaining power. Ironically, the true enemies of female empowerment are the sluts. At least prostitutes are compensated for their treason!
Tradition is the weapon of choice of the tiny elderly women – the matriarchs:
I recognize her kind from my years in the Soviet Union. There were always women like her in the few churches that were open in those days, women who scrubbed the floors, tended the candlestands, and stood through all the services when Soviet disapproval had frightened off everyone else. In a sense, they nursed the church through its long incarceration. They were the custodians of propriety and custom: Stand like this! Face the altar! Cover your head! Cross yourself! They were insufferable, but the church owes them a great debt. So I do what other Russians do when confronted by these vigilantes: I meekly bow and put away my camera.
One message this excellent article drives home is how some people under even the most hostile and oppressive alien regimes are quietly keeping the flames of religion, tradition, nationalism, and family alive.
This is a tremendous inspiration for me.
Travel back in time and tell a Russian dissident in the eighties that his omnipotent oppressors would disappear altogether within a few years; that the Russian national spirit would rise like a phoenix from the ruins of the once-invincible Jewish oligarchy. Would he believe you? Would you believe me if I told you that there are millions of potential matriarchs hiding in plain sight in corporate break rooms across America, patiently awaiting the opportunity to restore our White American nation and its communities to their former glory?
For example, the institution of marriage has always been an imposition on men on behalf of women
No.
Thank you. What a beautiful essay.
Faithful marriage benefits both sides.
The two sides are man and woman.
@Wikitopian
Although we hvae had disagreements in the past, I must say, sir, this is a very well written entry.
I enjoyed your essay. This is a very interesting development in fiction.
Without any tradition, men and women waste their most energetic and fertile years “constructing their own identity,” which often turns out to be whatever the corporate media and bureaucratic state happen to be promoting.
I do not see any future in the racial materialism and the sexual “game” promoted by some WA sites. Without a genetic substrate, you have no culture, but without culture, tradition, and civilization, what’s the point of a race in the first place? Animals have the luxury of not caring about such things, and good for them. For us to survive and prosper, though, we must also see to address our need for spiritual and community fullfillment–the things we naturally long to bequeath to our own children.
“They spend their lunches in the corporate break room, eating corporate food, in their corporate pantsuits, reading fantasy novels about being barefoot and pregnant in a country kitchen.”
Are you sure that’s what these novels are about? In Germany, the anachronistic literary fashion is to embed budding feminists within European history. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a lot of that in these novels too.
According to that WSJ story, ‘Most bonnet books are G-rated romances, often involving an Amish character who falls for an outsider.’ I’m willing to bet that before the series is over, that Mennonite becomes a Negro.
But I think you’ve pointed out correctly that White women’s instincts are, overall, still healthy. And you’re right about church being the best place to meet women of sound character.
I wouldn’t say that woman is longingly gazing out over the plain. She’s making eyes with the Mennonite fellow.
MGLS and Steve,
I agree that marriage benefits both men and women, and I’m a huge fan of the effect it has in bringing out the best qualities in us. However, I believe the game theory still stands. Many men would wander away from their wives and children or refuse to accept sexually exclusive relationships without the framework of incentives and disincentives that a healthy society puts in place.
Denise and Yosemite,
Thank you.
David,
Roissy, HBD, and NLP types are all stumbling onto facts about human nature. What so many fail to realize, I believe, is that the organic accounting for human nature integrated into tradition is leaps and bounds ahead of what even the brightest of them are capable of learning in one lifetime. My pet example is with the disastrous Sexual Revolution, with people thinking that sexual politics can be casually manipulated without unleashing the material equivalent of a mummy’s curse of STDs, plummeting birth rates, demographic crises, broken homes, and bankrupt nations.
Dasein,
My own heritage is that of Appalachian country trash and I remember growing up with these Mennonites in our small town who were obviously of superior breeding, intellect, drive, and discipline. Two girls I was very close with growing up, one of which I was fixated on for years, were from Mennonite families that were secularizing. One of them moved to Africa to do aid work and is now a reality show star. The other is a lesbian activist dedicated to female prison literacy.
My face is ticking just thinking about it. I envision the big healthy creative families that they could have founded, that they themselves are products of…wasted on modernity, on globalism, on the saccharine crusades, petty projects, and Sisyphean missions they’re wasting their lives on.
Wiki, this is off-topic, but you’d asked me before about data regarding the relatively primitive genetic state of Negroes. In addition to those references I’d given you at the time, the following paper is also relevant:
http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/scimag_junli.pdf
More specifically, figure 4.
Essays like this show that, despite all their protests to the contrary, white nationalists are at heart conservatives.
LOL. Amish porn. Doing it in the back of a buggy for a little extra bounce. LOL.
They sell these “bonnet” novels, in the health food sections of many supermarkets. For whatever that observation is worth.
Ernst Zundel’s wife wrote the first Mennonite “bonnet” novels back in the 1970’s. Zundel is the imprisoned holocaust denier of note. The Jew supermarket owners haven’t made the connection. LOL.
http://www.lehmans.com/store/Books___Amish_and_Mennonite___Bibles__Stories__and_Calendars___Daughters_of_Lancaster_County_Books___lancastercounty?Args=
Yosemite,
Perhaps for many. Probably most. Not all.
But there’s a huge difference between a mere Foxtard “conserative” in the contemporary context and a radical restorationist with an evolutionary traditionalist worldview. I aim to replace, not preserve, the current order of things.
What Wiki is talking about here, Yosemite, is going back to first principles. Bringing back differentiated roles for men and women based on their intrinsic natures is not “conservative,” it is revolutionary in the truest sense of the word.
To quote Evola:
“…revolution, according to its original Latin meaning (re-volvere), referred to a motion that led again to the starting point, to the origins. Therefore, the ‘revolutionary’ force of renewal that needs to be employed against the existing situation should be derived from the origins.”
Our starting point is our Indo-European heritage. The “conservative” types who embrace family values and the like are holding onto values that have their origins in distant prehistory. At this point, however, there is very little left to conserve, as modernity has either swept away or tainted every institution of Traditional origin. Hence the need for a complete return to those origins.
“A mere foxtard conservative”?
Instead of endless analogies drawn from television shows and political media caricatures, why not start an “open-source” poll of OD participants aimed at elucidating our values and political preferences?
We could formulate a list of poll questions subject to constant revision, retaining questions with answer distributions furthest from 50/50.
Ultimately we’d produce a 20-30 question list, constituting a political portrait of OD participants, individually and collectively.
Incidentally, I meant no disrespect by quoting “A mere foxtard conservative.” I enjoy all your writings, Wikitopian.
That poll question idea sounds good, Vercingetorix. Any ideas for initial poll questions?
I concur with your assessment wholeheartedly.
People often ask me how I “found” my fiance, as if she was simply sitting around in a bar or library waiting for me, but this is not true; a substantial amount of time and effort were required to bring about the racialist/traditionalist woman I have now.
Nietzsche’s Zarathustra warns us that if we go to woman, we should not forget the whip*, and this is sagacious advice. Women need a firm hand to offer them an end to their restlessness before they are able to realise their potential.
* The “whip” being discussed does not entail the use of physical violence, but is rather a matter of Will. As Evola was fond of saying, women are attracted to the Man of Tradition through the same principle as that by which a magnet attracts metal
Another excellent piece, Wikitopian. You’re on a roll.
The solutions you have covered recently really could provide the foundation for a serious movement, one completely outside of what is expected by the powers-that-be, virtually impossible to resist, and strongly revitalizing genetically and culturally.
Regarding the church going and your White advocacy meetings where the women outnumber the men, are the speakers/ministers/leaders predominantly male or female?
Robert,
I don’t know if I would use the whip metaphor in mixed company. In fact, I’m going to provoke NeoNietzsche’s wrath by asserting that Nietzsche was a true misogynist whose lady problems warped his ability to offer a credible assessment of gender issues.
“Has any woman who knew herself to be well dressed ever caught a cold?—I am assuming that she was barely dressed.” – Nietzsche
Plig,
I’m flattered and hope to keep up the quality. Our leadership is slightly more male than female. The two people prone to formally “speak” at the meetings are men. I’m not sure how wide of a circle one would want to put around “leadership”, but there are some women in it.
Men and women should compliment each other – not compete. As far as the whip-hand issue – perhaps thisis not the very best way to phrase the sentiment – but I completely understand what Robert is saying. White men have…backed off….from their duties as men. They’ve been unfairly attacked, and gone into retreat, under the onslaught. The truly sad an ironic thing is that they are simply trying to PLEASE women.
Most women act on emotion, and emotion only. They may SAY one thing – but respond to another. Masculine confident men always win the day. If a gal gets bitchy, and tries ot be dominating – push back, in a calm, cool, confident way. Use some flirty humour, if ya can.
She may sulk and pout, at the moment – but she’ll come ’round.
Don’t get downwind of an Amish man on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday before he takes his weekly bath. LOL.
One of you bright boys, could make your fortune selling deodorant to the Amish.
If you ever see me talking to the Amish of market day, you will notice I am moving to get upwind of them. LOL.
Wiki,
While the whip metaphor may lend itself to misinterpretation in some quarters, that is why I included the asterisk and clarification, which I feel mollifies that concern well enough.
I recommend everyone interested in this subject read Troy Southgate’s excellent essay entitled, “Revolt Against the Feminists: The Traditional Woman According to Julius Evola,” which can be found here:
http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/against_femminism.php
The lost philosopher, Anthony M. Ludovici, elucidated my view on this subject very well in his book, “Woman: A Vindication:”
“While trying to escape the influence of all that “tinsel of false sentiment” which in the atmosphere of Democracy and sentimentality has gathered about the subject of Woman in modern England, it has been my endeavour to defend her against certain traditional and well-founded charges, by showing that the very traits in her character which have given rise to these charges form so essential a part of her vital equipment that it would be dangerous to the race to modify or to alter them. Thus, despite the fact that there is much in this book that may possibly strike the reader as unfriendly, if not actually harsh, I am aware of no other work in which so complete and so elaborate a plea (from the standpoint of Life and Life’s needs) has been made in defence of Woman’s whole character, including all that side of it which the wisest of mankind, and the oldest traditions of mankind, have consistently and unanimously deprecated.
Couched in the briefest possible terms, my thesis is practically this, that, whether we contemplate Woman in the rôle of the adulteress, of the heartless step-mother, of the harlot, or of the creature whose duplicity has been the riddle of all ages; or whether we contemplate her as the staunchest of lovers, as the most reliable of allies, as the mother whose noble devotion to her offspring will drive her to any extreme of danger in defence of them, and as the representative of that sex which has given us a Joan of Arc, an Emily Brontë, and an Emily Davison of Derby fame; we are always confronted by a creature whose worst can, on final analysis, be shown to be only the outcome of her best and most vital qualities, turned to evil by mal-adaptation; and whose best is but the normal and effortless expression of her natural endowments.
Seeing, however, that among the mal-adaptations which cause Woman’s best to manifest itself as her worst, I include lack of guidance and control from the quarter of her men-folk, I range myself naturally among the Anti-Feminists, though at the same time I most emphatically disclaim all anti feminine prejudices. Indeed, so far from this being the case, I am a deep and passionate admirer and lover of Woman. In order to love her, however, I do not find it necessary to exalt her to a plane on which all her sturdier, more vital, and more “dangerous” characteristics are whittled down to mere sweetness. Those to whom the love of woman depends upon so gross an idealization of her nature as to cause them to overlook or deny that “wickedness” in her, which is at once her greatest vital strength and her most powerful equipment as the custodian and the promoter of life, will find very little to sustain them in this love throughout the present volume. And, if in this age of “Safety first,” they fancy that it is expedient to rear and to love only those women from whom all “danger” has been removed, they will find that I have endeavoured to demonstrate to them the extreme peril even of this plausible ideal.”
The quote above is an excerpt from the preface of the second edition. You can find the entire book, along with many other works by Ludovici, here:
http://www.anthonymludovici.com/wv_pre.htm
I linked to Ludovici in the “Revenge of the Patriarchs” thread also, as I frequently do. In my opinion, A.M. Ludovici is a vastly underrated thinker whose work is ignored to our collective detriment. Interestingly, his translation of Nietzsche’s Anti-Christ, which was, I believe, the first English translation of that work to be published, is still very popular.
I’m going to provoke NeoNietzsche’s wrath by asserting that Nietzsche was a true misogynist whose lady problems warped his ability to offer a credible assessment of gender issues.
Were you to know the *true* measure of NN’s *wrath* engaged at your expense, you would *emasculate* yourself with a *rusty razor* before you would *dare* embark upon such an enterprise.
But I agree with your remark about poor, disappointed-in-love Nietzsche-the-Antichrist.
NN,
What are your thoughts on Nietzsche contra Wagner? In my opinion, his anti-Wagner screeds read like the ravings of a jilted woman.
Confession of bias: I am a dyed-in-the-wool Wagnerian.
Men and women should compliment each other – not compete.
And they should complement each other, as well.
As far as the whip-hand issue – perhaps this is not the very best way to phrase the sentiment
Works for me.
White men have…backed off….from their duties as men.
Say it again, girl.
They’ve been unfairly attacked, and gone into retreat, under the onslaught. The truly sad an ironic thing is that they are simply trying to PLEASE women.
But don’t have the brains to fight off the attack, even if they have the balls.
Most women act on emotion, and emotion only. They may SAY one thing – but respond to another. Masculine confident men always win the day. If a gal gets bitchy, and tries ot be dominating – push back, in a calm, cool, confident way. Use some flirty humour, if ya can.
Show the boys how to do it.
She may sulk and pout, at the moment – but she’ll come ’round.
If you stand your ground.
I found some interesting and relevant analysis over at the Cordelia For Lear blog. I do not agree with all of it, and the author is obviously not a native English speaker, but I thought it was worth posting:
Alpha Beta & Omega – Masculine & feminine
I came across an interesting individual by the name of Otto Weininger.
I find him interesting because of his somewhat unusual theories.
You might find that there is something of value in his theory.
Here is a short text about his theory:
In his book Sex and Character, Weininger argues that all people are composed of a mixture of the male and the female substance, and attempts to support his view scientifically. The male aspect is active, productive, conscious and moral/logical, while the female aspect is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral/alogical. Weininger argues that emancipation should be reserved for the “masculine woman”, e.g. some lesbians, and that the female life is consumed with the sexual function: both with the act, as a prostitute, and the product, as a mother. Woman is a “matchmaker”. By contrast, the duty of the male, or the masculine aspect of personality, is to strive to become a genius, and to forego sexuality for an abstract love of the absolute, God, which he finds within himself.
A significant part of his book is about the nature of genius. Weininger argues that there is no such thing as a person who has a genius for, say, mathematics, or music, but there is only the universal genius, in whom everything exists and makes sense. He reasons that such genius is probably present in all people to some degree.
In a separate chapter, Weininger explains how and why he had converted to Christianity in 1902. Weininger decries the decay of modern times, and attributes much of it to feminine (not in the sense of a body, gender, but in spirit, in psychological terms) influences. By Weininger’s reckoning everyone shows some femininity, more and more femininity will be expressed in time if certain influences are allowed to take their hold.
Weininger’s suicide in the house in Vienna where Beethoven had died, the man he considered one of the greatest geniuses of all made him a cause célèbre, inspired several imitation suicides, and turned his book into a success. The book received glowing reviews by the Swedish August Strindberg, who wrote that it had “probably solved the hardest of all problems”, the “woman problem”.
It’s a sad fact that most white males today either are omega-maled cuckolds or beta-maled cuckolds. Today, whites are seen as either evil or wimpy, the latter is a category to which both omega and beta-males belongs to, in other words, the majority of the white males.
Cuckold fantasies spring from basic fears of emasculation and, ultimately, failure to succeed in the evolutionary imperative of mating and reproduction. Generally speaking, there is a lot of psychological freight that comes with manhood, and a lot of investment of ego. There is, therefore, a lot of fear. Cuckold fantasies eroticize that fear, a well-established coping strategy for the psyche. It’s a little known fact that masochistic things like ethnic-cuckolds, cuckolds and ethno-masochists are expressing a masochism which, oddly enough, produce endorphines.
Masochism is a form of pleasure obtained through suffering.
An essential characteristic of the perversions is that the active and passive forms are found in the same individual. Since neurosis is the “negative of perversion,” this holds true for every human being. It is a form of hedonism based on defeatism. Spreading the legs in terms of the women, and bending over in terms of the male, this clearly reveals the opposition between active and passive, a precursor of the later opposition between masculine and feminine. Masochism is feminine.
The last few masculine men belongs to the Alpha-male category. He who take what he wants and force others to do what he wish, he who owns everything and everyone, either directly or through deceptive means. The Alpha may still be displaying, what is viewed as cuckold and ethnomasochistic characteristics which are feminine, but this is a deception. He doesn’t trully hold these positions. He just have a naive way to achieve what he wants, due to a lack of wisdom and reason. Beta-males and Omega-males might give the impression that they share the characteristics described to define the Alpha-male.
This might fit in with the average antifa.
This might give the impression that they share the characteristics of the Alpha, but they in actuallity dont. Let me explain:
This male hierarchy goes as follows:
1. Alpha are at the top.
2. Beta is the second.
3. Omega is at the bottom.
The beta is the type of male who conforms to the leaders instead of, like an alpha male, creating his own way of outcompeting the other alpha male. A typicall beta male would be the whigger who has observed the lack of masculine behavior from white males, the race to which he belongs, and so he goes to adopt the masculine behavior he recognize as being socially rewarding in terms of offering the attraction from girls (psychic profit) and the praising of materials (monetary profit) which in our culture is a sign of having a high status on the social order and social hierarchy. A less obvious example is the office type, who too conform to a lifestyle and adhere to please the males above him. Another example is the anti-racist who recognize that, being masochistic, not only is psychologically rewarding (albeit in a short-sighted way, through a false satisfaction) in the sense that he’s producing endorphines (albeit for self-damaging reasons) and because he is being socially rewarded (from above) by running a low risk of being ostracized, criticized and in actuality, instead is having a higher chance of being given a carrot, an easier chance to rank high socially, to reach a higher status (by the males at the top). It is a career move. It is also used by beta-males as an excuse to be allowed practice violence by the alpha and omega-males in power against the alpha-males who currently aren’t in power. Despite that the alpha-males who currently aren’t in power would bring these beta-males long-lasting psychological reward and happines, a true satisfaction, the beta-male doesn’t realize this and is content with living on masochism and the endorphines masochism biologically produce.
Humans can become addicted to these endorphines and will try to get as many, quick, kicks of endorphines as possible. This is expressed by the Antifa individuals who are looking for action, excitement increasement. This release endorphines the same way, doing extreme sports or jumping bungy jumping does. Although Neuropolitics.com claim we are genetically predetermined to be majority left or right brain thinkers and that the different brain hemisphere’s are wired to make you have a certain set of political views, which I dont doubt, infact I rather support it, I believe this inherited, geneticall predeterminism to leftist political leanings, isn’t the sole reason as to why they are expressing the behaviour we are seeing.
Beta-males and Omega-males try to bribe and use systems to achieve higher ranks. This is in effect what anti-racism in our society is. I do believe some anti-racist’s are alpha-males however. Charles Manson had the idea of using anti-racism to advance blacks socially, politically and demographically so that when they’ve overturned the white power structure, a black power sctructure would be installed instead. His ideas was that blacks wouldn’t be able to keep a black power structure without societies turning into chaotic, criminal filled, violent societies with a poor living standard and that they would seek help from Charles Manson and his likes who always had been loyal and faithful to them. This means that he now would be the new man on the top. On top of the food chain. Other anti-racist whites, tries to use muslims as a youth-bulge so that they would be able to overthrow the current power structure with the help of the muslims. This means he would be able to share the new power structure with the muslims or, alternativelly, preferable, end up on top, above the muslims. This is in a sense an alpha-male behavior.
I very much doubt this is the majority of ethnomasochists and cuckolds however.
Because ethnomasochism and ethno-cuckold behaviour is feminine in nature, the majority of them are omega-males.
From this I think it’s safe to categorize these people like this:
Alpha-male: Comes from the low and tries to use minorities to overthrow the middle and the high.
Masculine in a feminine way.
Deceptive.
Beta-male: Tries to use existing systems and please alpha-males in order to rise in rank.
Feminine/masculine in a feminine way.
Deceptive/gullible.
Omega-male: Genuinely is gullible and feminine.
Feminine.
Gullible.
What’s important to conclude however, is that the positions these alpha, beta & omega-males take by being ethnomasochists and ethno-cuckolds, which inherently are feminine traits, is backfiring and implosive. To free oneself from pain by killing oneself is not wise. We want happiness and happiness forever prefered to nothingness. We rather want positive (+) over negative (-) and likewise we rather want positive (+) over zero (0). What they are trying to achieve hurts them more than an alternative rout to happiness would. They are not going to achieve ultimate happiness. Only short-sighted, false satisfaction. This can be proved by reason and it can get enforced by scientific facts. This is however another topic which I’ve touched upon in January 2009, in the article, the meaning of life and a topic for another top as this is to diverge from the topic of Alpha-beta-omega, masculine and feminine.
An interesting analogy
An interesting analogy to the strategy of the beta and omega males can be made by comparing them to cells and bacteria and what we are able to witness there.
Scientists have discovered a peptide that enables bacteria to chat to one another, and can induce them to commit suicide. Although bacteria are unicellular organisms, there is mounting evidence that they don’t behave in isolation, instead communicating between themselves and thereby manifesting some multi-cellular behaviours.
The glutathione-dependent glyoxalase I-II pathway is the primary route of methylglyoxal detoxification, and the glutathione conjugates formed can activate the KefB and KefC potassium channels. The activation of these channels leads to a lowering of the intracellular pH of the bacterial cell, which protects against the toxic effects of electrophiles.
In addition to the KefB and KefC systems, E. coli cells are equipped with a number of independent protective mechanisms whose purpose appears to be directed at ensuring the integrity of the DNA.
The production of methylglyoxal by cells is a paradox that can be resolved by assigning an important role in adaptation to conditions of nutrient imbalance.
Analysis of a methylglyoxal synthase-deficient mutant provides evidence that methylglyoxal production is required to allow growth under certain environmental conditions.
The production of methylglyoxal may represent a high-risk strategy that facilitates adaptation, but which on failure leads to cell death.
I trust the readers are intelligent enough to see the striking similarity, without me having to explain it to them. Below follows another example.
The mysterious behaviour of kamikaze bacteria.
Some bacteria are suicidal’ – producing toxic chemicals that kill them as well as closely related individuals. This seemingly paradoxical behaviour has been puzzling for scientists trying to work out why this self-harming mechanism would evolve in the first place. The team looked at the common bacterium Steptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonococcus). Perhaps the most critical revelation is that pneumonococcus hasn’t evolved to protect itself against these poisons.
There are also bacteria that has elements which lead’s parts of it to engage in kamikaze attacks against others instead of their own as in the examples above, and these are acting altruistically for the sake of their own particular specie. This is kinda side-stepping the issue, but altruistic kamikaze attacks are displayed for the sake of advancing ones own group, already at this level, this low life form, the level of bacteria.
Another analogy below, regarding how to tap into biological behaviour and re-direct vital prioritizations to be damaging for the group. In the case of humans, the media, the government-education-camps (schools).
People have a misperception that bacteria are selfish, solitary creatures.
In reality, they often live in large colonies and coordinate their activities.
When conditions become overcrowded or food scarce, some bacteria may even make
the ultimate sacrifice and kill themselves. New research indicates that many, if not all, known
antibiotics exploit this noble behavior.
Elaine Tuomanen of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in
Memphis and her colleagues have identified a suicide program in one bacterium
that penicillin and other antibiotics trigger. They’ve even discovered a small
bacterial protein, or peptide, that they call a “death signal” because it
commands the microbe to tear its cell wall apart.
These findings, say microbiologists, promise a rethinking of how antibiotics
act and may lead to a new generation of drugs that more directly turn on
bacterial suicide programs.
For penicillin, biologists once thought that disrupting cell wall synthesis
leads to a weakened wall that finally bursts. Over the past few decades, however, they’ve learned that penicillin-treated bacteria activate a class oftheir own enzymes, autolysins, to dissolve the cell wall. Indeed, almost all antibiotics indirectly trigger this autolysin response. Treating bacteria with “penicillin is like handing them a gun. But if they don’t pull the trigger, it’s not going to work,” says Tuomanen.
The team worked with strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae—it only stoped them from growing but these don’t die when treated with penicillin, Vancomycin, and other antibiotics. This treatment is called acceptance and the bacteria not responding to the suicide chemicals, tolerant.
We are the parts of a bacteria that fight to survive, to preserve itself which cause divergence.
Divergence is the essence of evolution, notice how we all evolved from micro-organisms to the numerous species and sub-species that we have today. They (beta & omega) are the part of bacteria that conform and dont mind following systems even if it result in destruction, particularly their own destruction. Sometimes certain parts of the bacteria (omega) will instigate the sucidal mentallity almost by itself.
The logic of the feminine worldview
I would like to emphasize that this is feminine in the way Otto Weininger used the word.
This isn’t an absolut term, nor is it solely gender based. In some cases, perhaps many, women would disagree with the logic of the feminine worldview. Which is a good thing for us men, since you are the bearers of civilization.
John Rawls, a Professor of Harvard University, has given some insight. I will quote from whiteamerica.us, who’s creator I’ve dedicated a whole article to 5 month’s ago.
“Rawls clarifies the rationale not only for consensus principles, but also for the version of these principles we call “liberalism.” Liberalism is a notoriously tricky word that means many different things in different contexts. Here it is used in the colloquial American sense of the term, which fits Rawls quite well. In the United States, a “liberal” is someone who believes in the reduction of inequalities of all sorts and in the legitimacy of government intervention to achieve this goal. Because of their egalitarianism, liberals adopt leukophobic attitudes towards whites, who are judged to enjoy an unjustified privileged status. Liberals reject with outrage claims that there are innate racial differences in intelligence and other characteristics, as such differences tend to justify racial inequalities. While Rawls does not explicitly endorse all of these views, his philosophy is nevertheless very egalitarian in spirit and naturally leads to a liberal outlook.
I doubt anyone who reads this site feels much sympathy for liberals, and for good reason. After all, liberals’ blindness to racial differences results in manifestly unfair and destructive policies, as well as the demonization of whites. However, in our contempt for liberals, we often fail to understand the rationale for their worldview. Rawls reveals that there is a profound logic behind liberalism, which I had never appreciated before I read him. If we are to criticize liberalism effectively, we must understand the logic that makes it attractive. Also, to the extent that liberalism is philosophically justifiable, we should seek to include it in our own pro-white political philosophy.
Rawls’ Social Contract
Rawls begins with the reasonable premise that there are “primary social goods”—rights, liberties, opportunities, wealth, and self-respect—that are desired by every rational person.1 Every individual wants the maximum sum of these goods, and thus their interests are in conflict. How these goods are allocated depends on the social order—rights and wealth will be allocated to people differently in a monarchy than in a democracy, for example. A theory of justice is a theory of the fair allocation of primary social goods.
Of course, concepts of what is fair differ markedly from person to person—for example, some consider affirmative action fair because it compensates for historical oppression, and others consider it unfair because it gives some unmerited privileges over others. How are we to define what fair principles are? To answer this question, Rawls invents a version of the social contract, a venerable tool of political philosophy that is also used by Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Social contract theories are philosophical fictions in which people debate the conditions under which they would agree to live together in a society. Essentially, a social contract theory is a way of imagining what society we would create if we were to design one from scratch. Of course, no one believes that such a contract has ever taken place; rather, social contract theories are fictions that facilitate reasoning about the nature of politics.
Rawls believes that fair principles for the distribution of primary social goods are those that would be chosen by people who were impartial towards any particular interest. However, it is unlikely that real, living people would be able to make truly disinterested decisions, as our interests shape our reasoning and perceptions. In order to explain what decisions people would reach if they were unencumbered by interests, Rawls uses the famous thought experiment of the “Original Position.” In the Original Position, a number of people in a given society are brought together to agree on fair principles. However, these parties to the social contract must choose their principles from behind what Rawls calls the “veil of ignorance.” The parties are deprived of all knowledge of their own identity and of the particular nature of their society. Thus the parties must formulate the principles without knowing what their actual race, sex, social status, or any other quality is. They also do not know whether their society is a wealthy or a poor one, racially homogeneous or heterogeneous, and so forth. In this way, the Original Position “[nullifies] the effects of specific contingencies which put men at odds and tempt them to exploit social and natural circumstances to their own advantage.”2 All of the parties to the contract have equal status in these negotiations, and they must agree unanimously on principles. Though they have no notion of the particular facts of their society, they do know the characteristics of societies in general as these have been ascertained by the human sciences.3
What principles would it be rational for the contracting parties in the Original Position to agree to? Rawls assumes that the parties will want to get the maximum sum of the primary social goods. However, since they must all agree on principles, it is unreasonable for any one of them to expect that he be privileged in any way. Consequently, the first principle that the parties will agree to is the principle of equal basic liberties: everyone must be given the most extensive scheme of basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme for everyone else. Rawls lists as basic liberties freedom of thought, freedom of the person (freedom from physical assault and dismemberment), the right to hold personal property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure. The parties will also desire equal rights to participation in the society’s political process, and therefore the liberties that make this participation possible: freedom of speech and assembly and the right to vote and hold office.4
The distribution of wealth and income requires a different logic. One might think that the contracting parties would agree to equality of wealth just as they agreed to equal liberties. However, it is clear that some forms of economic inequality benefit everyone.5 Thus, the prospect of gaining great wealth may motivate an inventor to create a new technology that benefits society as a whole. In an economically egalitarian society, in which the inventor had no prospect of gaining great wealth, he would have less incentive to create the new technology, and the society would suffer.
Consequently, Rawls reasons that the parties would agree to accept the inequality in wealth that comes with a free market economic system, but with some restrictions. An economically unequal society tends to lead to social stratification, in which the wealthiest enjoy enormous advantages in opportunity and influence that work against the interests of the least advantaged, that is, those people who are born both without wealth and power and without the natural endowments necessary to attain them. Rawls reasonably assumes that the parties, in recognition of the fact that they could be among the least advantaged themselves, would want to make sure that this class of people has reasonable prospects for happiness. So the second principle that the parties agree to is that economic inequality is legitimate only if it works to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged class in society and if offices bringing high income are equally available to all people.6 Rawls names the two components of the second principle “the difference principle” and “the principle of fair equality of opportunity.”
What would the second principle mean in practice? Rawls envisions a free market system that sets the price of wages supplemented by various programs to increase equality, whether through direct payments to the needy or through an income supplement, whereby the government would add to the wages of low-wage workers. The government would ensure equal access to education through subsidies of schools. Equal access to desirable jobs would be enforced by government policing of the hiring practices of firms and private associations. The goal of taxation policy would be to bring about the greatest equality of income possible without seriously compromising the efficiency of the free market.7
Intuitive Justice
Rawls argues that there are two lines of support for his theory of justice. The first is the deductive line of reasoning that I have laid out so far, in which the principles of justice are deduced from assumptions about human nature and reasoning about the decisions the contracting parties would make in the Original Position. However, Rawls also believes that his theory is valid because it clarifies our intuitive sense of justice. Indeed, Rawls seems even to think that his concept of justice is universally present in man in a confused form and that he is merely clarifying it. He compares his work to that of Noam Chomsky: just as Chomskian linguistics aims to tease out the deep linguistic structure that generates grammar, so Rawls is defining the deep principles of justice embedded in the human mind.8
One of the merits of Rawls’ theory is that it does indeed make sense of many commonsensical moral judgments. From the perspective of the Original Position, it is clear why most Americans consider the racial discrimination immoral, for example. Since the parties to the social contract do not know anything about their real-world identity, they will not choose a racially discriminatory society because it is possible that they themselves are members of the subordinate race. As Rawls says,
From the standpoint of persons similarly situated in an initial situation which is fair [i.e., the Original Position], the principles of explicit racial doctrines are not only unjust. They are irrational. For this reason we could say that they are not moral conceptions at all, but simply means of suppression.9
Though Rawls never devoted detailed attention to matters of race, his principles nevertheless clarify liberal positions on racial issues. Affirmative action is straightforwardly justified by the principle that society ought to be arranged so as to bring the greatest benefit to the least advantaged. The motives for liberal race denial also become clear. Liberals feel obligated to reduce inequalities in wealth and power. They discredit and suppress scientific research proving natural racial differences in intelligence and morality because this research inevitably tends to justify racial inequalities and reduce the zeal to close them. Moreover, if one believes society should be arranged so as to benefit the least advantaged, it is natural to want to shield the members of this class from truths that would demoralize and wound them.
The Merits of Rawls’ Theory
There will be plenty of criticism of Rawls coming in future articles, but first we should understand his theory’s merits as a political philosophy. The first merit, that the theory clarifies intuitive moral judgments, has already been dealt with.
Rawls’ principles also have the merit of being impartial towards any particular interest. This does not mean that people in a Rawlsian society would be treated equally, as the least advantaged would be treated more favorably than others. Rather, Rawlsian justice is based on principles that impartial people would agree to. Such impartiality means that the principles are fair, and, if Rawls’ reasoning is correct, any deviation from them can be legitimately characterized as unfair.
Rawls’ principles have the virtue of being freely chosen—the parties to the social contract freely choose these principles over others in the Original Position. It can be plausibly argued that other principles for organizing a society are illegitimate because people would not have chosen them freely had they been given the choice.
A common criticism of leftist philosophies like Rawls’ is that they are based on the utopian assumption that man is a naturally altruistic creature whose current egoism is merely the result of unjust social conditions. Does Rawls’ make utopian assumptions about the extent of human altruism? I shall argue in the future that he does; however, we should give Rawls credit for the elements of realism that are present in his philosophy. Rawls’ description of the reasoning of the contracting parties is far from utopian. The principles that they agree to are founded in enlightened self-interest in that they represent the best compromise among self-interested individuals. Moreover, Rawls recognizes that the citizens will behave in self-interested ways even in a just society—he criticizes other leftists for their utopian vision of a society from which self-interest has vanished.10 It is for this reason that Rawls supports a free market economy, though a constrained one.
Rawls’ principles reflect enlightened self-interest in another way as well. The Rawlsian social contract requires that the most favored individuals transfer much of their wealth to the least advantaged. However, this sacrifice entitles the most favored to a guarantee that their own interests, and those of their progeny, will be looked out for if they fall from grace. Thus, Rawlsian principles compensate the present sacrifice of favored individuals with long-term advantages.
While I cannot do justice to Rawls’ detailed argumentation in favor of his theory, I can say I find it plausible that the parties to the social contract would arrive at principles at least approximately similar to Rawls’. Certainly, the reasoning that leads to the principles of equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity is straightforward. The difference principle, which dictates the fair distribution of wealth, is much more open to doubt; however, it seems reasonably certain that the parties would agree to some principle that attempted to reconcile equality of wealth with the benefits of the free market system.
The final merit of Rawls’ theory is that a society based on his principles, if it could ever be put into effect, would likely be a very happy one. By acknowledging each other’s rights and providing for the least advantaged, citizens in a Rawlsian society demonstrate their respect for each other’s well-being. Rawlsian citizens would be likely to enjoy a high level of self-respect, the most important of all the primary social goods, since this emotion is founded on the respect of others.11 A Rawlsian society would be characterized by a spirit of fraternity, or a family atmosphere of mutual concern.12 Such a society would not be one of winners and losers, but a true community in which no one could win unless all the others did too.
Doing Justice to Liberalism
The racial right finds liberalism so obviously destructive and unfair that we tend to imagine that liberals have immoral motives for their beliefs. For many racial right writers, such suspicions extend even to non-liberal advocates of consensus Western political principles. In the worst cases, like Kevin MacDonald, we are treated to a horrific narrative of “ethnic warfare”13 in which a power-hungry Jewish elite, intent on “destroying” white Gentiles, coerces them into accepting non-discrimination by race, minority preferences, and mass non-white immigration. While I have eschewed MacDonald’s anti-Semitism and incendiary language, I have also taken a very black view my opponents’ motives. Many is the article in which I have railed against the liberal elites and their “diversity snobbery.”
This paranoid interpretation of our political reality needs to be abandoned. A Theory of Justice lays bare the moral rationale for consensus Western political principles and their liberal variant. While it would be naive to suppose that motives like lust for power and snobbery play no role in the genesis of liberalism, it is both slanderous and unproductive to assume that these are liberals’ sole motives. Nor is it reasonable to believe that Americans have accepted a non-discriminatory society because they are cowards and dupes who have been swindled by malevolent elites. White Americans chose the politicians who legislated our current policies on race in free and fair elections. It is to hard to see how politicians whom voters perceived as hostile to their interests would ever get elected. Rather, it is much more likely that Americans were rationally persuaded of the morality of non-discrimination.
Doing justice to liberalism does not mean accepting it, but criticizing it in the right way. Future articles will explain why the idealistic dreams of liberals risk making the world into a nightmare when they are put into practice. Ultimately, we will emerge with a conception of justice that is far sterner than Rawls’.
http://cordeliaforlear.blogspot.com/2009/10/alpha-beta-omega-masculine-feminine.html
What are your thoughts on Nietzsche contra Wagner? In my opinion, his anti-Wagner screeds read like the ravings of a jilted woman.
His true love went Christer on him – – I’d cry, too, for my loss.
And it’s not like N. was never given to extravagant portrayals in making his points. He was brilliant and passionate, and it showed everywhere in his dramatizations of issues.
Now that I think of it, my first marriage declined and fell for much the same reason. She became more Christian as I became more Nietzschean.
Excellent, must-read essay on gynaecocracy by the Baron:
White Americans chose the politicians who legislated our current policies on race in free and fair elections. It is to hard to see how politicians whom voters perceived as hostile to their interests would ever get elected. Rather, it is much more likely that Americans were rationally persuaded of the morality of non-discrimination.
LOL.
LOL.
LOL.
With the advent of democracy, with the proclamation of the ‘immortal principles’ and the ‘rights of man and citizen’ and the subsequent development of these ‘conquests’ in Europe into Marxism and Communism, it is exactly the ‘natural right’, the leveling and anti-aristocratic law of the Mother, that the West has dug up, renouncing any ’solar’ virile Aryan value and confirming, with the omnipotence so often granted to the collectivist element, the ancient irrelevance of the individual to the ‘telluric’conception.
I would argue that with the advent of Marxism/Communism and, most appropriately in nominal terms, “Spartakism,” one has unearthed – not the Mother, properly realized in bureaucratic socialism, welfarism, and victimology – but rather a boyish *masculine* rebellion and barbarism that shrinks not from the spilling of oceans of blood in its drive for global “liberation”. It is the confusion of these two elements, the pacific Socialist with the brutal Communist, that has allowed the aggressive elements of elite Jewry to command the allegiance of many a feminine soul under false pretenses and accounts for the success of a nominally “liberal” agenda that nevertheless is perpetually and perversely counter-productive of its ostensible objectives.
Wikitopian:”They spend their lunches in the corporate break room, eating corporate food, in their corporate pantsuits, reading fantasy novels about being barefoot and pregnant in a country kitchen.”
More and more people are yearning to return to the ‘old ways’ because of the degenerate nature of the modern world.
We can work to turn their fantasies in to reality by starting an exodus of White Americans away from the corporate/Jew-controlled cities and soulless suburbs back to small and medium-sized towns and local tight-knit communities — rebuilding local and traditional White American (race-based) communities as I’ve outlined at http://whitesurvival.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/future-opportunities-for-on-the-groundreal-life-pro-white-community-formation/
And yes, I used the Amish and similar groups as an example of who to emulate, but without all of the social and religious cultishness.
If some Commies can do it – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBoQQRxX8i4 – we can do it.
The USA is becoming a chaotic hellhole full of damaged and beaten down people – you know things are getting particularly bad when women start going on spree shootings: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ala_university_shooting
WP,
I admire you as one of the few people who appear to be working on developing a path from here to there. For most White Nationalists, they think that it’s just a matter of being correct or something. I don’t really get it. It’s as if they believe one can merely explain it and others will scramble from their chairs to bring the vision to fruition.
However, I still think there’s a pretty steep cliff for you to bridge before you have a complete path to success. My own suspicion is that your proposal is flawed for what you believe to be a feature: it’s lack of a transcendent unifying purpose. You seem to blow of Christians and Communists as if their respective religions were an impediment rather than a key part of their sense of unity.
Since I haven’t actually created a White ethnostate, yet, I don’t claim to be speaking with authority. It will be fun to share notes with you as our respective visions grow and adapt and mature. Hopefully, they’ll drift closer to viable projects.
@ 31
Actually, the Mennonites for the most part are mainstream Protestant.
I wouldn’t read too much into the “Amish Porn” thing, it’s just another gimmick to catch the eye and titillate the buyer. Same old theme since time immemorial, corrupting innocence, seducing the fair, young female, beauty and the beast.
I find it interesting that many so-called modern women are in fact seeking the old ways again on their own.
Women like comfort, security, a life without fear. That’s what a strong man provides, physical, emotional and financial protection. This is why they like tradition. There is an element of the unknown, an element of fear in change and uncertainty.
Robert, you say that your lady wasn’t traditionalist and racialist when you found her. That speaks well of your abilities as a man then. I have had the same experience with women. It’s better to charm them, make them feel safe, then they will love you, and then you can change them for the better. Forcing politics and ideology on them prematurely is a mistake. It is a seed that must be nurtured and grown.
I don’t see any necessity in having throngs of women at political meetings or in leadership positions. It’s more important for our men to have stable relationships with women and productive families.
Nice note and I agree with the sentiment. I also like Mennonite people, I worked with them in the Paraguayan Chaco, they had problems with brackish water. They had a very positive attitude toward me as a Jew. A few comments:
You didnt seem to have read much of the “Amish porn” literature. The Amish thing is only an exotic background for fantasy, as the petro-skeikhs have been lately losing their cachet. Not one of the books ends with the heroine barefoot in the kitchen with twelve kids. Not only that, not one of the readers ever changes her lifestyle to a more decent one.
Just as you, we Jews are facing the dissolvent effect of the pill, liberal environment and modernity in general. Personal example and other methods you mention are important, but the only thing that really works is education. If we want young people to marry and maintain decent families, you have to take them out of the general education system and isolate them from the hedonist culture around us. Religious Jews, for example, have no TV at their homes. The use of the internet is permitted for work, for making a living.
J,
I appreciate your thoughtful points and sympathize with the millions of honest and family-focused Jews, particularly Orthodox ones, who are struggling against the same challenges the rest of us are. I said little about the actual effect that the novels attempt to have, since I assumed (it appears correctly) that they probably attempt to push an explicit message which contradicts the implicit one.
You’re correct that the only lasting way to resist this system is through the difficult and thankless work of developing alternatives, patiently persuading friends and loved ones to embrace traditional lifestyles and authorities, and resisting the countless temptations and distractions we’re faced with.
I would like the subset of your extended family who are disproportionately engaged in causing much of this desist. But I recognize that my own elites share much of the blame and appreciate your having the curiosity and open-mindedness to give some of the ideas at this site a fair hearing.
Gotta say you’re on fire with some of your latest writings Wik.
Even if the Amish porn thing doesn’t make perfect sense, it’s a great way to start off an article: catch people’s attention with something quite abnormal and scintillating, then bring them in to a more serious message.
@ 36j
I bet they did…LOL.
Yes, best to “bow meekly and put away the camera.” They are the true believers and the Russian Orthodox Church survived only because of them.
@Kievski
Thanks Kievski. I’m working on it…
j
Of course Jews are supposed to withdraw from the JewStream Media indoctrination and the Jew-created rot of modern life and Judeo-Masonic miseducation. It’s all designed to cow us, not you.
+ + +
Campbell,
All you needed to write above was: “It’s a sad fact that most white males today either are omega-maled cuckolds or beta-maled cuckolds.” Summing up the whole obsession with nigga-worshipping wiggaz and n-ball obsessives.
I know this wasn’t the main point of the article, but please at least get your facts straight next time regarding the “Amish porn.” It’s obvious from your post that you did not read the book pictured. It was written by an evangelical Christian, and I promise you, is a very chaste novel. As someone who has read this author and other similar Christian fiction novels, I wonder why you would not take the time to go to the library or bookstore and spend an hour or two skimming the book, before categorizing the genre in such a crude light? If the gospel of Jesus Christ is presented in a novel, I don’t think it deserves the contempt being shown it. It is light, nonsecular entertainment. No illicit affairs, no cursing, proclaiming the name of Christ. Surely that is less harmful than the time wasted in a discussion over something that isn’t even fact-checked?
My own heritage is that of Appalachian country trash and I remember growing up with these Mennonites in our small town who were obviously of superior breeding, intellect, drive, and discipline.
Ah… that sounds familiar.
There are a lot of Mennonites up here in Canada, some of the best friends of my family among them, and I have to say I’ve always been impressed by Mennonite girls. They’re almost inevitably well-dressed, polite, friendly and carry themselves with a grace that seems quite foreign to the other young women, and the fact that around here, many of them tend to be quite tall, slender and blonde doesn’t hurt either. 😉
Quite unlike Hutterites, who seem to tend to be dumpy, near-sighted, unfriendly and dishonest (they have a reputation for theft if they can get away with it) for whatever reason.