Alabama
Editor’s Note: I wrote this article over two years ago. I was considering writing a new article about the subject, but nothing ever changes in the White Nationalist movement, and everything that I said below is as true today as it was back then.
I bring this up now only because the issue has resurfaced. I’ve long since moved on from White Nationalism. I have also made my peace with the movement and honestly I have nothing further to say about it.
Lately, I have been hearing the same stories from racially conscious women about the White Nationalist movement – they value their race and are eager to participate and do their part to “secure the existence of our people and a future for White children,” but they are alienated and disillusioned by some of the “wounded soldier” type rhetoric that they see at WN conferences and on the internet.
Before I am accused of picking a fight, I want to emphasize here lots of White Nationalists like James Edwards and Richard Spencer are happily married. I also couldn’t be happier with my own relationship. In spite of this, there is still a very loud group of these “wounded soldiers” out there – think of Lieutenant Dan in Forrest Gump – who have had bad experiences with American women in general, and it is a problem attracting and keeping women involved in the movement.
I bring this up because women are indispensable to any movement that seeks to “secure the existence of our people and a future for White children,” and there are attractive young women who I know who are being repulsed by these types, and I would much rather see them end up with some of my bright racially conscious friends than with the losers they are meeting in bars.
Why aren’t more women involved with the White Nationalist movement?
There is a conversation going on about this in the comments. It is such an interesting topic that it warrants a separate thread. Everyone who has attended a White Nationalist conference has noticed that men are always drastically overrepresented.
Why is that?
Dealbreaker #1: Because they are offended by the people who rail against White women on account of their bad experiences with dating and marriage. They shouldn’t have dated women like that anyway, but take out their sexual frustrations on all women with untenable generalizations.
Dealbreaker #2: Because of the HBD cogelite nerds who glorify Asian women and who denigrate White women. This is one of the biggest pet peeves.
Dealbreaker #3: Because of the aura of negativity that surrounds the White Nationalist movement. Most women can’t stand a constant drumbeat of negativity and self consciously avoid demoralizing websites.
Women like to see confidence in men. When they see men who have no confidence in themselves and who preach an “all is lost” political message, they instinctively turn away from a movement that they perceive as a bunch of losers, especially when they encounter a hostile atmosphere on pro-White websites.
Dealbreaker #4: Because White Nationalism attracts a disproportionate number of geeky, socially awkward males who have Asperger’s syndrome or who are creepy in some way as well as the homosexual misogynists who are on the warpath against women.
Dealbreaker #5: Because there is a lot of crossover between the Men’s Rights community and White Nationalism and this is a turn off to women who are culturally conservative and therefore more likely to be Christians.
Dealbreaker #6: Because the vast majority of women who qualify as “traditional” in America are strongly Christian or religious in some way. They are turned off to White Nationalism because of the atheism, misogyny, and lewd discussions about women on White Nationalist websites.
Anyone who goes to church knows that there are far more “traditional” women than men in America. Among women, it is fashionable in some circles to save yourself for marriage, whereas few men think that way these days. A respectable woman is not going to be dressed like a slut in some bar or club on the weekend.
Dealbreaker #7: Because women will always be less interested in politics than men. White Nationalism focuses heavily on politics and science and less on culture, family, and religion which are subjects which attract more conservative women.
Dealbreaker #8: Because women are more empathetic and are natural conciliators and thus mix like oil and water with the curmudgeons who are drastically overrepresented among White Nationalists.
Dealbreaker #9: Because some White Nationalists practice a type of effeminate political correctness and consciously go out of their way to elevate Asians and Muslims in particular over White Americans.
Feel free to take issue with any of the above positions. I have heard this view about White Nationalism from so many different women on so many different occasions that I am convinced it represents something of a consensus among traditional White women.
I wish someone would test this theory by creating a pro-White website with these dealbreakers in mind: exclude the HBD nerds who glorify Asian women, the negative curmudgeons, the “all is losters,” the creepy weirdos, the embittered misogynists, the effeminate homosexual intellectuals, and the Neo-Nazi atheists on a jihad against Christianity.
The website would need a good editor that would balance political discussion with a hefty complement of articles about culture, religion, and family. There would also have to be more talk about ethnicity and pocketbook issues.
I would bet money that would solve the problem. In fact, I predict that racially conscious women would start coming out of the woodwork because women are more social than men and would be attracted like moths to a flame to other women who share their views and who are potential friends.
It should be interesting to see what kind of feedback this post receives in the comments. I think I am onto something here.
Note: Richard Spencer addressed the same issue in a video at Trad Youth.
“Bring back automatic father custody of children. It is a known fact that 80% of divorces are initiated by women. If daddy automatically got the kids, Mommy would also lose the child support (read: Mommy support) check that goes with it. Thus, divorce would turn into a financial loss, not financial gain, for Mommy.”
Children (particularly children still nursing) need their mothers. So no.
Better idea. Any divorces granted require the bioparents to live in the same house (separate bedrooms) or next door to each other so children have easy access to either parent.
Also, Stonelifter,
I’ve made my arguments before of giving MARRIED COUPLES each an extra vote to: 1) encourage marriage
2) give extra clout to the people who are th3 most pro-social (married couples)
3) give good men, capable of properly leading and influencing their wives, effectively 4X the vote of divorced and never-married women. With your extra voting power, there’s your chance to fix the unfair- to-White -men divorce laws.
4) act as a reward to men for accepting the risk of financial loss in case of divorce.
How is that anti White men?
You, or somebody, I think it was you, said, no. Just restrict voting to to men.
But how does that encourage marriage? Or prevent man-slobs (of whom there are a significant fraction) from voting themselves all the goodies, the way mothers do now?
And how does automatic custody-awarding to men encourage fertility? How does it women to get preg? I certainly wouldn’t have taken that risk.
Our GOAL here is to Secure a Future for White Children.
White children need to be raised by their own, married, bioparents.
MY plan furthers that end. None of yours do.
In addition, MY plan is likely to be more politically palatable, more likely to actually be pass-able, than yours of just ripping away the franchise from all women. How could you possibly get enough women to vote for such a thing?
But giving married women an extra vote, (as well as her husband) married and wanna-be-married women WOULD vote for that, I wager.
as I’ve said Barb, your plan on voting is an outstanding idea. Its more likely to be implemented.
For me, restricting the vote is two fold; #1 laws like the current divorce law, AA etc can be repealed. #2 laws like that won’t be enacted again. Those things come about because a minority of White men, a majority of White women and racial minorities vote as a block against the interest of the majority of White men.
Something Denise won’t come to terms with, once again she sides steps the responsibility of woman in these things and reenforces my point women are children and should not vote
Statistically children raised by single fathers do much better than children raised by mothers. Fathers should have custody by default
Fr John you can believe what you want, it does not change the fact you do not understand women. Probably because you married a good one. Lucky you, but don’t expect those of us who have been ground up by the system and women to agree with you, and given the divorce stats, you are the exception to the rule, not the rule. Once you start looking past your experience I think you’ll come to a more accurate picture. However I know you will not actually look into divorce rates, who files the most, why, how often men raised a cuckold etc etc. Like Denise its much easier to blame men
All are good points and on the money, Hunter, but I think the number one reason is that for the past several decades the WN movement has been losing. Women natually want winners for the fathers of their children, it’s basic evolutionary theory. This is the case even though the Hollywood story is always the beautiful young girl chasing after the poor, backward, but cool loser and ignoring the noble, wealthy types. Of course this is totally unnatural, but as we all know, leftists hate nature and Nature’s God.
Molon – Incogman? All the time. I used to post, ages ago. The internecine fale wars got to be too irritating. He lets that Mad Kikess run riot, now and again.
His site is great though. He’s one of the folks I’d really love to meet.
Sigh “flame” wars.
Stonelifter – stop running your mouth and make it happen. I’ll wait around for all your brilliant ideas to be implemented, mmm’kay?
none of my ideas will be implemented and the West will die and White women will shack up with non White men and egg them on to hunt us down. Woman of all types have done more or less the same thing all through history
“Statistically children raised by single fathers do much better than children raised by mothers. Fathers should have custody by default”
Yeah, I’ve heard MRAs make that assertion before.
Let’s see your statistics. Color me skeptical, because I’m an old La Leche League Leader, and I know the scientific, health, and the humanitarian reasons for breastfeeding over artificial baby milk feeding with bottles — something fathers cannot do.
Babies want their mothers. Any fool who watches a random infant for 5 minutes can see who the baby prefers — his own mother. (With the proviso the mother is a reasonably decent human being and not a drug-addled or psychotic.)
If you are comparing single fathers
(who currently will ONLY get custody, as a general rule, if the mother is particularly lousy or they are particularly motivated — therefore a selective, not a representative, sample of the universe of single fathers as it would were such a thing to become common, and therefore not a reasonable extrapolation)
to single mothers doing drugs and sleeping around who bottle feed with formula, bottle prop, and dump Baby in daycare 10 hours a day, I may concede, depending on the links to evidence you post.
But a motivated mother with a reasonable IQ and not drug-addled, who loves her child and tries to do right by her, is the best caregiver for the happiness of the baby. Particularly if she is in a position to not abandon baby in daycare 10 hours a day while she works.
If in America few of my good-mothering conditions are met for today’s American babies, it’s a terrible commentary on American economics, not on what Human babies need to best thrive.
wow this was an extremely depressing read, esp. the comments. it sounded like spousal arguements, LOL. they never get anywhere really, perhaps we should just take our ideals and run with them and enjoy the uglyness around us and the pain and discomfort, really men and women are not supposed to agree on everything, but we need each other to make more of us. we disagree because it is totally impossible to understand the other, and frustration arises because we need them. now our ideal is making more white people, so even if the lady leaves you or whatever, you still made your ideal into reality, so how is it in anyway bad? during the germanic migrations after the fall of rome, whenever a germanic warband fought a battle with invaders, such as the asiatic turko-huns, alans, etc. the women would goad their men on by flashing their breasts before the spearwall to remind the men what they fought for. just though i’d share that little yarn with everyone.
also as a side note, any white racialist man who thinks that orientals are attractive is not a racialist. and white male miscegenation is/was always more prolific, look at mexico for nietzche’s sake, holy hell they literally fucked the entire race mullato, same as in the phillipines. the rage over female miscegenation is due to the loss of control/ feelings of helplessness that it fosters in whitemen the “protectors of white women”.
Stonelifter: You could be right, much of it comes down to simple survival of the fittest. Western man has allowed (either by force or by deceipt, mostly the latter) a competitor race into their territory that will compete for their females. Humans aren’t the only creatures who go through this process. Women, especially white women due to adaptations gained during the ice age, seek stable, secure and predictable environments to raise their children. Moreover, the will seek to pass on their genes in the most viable vehicle they can (given they are of healthy mind, that is, and not drug addled). Nothing against women, it’s hardwired in. At the moment, that vehicle is minority babies. Why? Because a white woman who bears a minority baby will see that baby have preferences and more of a chance for upward mobility, especially in a browning society. HOWEVER, there is one big problem with this and that is the stable, predictable and secure environment part of the equation. This is provided by and large by white men, as are the tax dollars for her half-breed to be given preferences and government handouts.
“For me, restricting the vote is two fold; #1 laws like the current divorce law, AA etc can be repealed. #2 laws like that won’t be enacted again. Those things come about because a minority of White men, a majority of White women and racial minorities vote as a block against the interest of the majority of White men”
Listen again.
If you were to give married couples 4 votes instead of 2, you’d effectively 4X the voting power of married men — the people most likely to vote for White men’s interests. *Assuming he does his duty of properly influencing his wife.*
I don’t think we should restrict the franchise to men only for 2 reasons: Unsavories like Roissy, who are the flip side of the coin to feminism, need to be as marginalized as the feministas should be. Also, the Suffragettes had a point that mothers care about the children and elderly, and that emotional empathy with the helpless brings a useful balance to the male propensity to think coldly logically — and therefore, sometimes too cruelly. Women fought for their suffrage as a response to Dickensian Money-is-All, children-are-disposable-commodities type thinking.
The mistake the first wave feminists made was to overlook the fact that it’s *married* (therefore being duly influenced by husband’s rationality) *mothers* who are the women most able to balance the feminine empathy with cold rationality, to avoid plunging headlong into the Welfare State hell you get when single women have power. But we do need some women voters to avoid descending back into Oliver Twist’s society.
The troublemakers in America are Jews waging tribal war on us by other means; unwed mothers (who want welfare to feed their progeny); feminists (who are neither married, nor, likely, mothers, and the leadership is largely Jewesses) as well as Roissy types who are having opportunistic, non-begetting, promiscuous sex from barsluts whilst disavowing marriage; minorities looking for handouts;
and White men who put money/their personal career advancemen above all else.
Giving married couples (the MOST pro-White people in America, and the ones most likely to be making the needed babies) 2 extra votes effectively disenfranchises all the troublemakers and assures they won’t be able to reinstate their anti-White agenda.
Meanwhile, it promotes marriage as a Good Thing and gives men a reward for daring to risk it. (And since blacks don’t marry, they’d be disenfrachised, also.)
And it could become law even today, in an America where all women vote. No violent revolution, first, even required. It addresses all your concerns, Stonelifter, and a few you haven’t thought of.
*Steve Sailer conclusively demonstrated in The Dirt Gap, I think it was, that women, when they marry, begin voting their (Republican) husband’s interests.
” we disagree because it is totally impossible to understand the other”
How am I not understanding Stonelifter?
I *get* it that America is anti-White, and most of all, anti-White men.
I *get* it that men whose wives divorce them for no good reason and take the kids and the money are being screwed over.
I *get* it that Stonelifter got handed a load of undeserved crap.
I *get* it and I sympathize.
But I also realize that the MRAs’ foot-stamping, while emotionally satisfying for THEM personally, is not only ineffective to changing the laws screwing them over, it’s directly contrary to what we WNs say we want, a future for White children, (because you can’t give White kids a future unless they get conceived in the first place, and misogynistic spleen-venting drives away the very people we need to bear them — White women.)
We NEED White women in this movement. We MUSTN’T drive them off.
I’m trying to find solutions that WON’T drive women away — solutions that will appeal to them, will attract them to our movement. Advocating to give women (and their husbands) an extra vote for marrying sounds good to married women AND single women who want to get married.
The singles who are trying to get resistant beau to alter can use it as a carrot, since he gets one too, and the men who choose their wives well and lead them properly end up with the political power, all without the offensive you-suck message women get when anyone talks about taking away her vote.
I think maybe I understand Stonelifter a little too well. Maybe what’s foremost in his mind at the moment isn’t a Future for White Children. Maybe what he really wants right now is sympathy. Well, we can give him that, and we should, being pro-White. But we have to give him a dose of cold, rational thinking, too, eventually and get him past his emotions. Because his own daughters, if they have boys, maybe, those grandsons will have to grow up in anti-White America.
(Does he REALLY think his sons can get hold of a White egg and plant it in a dot-Indian broad and then get the munchkin away from her to take it away to America? Really? Pfft.)
Well, the current “article” (“Planet of the Bitches”) at Alt. Right pretty much typifies the beta-male attitudes of some male WN’s. Aside from extolling the virtues of non-Whites, it pretty much reveals why WN’ism has been a total failure and why women are not attracted to the desperate, deceitful, entitled and pathetic keyboard kommandos who stalk sites like SF. No woman, myself included, is going to be attracted to losers who blame women for their social retardation. The rampant paranoia and behind-the-scenes BS is needless drama and distraction to those of us who are actually, you know, living lives.
Really, who wants to listen to guys who are “going to save the white race,” but are addicted to drugs, dating non-whites (but….but, I know she looks Mexican and has a Mexican last name, but she’s from Spain!) and unable to do anything productive?
okay barbara, i “understand” that mysogeny is obnoxious and a little pointless in the context of internet chatter. the MRA peoples are essentially the rights version of LGBT leftists, they are a like the SA “masculinists”, it is really all just posturing. “understand” that people who spend their freetime obsessing on vikings, militaristic virtues and “race war” are going to wax poetic about a violent partiarchy. “understand” that BRA is a seen as a matriarchy by these people. i get that you are able to move beyond this. i digress though, that a movement about restoring traditional society (read: patriarchy) is going to have its share of mysogenists, just like the bolsheviks had their fair share of paranoid-athiests.
(please note that i mean no offense, in the traditional real world a young man like myself would have to show respect to a older woman such as yourself. there was an article on the amerika blog that illustrated the concept to restablishing VALUES)what men need is VALUES to defend, etc. nowdays young men, like myself do not have to show respect to women today because there is no VALUE in white womenhood (as presented by today’s culture), so as members of that culture (no matter how dissedent we pretend to be) we reflect this nihilism in our commentary. i hope you understand what i am trying to say, basically that there will always be hardcore masculinists in the RADICAL right, as white nationalism moves into the mainstream these elements will become marginalized just as hardcore leftists were maginalized in the 60’s as the cultural revolution moved into the mainstream.
The generational gap on this issue interesting. For the most part older men and women don’t have the experience to understand what’s going on. While I am older, my coworkers are younger and I am single myself. a 50 year old in a stable marriage doesn’t have 1st hand experience or knowledge of what dating/ marriage/ father hood is like for young White men.
Sympathy is useless, and woman aren’t capable of it. Nice attempt at shaming though.
My sons would be better off renting a womb, but they will mess up, think some woman loves them and then get ground up. Just like my son in laws messed up. Odds are against men in marriage and men face almost all the risk, with little reward. And the “rewards” can be had without the risk of marriage. That’s what I advocate, reducing the risk for young White men.
My plan, while rejected by almost every one brings us White children without the risk of White women, without the very real risk of divorce theft and losing your children because someone is “unhappy” It produces children, protects men form divorce theft and secures the fathers rights since there will be, in affect, no mother to steal your child or your wealth.
Nor is this my experience only; its the experience of most men, divorced or unhappily married. I only know 2 men married for any length of time who are still happy. Their wives are worth more than then weight in gold. What are the odds of young men finding good women?
What does marriage offer to White men? Voting as a reward isn’t going to do much to motivate men to marry and produce kids. So far for this year, we are up to 8 cheating whore wives for 15 married men on my crew. Who the hell needs that? And why should White men face the risks for rewards that are not secured by law and custom? Recently I had a “loving” and passionate relationship, and she would have born my children if I asked. The rewards of marriage without the risks. However, she decided to whore around, and her actions cost me nothing. No lost property or children.
What do White women bring to the table that we need? They will return to White men when things go to shit and they need the very things from us they now disdain. Not sure we should take them back, but we do need kids. I’d shutter at having kids with most women today. Who wants their son nursed on a tit that’s been posted all over the internet?
Yea Barb, I like your plan a lot and think highly of it. I think I’ve stated that clearly a few times, however it still relies on women doing the right thing. Successful civilization have never tried relying on women, and the historical record is, nations fall when they allow women a larger role. At the end of the day, I think your plan is a bad idea because it doesn’t take in the nature of women. Yes there are cads, but they are vastly out numbered by the solid worker bee/ beta types. Good woman are massively out numbered by the other kind
If women really cared about their children they would not leave good men because they are unhappy, which is the case in most divorces. Or kill children in he womb
Seems to me, common sense would tell you single moms are a failure and source of instability for our nation. Even if the facts don’t support single fathers being the better choice, why not try something new? Results couldn’t be any worse, and its likely women would stay married. I’d also require a mandatory DNA test for all children at birth to ensure the bio-father is in fact the bio-father. Also won’t happen because women and white knights won’t go for it
We also know women abuse children more often than men and are more likely to harm their biological children than biological fathers harm their biological children
I’ve posted the info before, but you didn’t like the sources, pointless to do so again.
Through out history when a tribe kills their men, women lay down and spread their legs for the conquerors. That’s what’s going on today, but it’s a little more subtle in the here and now. It’s the way of things.
I am implementing my plan at my level Denise, and a woman will never have ties to me or my money again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I’ll not be fooled again. If I am successful, the same will apply for my sons and the young men I mentor. I don’t give a damn if that changes the world or not, as long as it improves the lives of the young White men I know.
I’d like for just once for a woman to say xyz is wrong and that women are responsible/ share some guilt in xyz. Won’t happen though, or not to any level and we will grind our way down the road to extinction because, in part, women cannot stand the idea of taking responsibility.
“hope you understand what i am trying to say, basically that there will always be hardcore masculinists in the RADICAL right, as white nationalism moves into the mainstream these elements will become marginalized just as hardcore leftists were maginalized in the 60?s as the cultural revolution moved into the mainstream.”
I do, indeed, understand. And I agree. What I’m hoping for is to hasten the move of WN into the mainstream by the mechanism of, us, talking among ourselves here, getting the hardcores to pipe down a bit (or, actually, a lot), so that when the mainstream women who are making those first tentative exploration steps into WN come here, they’re not scorched by the misogyny, run away screaming and tell their friends STAY AWAY THOSE GUYS ARE NUTS! Running off the early-adopter women slows the mainstream adoption.
“Good woman are massively out numbered by the other kind”
I might believe you but for Steve Sailer’s proof (in The Dirt Gap, I think) that when women marry, they begin voting their husband’s interests. By and large, that is. Give those couples the voting power.
Your story is otherwise, but don’t fall into the trap of the feminine mind that your experience is the whole story. Pull out your masculine logic and think about whole populations. I’m trying to, and I’m a girl!
As far as abuse goes, childcare is stressful. Since men, today, only get custody when she’s totally psycho (i.e., after the abuse has already happened) your studies are not a valid indicator of what abuse rates would be if men got default custody on a broad scale.
Those cases of father primary custody available for study today, mere reversion-to-the-mean would suggest the other parent would be expected to be less abusive. By such metric, grandparents would also be expected to be less abusive than mothers. Let’s habitually give the kids to the grandparents in case of divorce?
But as far as abuse rates in a default father custody society where fathers in large numbers are dealing with the stress of childcare, abuse rates would almost certainly be far higher. Exactly how they would compare to current mother-abuse rates is uncertain at present.
What is virtually certain is that there would be other negative, some unanticipated, consequences.
One anticipated negative consequence is that breastfeeding rates would decline since men don’t have breasts. Formula-fed infants are at far higher risk of the very nasty, often fatal, disease respiratory syncytial virus, even in first world countries, to name just one of hundreds of negative effects of not breastfeeding.
Not breastfeeding and the babe gets RSV, or failure to thrive due to severe formula allergy, or a lower IQ, or a myriad other possible negative consequences to the infant from artificial feeding by custodian father, should count as abuse in the father column.
Abortion: The act is taken when the pregnancy is not “real” yet to the woman. It still seems like prevention, and it’s a decision made in haste with little time to really think it out. Legal abortion is a social travesty, but it’s not a true measure of feminine ability to empathize. The pushers are feministas and men who perform them. Analogy: That some men use drugs is not proof that all men make poor decisions, or that men who use cannot ever regain self-control.
The birth of the child is what brings the tsunami of emotion and attachment and milk. Postpartum psychosis, rare, is due to hormone imbalances. What new moms need is social support from Gramma and hubby and friends. Modern society leaves moms of small children too isolated. What should change is the atomism. That’s one of LLL’s most valuable contributions — it’s a source of information, support and friendship for bewildered, exhausted, overwhelmed young mothers. That’s how that org assists in child abuse prevention.
Divorce: I want to see the stats WHY the woman is unhappy. If she’s unhappy because he’s unfaithful or a drunken pig or a gambler or beats her senseless, then the divorce is not her fault. HE broke it, she merely acknowledged the break by filing.
Prove to me the percentage of divorces due solely to feminine caprice.
And no, I’ve not seen your links to stats. If you’ve posted them, I must have missed it.
You want me to acknowledge where us women have fallen down?
Ok.
1) Baby boomer mothers failed to teach their daughters that it’s our job to see to it the guys don’t get sex until we’ve gotten the wedding ring.
2) Women have done a lousy job of discerning who to follow. We’ve let silly TV shows make us think unmarried Sex in the City will leave us with lasting happiness.
“I’d also require a mandatory DNA test for all children at birth to ensure the bio-father is in fact the bio-father.”
I could support that. And if DNA evidence says the kid isn’t his, then the real bio father can be sued for child support, so as to compensate the wife’s husband for his loss.
One more thing:
“Just like my son in laws messed up.”
I’m confused. I thought earlier you said you’d done a good job raising your daughters.
Okay, I deserve to be shot for my serial posting, but I also overlooked something else on first reading that deserves an answer.
“Voting as a reward isn’t going to do much to motivate men to marry and produce kids”
Why not? With the voting power, men can have the anti-male divorce laws changed. They can also change the tax laws and the Affirm Action laws, the abortion laws, indecency laws, miscegenation laws, and everything else the WNs and MRAs disagree with. Provided, that is, you are a good, leadership-capable man who can influence your wife so your vote gets leveraged. Which is a wonderful filter that we have quality men of sound character running things.
In a voting-counting democracy, extra votes is everything. And men like power.
Making men marry and assume all that responsibility to get that power motivates them to marry, to get it.
The kid production is a likely outcome of marrying. (Regular sex leads to babies. Just due to b/c mistakes, if nothing else).
I think what is being missed in these comments is the cultural aspect of race or nation. What is race apart from the specific nations of people who make up that race? The White race as an abstraction can be endlessly debated. But the reality of the White race is the history and life of the English, the German, the Ukranian, the Lithuanian, the Irish etc.
The identity of man or woman as an English or a Francaise or German is given history, content, character, tradition, creativity and expression through the culture.
For most women who are traditional – race and the polemics of race that occupy men is an abstraction. The woman tends to be centred in her culture and (here is the deal breaker for the guys) specifically – the religious faith or spirituality of that culture. She is occupied with what her nation/ethne holds to be true about life in all its dimensions.
Survival of the race or the nation as a right and a polemic is the barest bones of the matter.
I am forced to take myself as an example, not because I am trying to impose this, but because I can speak for myself. In the Celtic Society to which I belong, we are interested in our children and grandchildren knowing our ancestral traditions and history as Scots or Irish. How to play the bagpipes, the bodhran, our poetry, stories and songs, our traditional dances, Gaelic, our traditional festivities like Lugnasadh, our holy days of obligation like Pentecost, our history as a people and our religious faith/s. Both Catholics and Protestants belong to the society and some people who say they are pagans. But they learned their paganism from the Christians who have always preserved such of the pagan customs of the nation as pertained to the poetry of nature like the old calendar of the trees.
In the most ancient churches or Cells, much of that lore was wrought in stone so it could be preserved.
In Ireland everyone went to the holy wells – Catholics, Protestants, people who kept the old ways, people who didn’t believe in anything except the trinity of me, myself and I. The holy wells knew Ireland before there was an Ireland to know – to phrase from G.K. Chesterton’s Ballad of the White Horse.
Abstractions, polemics that centre around abstractions that generate animosity and ill will in the community – as a rule do not really interest women who are committed to the life of their families within cultural and spiritual traditions that nourish life.
For a woman to commit to the counter culture and self sacrifice of having a large family, she has to have something to believe in. Men with low morals who display contempt for her religious faith and lecture her on what she should do according to some political agenda are not going to persuade her in any way.
I think women see clearly that the nation is morally bankrupt. Most are pursuing the individualist path of “eat drink and get it while you can”. As are men. And so, they are completely at cross purposes and use each other to the ruin of all hopes that they become heirs to the grace of life together.
According to the Bible “Without a vision the people perish”. It is the role of men to go on the vision quest and settle your minds on the weighty matters of faith and judgement.
The women who have searched through these issues in the father’s house are already a part of their communities and fall into clear areas of life and belief. The Christians are the largest number. And within this group the present task is to understand the racial perspective of the Bible from history, scripture, tradition of the Church, Patristics. This is task of recovery and restoration for the present need – not a task of revison or reformation or denial. They are not open to persecuting diatribes which hold up their faith to ridicule just because up until now (when the White genocide phase of the Revolution inaugurated 1789 is in view) the Church has had an Evangelical focus.
While the women sort through these enormous issues there will be huge shake-ups in the families.
The Catholics, for example, are still going through the immense upheavals of conducting their community life outside the jurisdiction of the anti-papacy (est 1958 – ?) in Rome. This entails pulling children and grand-children out of the parochial schools and building parishes and schools based on the Catholic faith of Tradition.
The White of this, is the reality of the White nations whose Tradition is the Christian faith. This is both a spiritual and an identity issue. So for someone whose White identity is Irish – they belong to a nation which has been Christian since the the 4th century A.D. The pagan customary laws and practices that did not offend the laws of the Church (as opposed to those that did: like drinking the blood of the dead and peat bog human sacrifices) are part of that rich heritage of that nation.
It is this heritage and the heritage of all European nations both in ancestral lands and diaspora that labours under the present threat.
The simplest two things to improve the situation would be: 1) make it more about positive things and not about negative things, and 2) give it a different name than White Nationalism, which sounds sort of extremist and maybe nutty and/or violent, and conjures images of guys with strange Hitler tattoos and too many guns and that sort of thing. It should have a name that sounds eminently reasonable, not combative — because ultimately, it is reasonable, and doesn’t need to be combative.
But accenting the positive is a must. There’s way too much slagging of other races and groups, and too much debasing language about other groups. Some of it in some contexts is understandable venting of frustration, and some of it is necessary to generate critical analysis of intersecting racial interests… but a lot of it is just ugly and demeaning and unpleasant, probably a big turn-off for a lot of women.
The chief thing is that whites are simply looking to regain a sense of themselves as having moral legitimacy simply for existing on their own terms. This was the great weapon that the civil rights movement used against whites — they made it appear as though whites were morally illegitimate whenever they were gathered amongst themselves for any reason, without some “Other” to lend them moral respectability. The mere fact that a bunch of whites were gathered on their own terms suddenly looked like sinister segregation.
So there needs to be a positive push for whites to feel legitimate in their own presence: it isn’t about scorning or excluding someone else, it’s about the positive step of saying, Look, we exist, we’re an identifiable group and people, and we have our own interests and concerns and there’s nothing suspicious about that.
The whole thing needs to be seen as perfectly above-board, not hateful or demeaning, and perfectly reasonable. Like I say, positive. I think women will be more inclined to be associated if they understand that it isn’t about marching around or using lots of words with “storm” in them or any of that kind of stuff. It’s simply about reclaiming the metaphysical space of the historical American people, and re-granting themselves permission to be themselves without anyone else’s approval.
People forget that custody for mothers is a rather recent social innovation. Up until 1850 daddy automatically got the kids. If one reads that Seneca Falls declaration of 1848 one of the feminist complaints was that women had no right to custody of their children in event of divorce. The early Romans had the law of paterfamilias which gave the father and husband the legal power of life and death over his spouse and children. That is rather extreme but maybe not, considering the current state of affairs.
Giving married couples twice the voting power of singles might, or might not, create a more pro-white atmosphere. Remember, the KKK once supported votes for white women to create a pro-white voting block against blacks and Jews. It did not work out that way. Stonelifter is correct that children raised by fathers turn out better than children raised by mothers. This cult of the mother arose from the doctrine of “tender years” concocted by the courts around 1830. It was the start of a bad trend that has persisted to this day.
” This cult of the mother arose from the doctrine of “tender years” concocted by the courts around 1830. It was the start of a bad trend that has persisted to this day.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. For the entirety of human existence up to about 90 years ago, in the extended absence (generally due to death, but for whatever reason) of the mother, the infant died, lest another nursing woman could be found and imposed upon to wet-nurse. Only in the early 20th century did science advance sufficiently far that a (quite inferior, as science now knows) artificial baby milk could be manufactured of sufficient quality and ratios of specific nutrients that the child lived more often than died. Only since the mid 50s has pediatrics advanced enough to even entertain the notion of broadscale awardance to fathers of primary custody of small children.
KKK, it would seem, lacked sufficient experience, no entity having ever given women the vote before, to recognize that it is married women who are capable of wisely handling the franchise, not all women and sundry. But KKK ought to have known that giving the vote to all and sundry of any group means the non-stakeholders in the group will vote themselves goodies til the public treasury is broke. KKK ought to have known that; the Founders knew that. The Founders did not give the vote to all men and sundry. They enfranchised only men who possessed land, so non-stakeholder men would not vote the public well dry.
That’s why extra votes, extra enfranchisement, to marrieds will work. Married couples are the biggest stakeholder demographic in America, even today.
Married women ought to vote, because when she’s married her husband tempers her excesses of sympathy, while she tempers his excesses of bloodless rationality. We see today that tempering by husbands today, in that states with high marriage/ family formation/ mortgage-taking rates vote Republican. States with low family formation (unmarried women / unwed mothers) vote for socialist programs.
Barb – I don’t feel sorry for Stoneloser. He’s obviously incapable of learning ANYTHING, and is still bitterly clinging to his boring misery.
I’ve tried to back off of him – but it’s pointless. He takes every opportunity to take shots at me. He characterizes NY as “immature” etc , and he writes the most absurd things aobut females, as a whole. He’s defeatist, and it trying to draw others into his loser-dom POV. Whatever. Only those stupid enough to agree with him will be stupid anough to agree with him.
He’s essentially accepted defeated:
“Stonelifter says:
May 31, 2012 at 2:26 am
none of my ideas will be implemented and the West will die and White women will shack up with non White men and egg them on to hunt us down. Woman of all types have done more or less the same thing all through history”
This is not true – but there’s NOTHING that guarantees failure like accepting this self-indulgent self-justifying idiocy as “true”.
All of this is run of the mill complaining…but then ….this gem:
“My plan, while rejected by almost every one brings us White children without the risk of White women,”
White men. White babies. No White women. Huzzah! What are you going to do – kill the White girl babies at birth?
Stoneloser and his ilk aren o longer annoying cranks – they are ABSOLUTE LIABILITIES.
GO AWAY.
You are a DETRIMENT to ANY-ONE who is trying, however well, or badly, to ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING.
You are a LOSER. All by yourself.
It’s NOT women. It’s feckless, whiny, CHILDISH self-indulgent egoists like YOU.
GO AWAY.
You make the White Movement – whatever name you want to choose, look like the biggest loonies on Earth. Even the NOI appear more rational, and focused, than the Spearsuckers.
Go off and BECOME the Homo you ARE. You can sniff testosterone all day long. And all night long
Every-one, including yourself, will be much happier.
YOU are the liability to the White Race. Not women.
Homosexuals have LOTS of money, and no women! The perfect life for you. There was a viddy floating about, concerning 2 Israeli homos, who are renting a foriegn womb, and getting babies for fees.
They may be able to help you implement your plans. (Or are you one of those guys?)
Hi, Denise.
Curious if you’ve got any stats or info how much of the MRA is homosexual?
Is that what’s really going on, by and large? Because it’s odd, the histrionics.
I have up to now chalked it up to the all-encompassing bitterness someone will naturally feel when they’ve been scorned / scammed. It
happens, no doubt.
But what’s odd among MRAs in general is the (rather unflatteringly feminine) refusal to listen to logic / set emotion aside and examine the situation / see the whole picture. It seems to me when you touch a nerve amongst those guys, the immediate screeching surpasses the shrillest she-harpie ever heard.
Sheesh, even as harpies men do a better job.
Heh!
What a misogynist *I* am, eh?
Sorry, Barb. I wan’t telling you to go away. I was telling Stonedloser to go away.
I am sleep deprived I didn’t mean to change the subject of my comment, in mid-post. I think I can’t be shocked anymore – but I still am. The idea of White men having White babies – lose the BITCHES – it’s disgusting beyond words.
It’s so UN-NATURAL. It’s on that spectrum where aflfuent weirdos pay for very, very very expensive sex dollsm in leiu of a real live woman . This mentality is as depraved, and death-oriented, as any grotesque concotion of Jewry.
I want guys like that to LEAVE. They need to go crawl in a hole. Read Brunhild’s post, up the thread. Why would ANY woman want ANYTHING to do with ANY weirdo that wants to rid the world of women, in the first place?
Guys like that screech about women – and then never understand why healthy postive women run away from them. It’s JUST like Jews . Jews attack and undermine every host population they infest – and then screech and howl and whine about the Goy hating them, and being to MEAN to them.
I’ve been staying up late watching the History Channel’s “The Hatfields andMcCoys”. It’s a wonderful mini-series. There are NO Non-Whites, in 3 hours of programming. The cast is unformly excellent. Some dramatic liberties have been taken, with the actual events – but the storyline sticks pretty close to the actual events.
Stoneloser reminds me of Randall McCoy. He starts the whole thing off. He gets cheesed about something Anderson Hatfield did, and then carries on a vendetta for years. Both sides do some really dreadful things – but Hatfield eventually snaps out of it. The Hatfields were definitely the more functional family. The McCoys are DESTROYED by their patriatch’s obsessions. He never understand that HIS actions, based on his egoism (which is cloaked in religious justifications) is what undoes himself, and his family. NOT Hatfield.
I have no idea how many open, or closeted queers are in the MRA. There have always been female hating jerks. That Hellfire club thing, etc. This sort is worse than useless, for advancing any White causes. They are internal subverters.
I don’t want to waste time or energy on online feuds – but I’m not going to listen to that absurd and repulsive poison.
“The idea of White men having White babies – lose the BITCHES – it’s disgusting beyond words.”
Aye. I’m all for increasing the numbers of White babies. But I’m also for raising them well, including a complete course of a normal nursing relationship as the foundation for health, both mental and physical, of the infant — and for society at large.
The birth-defected, emotionally crippled monstrosities that could well emerge from a widespread harvesting of White women’s eggs (how? Against her will? Wow, there’s a hellish sci-fi scenario) and implantation into (?)incompatible ot-Indian uteri, then the forcible tearing of the infant from its gestational mother’s breast, to be artificially fed and raised by White-woman-hating men, if that poor White baby (what are the effects of gestating in a womb of a woman of a foreign race?) is a girl….ay yi yi yi
NOTHING in Stonelifter’s idea is pro A Future For White Childen. His idea is utterly ghoulish, and alien, and at least as selfish as all those lousy American mothers he rightfully decries.
I get criticized for editing comments on my posts for people using curse words and flaming each other. This comment thread could use some editing – weird stuff, alienates women and mainstream whites.
Jack, you get criticized for controlling not editing, there is a distinction..
Jack – I’m sorry if you find some of my language offensive – but the “White men harvesting White babies from Non White Slave Wombs, simply to avoid the HORRORS of dealing with White women” – but it’s too creepy and insulting for words.
This old post flares up every few months.
Denise,
My point was that the creepy comments about harvesting White babies should have been deleted. And it isn’t censorship, just being more selective about what letters to the editor are published.
We want to appeal to successful, mainstream Whites, not scare everyone off with creepy nonsense.
Barb:
I’m afraid you’ve got your facts wrong. Automatic custody for fathers was the norm for many centuries before the modern age. Like it or not, that is the fact. As to the divine right of motherhood, I find it nauseating beyond description that a sex which murders its own baby in cold blood down at the abortion clinic can have anything to say about the welfare of any child coming first. As for fiscal responsibility, giving women the vote led to an enormous increase in government spending in every state where it was ratified before passage of the 19th amendment. So if getting rid of freebies paid for by the productive middle classes is the issue, repealing “Mother State” by repealing women’s right to vote would be the ideal way to proceed.
As to womens suffrage, I do not recall that women spilled their blood at Valley Forge or Yorktown. Perhaps we should make women fight all the wars for two hundred years while combat exempt male suffragettes scream for rights they don’t deserve. We can call it sex equality with “reasonable biological distinctions” – as defined by have-it-both-ways males.
PS:
Stop picking on Stonelifter. What he is really proposing is to break the female monopoly on reproduction and lower the price of you- know-what. It is reproductive economics to deprice the womb.
Just coming in on this thread at the end of a day. This old thread is new to me. I’ve always said that women treat their husbands as well as they think of their own fathers. Poor fatherhood creates spoiled, resentful, foolish women for the next generation of males to deal with.
Surrogate parenting, whether arranged by homosexuals or endangered ethnics, is always un-Christian, immoral, unnatural and dangerous! Children are the most important and difficult “crop” one can raise, and white men need to be truly good fathers now, before another generation of women is ruined.
“As for fiscal responsibility, giving women the vote led to an enormous increase in government spending in every state where it was ratified before passage of the 19th amendment.”
Wyoming, the first state to enact Woman’s Suffrage in America, A.D. 1869. Nearly 150 years of Women’s Suffrage, yet WY is the reddest of red states, second only to Missippippi in electing Republicans at all levels. We have the longest history of Women’s vote in America — and the 2nd-most pro-white male gov’t in America. Our state is near the bottom for welfare spending.
What we DON’T have is jewesses in the University to mislead our young women.
Phyllis Schlaffly led the successful campaign to STOP ERA.
19th Amendment passed in 1920. The 1924 immigration act was passed to limit the flood of Eastern European communist agitator immigrants — when White American women were fully enfranchised.
The liberated “Rosie the Riveter”s, despite having grown up fully enfranchised, who built the warplanes to fight WWII, the instant the boys came home, quit that accursed job and went home to birth her 3 contributions to the boomiest baby boom that ever boomed.
America went off the rails in the 1960s, as a direct result of Eastern European immigration prior to 1924. Those commie immigrants’ red diaper babies invented, agitated for, and led the CounterCultural Revolution / Sexual Revolution and Pollution of our mainstream media, including Disney, fer chrissakes, the assault from which America has never recovered. Jews agitated for No-Fault divorce (as it increased Jew lawyers’ quickly-handled caseloads and flowed directly to their bottom lines).The generations of X, Y, and the Millenials have had their rightful childhood innocence stolen from them, by anti-White Jewish media. It’s little wonder they’re now having a hard time forming happy families.
“What he is really proposing is to break the female monopoly on reproduction and lower the price of you- know-what”
The Jews are our misfortune, yet Stonelifter saves his bile for White women in general, and is so anti-White kids, he wants to churn them out like factory products, with ZERO regard for the health and happiness of those poor munchkins. Sick.
“As to womens suffrage, I do not recall that women spilled their blood at Valley Forge or Yorktown.”
No. But they spilt plenty of blood (and risked their very lives: childbed fever / uterine rupture / cardiac arrest) birthing the boys who became those soldiers.
“find it nauseating beyond description that a sex which murders its own baby in cold blood down at the abortion clinic can have anything to say about the welfare of any child coming firs”
Equally nauseating that a sex, American men, can send their own teenage boys to die in wars that don’t even benefit Americans (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). Shall we therefore deny that sex, American men, any say in the welfare of any children first?
The Malign Profession (LAWYERS) constantly promotes divorce and disunion, constantly encourages women, especially, to break their vows and destroy their children and families.
Most women will not be with us and our people will never recover until the plague of the legal profession is finally contained, or eradicated.
“What he is really proposing is to break the female monopoly on reproduction and lower the price of you- know-what. It is reproductive economics to deprice the womb.”
“Deprice the womb.” What a cold, calculating reduce-all-to-money, greedy, self-serving viewpoint, with zero regard to how it will affect the children “blessed” to gestate in those bizarro, unnatural, Brave New World, “depriced wombs.”
I *TOLD* you, babies want their mothers.
They are not a commodity for you venture capitalists to “break the monopoly” on. Babies are little human beings with human needs, and at the baby stage, the baby’s need is for his mother.
You libertarians are a ghoulish lot. Next you’ll be offering for sale at the supermarket, Grade A Prime tenderloin cuts from all that excess baby flesh brought about by having “optimized production processes,” once you “lowered the price of you-know-what”. Hey, it’s all economics! It’s all good! Right?
Shudder.
Married couples (and possibly combat veterans) are the ONLY folks who should have the franchise, I’m now thinking.
“Most women will not be with us and our people will never recover until the plague of the legal profession is finally contained, or eradicated”
Hear! Hear!
Damn it, I think my last post went down the rabbit hole.
Woman and their shaming tactics. Always a hoot and as predictable as the anti-racist crowd. Course it comes from the same jewish school of thought.
Denise, you are loathsome in my eyes and no amount of playing nice will change that. You cavort with queers and elected not to have kids. You have done our people 0 favors, and side stepped your greatest responsibility to our people.
This is HW house, and if ask me to leave, I will. Baring that, no woman will send me packing.
The vote does not inspire men to marry. 4 votes doesn’t off set the risks of marriage for men. Woman can leave a good man, get the kids, house and monthly cash payments; she can be a cheating whore and get the same thing. And women won’t vote to appeal those things and remove their “golden parachute”. Way to much risk, way too little reward for men. Men won’t marry or produce children in larger numbers until that changes ( and we no longer have to support negros, single mothers etc with our tax dollars and can spend that money on our families)
Women and the GOP; the GOP sells out White men every chance they get. Your apeal that married women vote in a better manner than single women is false. Married women vote is still anti White man. The GOP is the worse for putting women on a pedestal and riding in to protect them. Women in the GOP, and “Godly” women divorce good men at the same rate as godless leftist women. You have yet to offset the risks of marriage for men.
You think all the women who screw over their husbands with divorce, false claims etc are from broken homes? Woman are women. The numbers are what they are; one of my daughters will leave her husband for some bullshit reason or cheat on him when he is down range.
My story is my story and it’s a very common one. Just spend a few moments, goggle why women divorce. Look around at your own families, or read the MRA stuff and look past the language to what is actually going on. Again, I would say try out Dalrocks webpage. He has a nice guy, not at all to mean and scary and he breaks down divorce stats. Nice attempt at shaming language, again Barb, however, no impact no affect
If White women truly cared about White men and White families they’d work very hard to change divorce laws instead of dog out White men who speak out against the way women treat us and the legal system. But they will not do that because with women it’s always team woman 1st.
The point of renting wombs as a method to increase our numbers and reduce risk for White men is never addressed. Silly women get in huff because it breaks their power lock, but never, never ever do they say, we should fix the laws that makes marriage so risky for White men, or shame the hell out of their sisters and daughters when they abuse men thorough the courts( they will now because I called them on it, but that’s just more woman subterfuge). Your clinging to mother hood shows no regard to the children who will be raised without a father or the men who will have their children ripped away from them. I am 100% honest in that I don’t care anything about women outside of sex and reproduction. It’s all they have to offer. Single fathers can be no worse for children than single mothers, but it is better for men. And can the stuff about breast feeding because not all mothers breast feed. It’s a piss poor argument,. Morally my stance is neutral at worse. An appeal to God on this also falls flat since as things stand now, we do not have Biblical marriages and you don’t call out woman for making kids grow up without fathers. Since women file for divorce much more often, it is their choice to have kids grow up without us, not our choice. We shouldn’t we choose to have children on our terms? Terms that are much less risky to us as men?
No one has yet to answer why we need women, or address the root issue, which is White women have joined the anti White man team because it’s advantageous for them to do so. Where is there advantage for them becoming WN? They have none. We called it Black Ran America here, but it is also Woman Ran America. Ending big govt, ending BRA will end the “success” of White women as well. Once there is no more affirmative action, bullshit govt jobs, need for complex HR departments etc etc women will crash and burn along with the negro middle class. That is the bottom line. White women will return to the fold, so to speak, when things crash and White women cannot hide behind the govt and police. Than all the things they despise us for will be valued again. Not sure why we would want them back as wives, but that’s another topic.
Look y’all are going after women in the same way beta males do, show them you are nice, not threatening etc. That doesn’t get beta males laid and it won’t bring women to our cause. White men will flock to White men who demonstrate, strength, power and the willing to use both combined with a little humor and modest social courtesy. Than that White man can turn her into a WN but they will not come to us on their own accord.
ps, don’t blame the lawyers. Woman are rational adults, capable of voting/ exercising authority and do these things on their own accord or their are children and should not be given adult privileges or responsibilities. They cannot be both, have it both ways and be taken serious
I read nothing in Barb’s comments that refute anything I wrote. As to the argument that making babies is equivalent to dying for your country, I don’t buy it. Giving birth is a fairly risk free business. A battlefield is not. As for cold, calculating minds, what could be more calculating that bumping off your own child on the calculation you can always have another?
By the way Barb, was it not those biological shit for brains called women who got Alcohol Prohibition passed?
Stonelifter,
America year 2012 is a fallen world in so many ways. Of course, the USA’s divorce laws and marriage/mating customs are not fair to the White working man or to promoting healthy, White families. The US is about to push/pass homosexual marriage equality for God’s sake.
The reason so many of us here are risking social, career suicide to write posts and make comments on places like OD, Amren, AlternativeRight is that we know the American system is rotten, horrible.
But and this is a huge BUT…
We must do better here and elsewhere. We must raise ourselves and as many other good White people as we can and help our people up out of the muck of multi-cult, anti White (OK, anti White working man’s hell) hell.
So please Stonelifter, please don’t slag off on White women here on OD. We have some good ladies here and we want to attract more. Yes, many of our White women here have sinned, but we are working with them now to atone for their sins against our White race, against decent working class White men.
We are doing positive actions and living positive White lives.
Time to shape up and do what is right.
I agree, Stonelifter: “White women have joined the anti White man team because it’s advantageous for them to do so. Where is there advantage for them becoming WN? They have none. We called it Black Run America here, but it is also Woman Run America. Ending big govt, ending BRA will end the “success” of White women as well. Once there is no more affirmative action, bullshit govt jobs, need for complex HR departments etc etc women will crash and burn along with the negro middle class. That is the bottom line. White women will return to the fold, so to speak, when things crash and White women cannot hide behind the govt and police.”
You’re absolutely correct, Stonelifter, that they depend on the present unnatural, anti- anti-Christian (Talmudic) “system” to sustain their independence. And yes, WRA (Woman Run Amerika) or even TRA (Talmudist Run Amerika) would be a more accurate tag than BRA, though not so appealing.
But you also wrote: “ps, don’t blame the lawyers….” But I for one will continue to blame that most Malign Profession, along with the professional salesmen and money-changers, and anti-moral popular entertainers and heretical false teachers of all kinds, for making the present anti-Christ system. If not these wicked men, who DO you blame, then, besides the Devil, for leading modern women to be as they are?
If women really are as you say (and I agree) as irresponsible (morally) as children, how can THEY be blamed? For women, Established Tradition takes the place of The Truth for men, and these evil men (listed above, lawyers included) are those who have established and maintain this evil modern Tradition. THEY have created the game and its rules, and women merely play.
This I agree with: “Look y’all are going after women in the same way beta males do, show them you are nice, not threatening etc. That…won’t bring women to our cause. White women will flock to White men who demonstrate, strength, power and the will to use both…. Then that White man can turn her into a WN….”
Finally, the idea of hired surrogate wombing should not even enter Christian minds! The right solution is for us to come out from the present system and be separate — saith not me, but the Lord. Secession, apartheid and deportation, yes, if possible; otherwise relocation from urban to rural areas, local independence or self-sufficient local community in rural areas, homeschooling, no TV, no more banking, going off grid — separation, as much as possible — taking our women out of the present evil system, breaking them from the predominant modern tradition to re-learn the old tradition that is in accordance with the truth, being lived out in a truly (not Judeo-) Christian community, led by consistently good, honest, brave men.
Error correction: “anti- anti-Christian” should have been simply: “anti-Christian”!
To “self-sufficient local community in rural areas, homeschooling, no TV, no more banking, going off grid” I should have added “no more insurances, gambling, commercial tourism, unnecessary SHOPPING and materialistic display.” When we have separated ourselves as much as we possibly can from wasteful, empty pursuits, we will receive the gift of TIME that we never had before to do much better things.
Why do we want to attract more women? No one answers that question. You lose male followers by sucking up to women. Look at our churches and any other institution that sucks up to them and see how long men hang around. They don’t; then those institutions get more feminine and weaker every year. We won’t get many women to switch from team woman to team White man any which way, but what we will do is drive off men.
If women are rational and have what it takes to be treated like adults; we blame women for their actions like we blame men and expect them to take responsibility for their actions
If women are not rational adults, then we cannot place much blame on them, we can blame lawyers, jews and anyone else, but if that is also true then all power and responsibility must be stripped from them. We don’t allow 12 year olds to have power or responsibility either
Since women think they are rational adults, and the law treats them as rational adults they are responsible for their actions.
Clearly I disagree with the law and women, but we have to deal with reality. You can’t go to divorce court, tell the court your wife isn’t a rational, fully morally mature adult and have things go your way/ keep your kids and stuff by
Jack as always you write a nice post, but it does nothing, gives men no options or advice in dealing with the reality of women today. It sounds good, delivers…. zero. No doubt both you and Mosin are good men, but your post offer nothing to help deal with what we have in front of us and what we will have in front of us for a generation or two. Maybe 3 or 4.
Explain how surrogate mothers are not Biblical? They used surrogate mothers in the OT. The children produced would not be a product of fornication. As for us being separated and going back to the old ways, that’s not going to happen any time soon. I’d love to see it, I live my life as close to that as I can. However it ensure nothing, does nothing to reduce the risk of marriage to White men. My solutions is something workable in the here and now, and frankly cheaper than having a wife on top of eliminating the very real risk of losing your children, your property etc
“I read nothing in Barb’s comments that refute anything I wrote.”
Right. What’s the old phrase? You can’t reason someone out of a position he didn’t reason himself into.
“As to the argument that making babies is equivalent to dying for your country, I don’t buy it. Giving birth is a fairly risk free business. A battlefield is not. ”
Really? With modern hospitals and Germ Theory and epidurals it’s less risky today than previously, but for most of history, women had shorter life expectencies than men, even despite the wars, because women died in childbirth. Even today, there is a significant risk of dying from C-section, from such things as pulmonary embolism and sepsis, of which C-sections are now 30% of all births. Since the majority of women will give birth (multiple times, even) in their lifetimes, whereas the majority of men will NOT see combat on a battlefield, the real risk-per-person is higher for women.
“As for cold, calculating minds, what could be more calculating that bumping off your own child on the calculation you can always have another?”
What woman makes that calculation? The majority of abortions performed on White females are on teenagers — people not yet even women, by a reasonable definition (brain science has PROVEN that teenagers have less frontal cortex than at 21.) A woman (teen girl) wants an abortion not the way she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche, but the way a fox in a trap wants to chew its leg off.
Certainly abortion is an awful, harrowing thing. Far more ought to be done to encourage adoption in America so she need not chew her leg off.
But the largest portion of approbrium for this abomination OUGHT to be laid squarely at the feet of the people that profit off it — the abortion doctors. Many of whom are men, btw. The girl is lying there, drugged, terrified, brain shut down to block out what’s happening. But it’s the M.D. who is the one inserting the instruments in full light of fluorescent fixtures and reason and ripping out the baby.
“By the way Barb, was it not those biological shit for brains called women who got Alcohol Prohibition passed?”
Well, since Prohibition, the 18th amendment the the US Constitution, was passed by MEN, (since it was passed BEFORE the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution that enfranchised women in America), I’d say the biological shit for brains would have to be the men in the U.S. Senate making the laws at the time.
Wikipedia:
The Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 and effected on January 17, 1920.[3]
On November 18, 1918, before the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, the United States Congress passed the temporary Wartime Prohibition Act, which banned the sale of alcoholic beverages having an alcohol content of greater than 2.75%.[4] (This act, which was intended to save grain for the war effort, was passed after the armistice was signed on November 11, 1918.) The Wartime Prohibition Act took effect June 30, 1919, and July 1, 1919 became widely known as the “Thirsty-First”.
NOTE: The 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage, was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Or are you accusing the (male) Senators that ruled before women’s suffrage of all being supplicating betas that just do want the women nag them to? In which case, men, being such weakwilled, easily manipulated, creatures, ought to be the ones disenfranchised.
(Note to lurkers: I’m being sarcastic.)