Why Women Reject White Nationalism

Where are the women?

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.

About Hunter Wallace 12366 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. Women file for divorce because, as Stonelifter and others have demonstrated, they gain from it. One of the best ways to take away this incentive, as I pointed out earlier, would be to grant automatic custody to Daddy. Deprive Mommy of the kids and the Mommy support check that goes with it, give the house and the assets to Daddy, and Mommy, accustomed to financially raping Daddy, would think very hard about divorce. But make marriage a lisence to steal, and Mommy will file on a whim. It is that simple.

    Now I may be sure to read another response from Denise about my non-existent faggotry and how I hate adorable females for no rational reason. It is the stuck record Denise rhetoric.

  2. Denise–never argue with an idiot, a passerby may not be able to discern the difference.–Mark Twain

  3. yep more names thrown around, but actual rebuttals… none (expect for Barb with the breast feeding and even she agreed not all children have to be breast feed)

  4. (expect for Barb with the breast feeding and even she agreed not all children have to be breast feed)

    I was NOT going to step back into this. But I will not let you mischaracterize my views.
    All children SHOULD be breastfed. Since only women can nurse, the mothers who do not nurse, there simply are no solutions, other than to hope the child gets fed *something*
    But to twist a situation of no-solutions into a suggestion that it’s fine, is disingenuous. It’s NOT okay, just because some women do not nurse, for men to see to it that children are brought into a living situation that precludes nursing, also.

    Tell ya what, Stoneheart, you agree to take the induced-lactation protocol of hi-progesterone-dose birth control pills- domperidone- fenugreek-and breast-pumping 8X/day for 6 months, grow a pair of boobs and start producing human milk for those Orc-gestated poor little White babes, and I’ll consider your selfish demands about what YOU want.

    Now I’m done.

  5. Men have all the jobs; women have all the babies. Perfect equality.The old ways are the best ways.

  6. Unfortunately, some people would rather be “right” than be happy.

    Denise and Barb I’m with you two ladies on this one. It’s a waste of time and energy to argue with those who not only hold you in complete disdain and contempt, but will do what they can to make you look stupid in front of thousands of posters.

    I know Denise personally. She’s a fine upstanding woman. Her husband is of high caliber as well. A true MAN. Not only does he have a full time business and cares for his ailing father, he’s a good husband. I was at their wedding. You won’t find a nicer couple.

    Here’s the thing ladies. Threads like this just discourage white women from becoming a WN.

    Ladies, not all WN men are bitter like the haters above. I’m married to a WN. He’s a gem. He’s a good husband. We make each other our first priority. Our marriage is first. That’s what a true white man and a white woman does.

    I’ve met many a white nationalist from forums, workshops, SF, etc. I’ve only found a few who were jerks. The rest were good honest to god decent human beings who are doing what they can to save our race.

    At this point in my life, I only care about white families and white children.

    My husband and I both do a lot of philanthropic work for white families. I won’t go into details on here but those who know me, know that I do.

    We’re fiddling while Rome burns.

    We must secure the existence for our people and a future for white children.

    Nuff said.

  7. white women and white men: we win together or we lose together.

    that’s all I’m going to say.

  8. Am I angry about the way women have treated me in particular and men in general? Yes I am. Aren’t we all angry about the way BRA treats our people? Well women are part of that cultural marxism power base that is anti White man.

    Am I bitter? Again isn’t everyone here bitter about BRA and its power base to some degree or another.

    Am I a loser? sure if that makes you feel better.

    Do I have a stone heart? Yes, but that doesn’t exclude the fact I’m concern for White men, my sons and the men I mentor.

    Does me being angry, bitter and stone-heart change reality? No it doesn’t and arguments are not invalid on the bases of being angry, bitter, or hard of heart.

    I’d rather have White children born in less then ideal circumstances than none at all. I prefer those less than ideal circumstances favor White men. That makes me a monster?

    Would hiring a wet nurse eliminate Barbs concern? It would not because breast feeding is camouflage of her real issue which is fear over losing power women hold over men.

    This is about power, and women do not want to secede the power the current system give them. Right now they have it all. They have all manners of legal advantages over men; they can do damn near whatever they want with the full force of the law behind them; not take responsibility for their actions as individuals or as a group because WRA backs them up with welfare etc and they still expect men to put them on pedestals. They do not want to give up control of sex and babies, and the resources those things bring them to even to very small number of men who would chose another route. Lets face it, the men who would prefer to rent a womb, will not marry. They would not produce children other wise. yet women prefer less White children to more White children and more options for White men

    Woman are a joke; the harpy does everything it can to make those who disagree with it look bad, and yet the women call out the men for returning fire. Behold White men, the power of team woman. See how strongly they condemn you when you “step out of line”. See how they defend their own when it spits bile at people it’s never meet? Even foreign born White women are the enemy to American White women. White men with Eastern European brides breaks their monopoly on sex and children and they spit bile at both the man and the woman. They rarely call each other out on their misbehavior. That means when your “good girl” wife drops you for some trumped up reason, all her gal pals will rush to defend her.

    Also note, the men have only been harsh to the harpy, yet some how we all want to embarrass women, do away with women etc etc.

    Disagree with a woman and you’re a bitter hater… Advocate a plan of action that is good for men and suddenly your anti woman/ anti children? How does that work? Women would be free to do as they wish. Men would be free to do as they wish. These woman don’t slam sperm donations but they do buy eggs. Think about the double standard that implies.

    So it’s ok for women to have children and throw away husbands/ fathers, but not for men to have children without the risk of marriage because of breast feeding? Clearly you think it’s the most important topic and I do not. But with women there is no respect for differing opinions

    My selfish demands? Wanting to be a father is selfish? Or is wanting to be one without the very real risks of modern marriage selfish? As I see it, its the women here that want things as they see fit, and only as the see fit are the selfish ones. My way would leave men free to do either, or none.

    Barb your suggestion is to turn men into women. I’d eat a gun 1st. You are the one being…. You think men should step into the raw deal that is the current state of marriage and divorce law simply because all children should be breast feed. Unless a woman cannot or will not breast feed. Either way, men better take that risk on marriage, right? Again it is never what is best for men, or allowing men freedom to live on their own terms. The same women who mostly vote for the left which hates White men, want to make the call on whats best for our race and what’s best for our children and what’s best for White men? No thanks. That’s a bad deal for White men.

    The post with links about divorce was approved, that’s what men face as of now. The ladies don’t want to deal with the reality of marriage 2.0 and how its a bad deal for men. Young White men know it better than anyone because they’ve not seen marriage 1.0 in their life time, but they’ve seen a shit load of marriage 2.0 and what women in their fertile years are like.

    Why is it White women do not want White men to have options? Could it be, just possibly because they are in fact selfish?

    Why should a man marry when he stands a 50% of losing his children and possessions? Everything he holds dear and worked for gone at a woman’s whim. Men need a more personal reason to face those odds then because we need White babies etc. Or they need a reduction in risk associated with marriage. Take your pick, but don’t expect men to “man up” until things improve. And it will take years upon years to change divorce laws and our divorce culture. Where’s the counter option men go use, right here, right now? Until then, why shouldn’t men pursue life on their terms?

    We must secure the existence for our people and a future for white children….

    Agreed but how? My plan adds numbers to our race, but some how that’s a bad thing, simply because its bad, because its a bad thing because its bad etc etc etc. White women are very much on BRA side. Hell it’s not even augured they are not. Why should White men sign up for marriage/ family life given the laws and the way women behave? Don’t try the not all women are like that, because once again divorce stats say otherwise.

    Notice the lack of condemnation for the current divorce laws. Or anything else besides White men who are unhappy with the state of things and express their opinions.

    Remember White men, these are the “good” women. Notice how they ignore our concerns and focus on verbal attacks. You can be damn sure that caries over into their lives with men.

    Why do we need women? Outside of sex and child production that is. What do they bring to the table? How do you get them to give up their marriage to feminism and the left, when they benefit so much from it? Or think they do which is the same thing. Why shouldn’t men have options in having children? Why shouldn’t men be angry over the way marriage and the laws work against us? Why should men marry given how out of balance these things are? Why should we marry women who suck down every bit of anti White man media there is? Why do White women defend White men less then sheboons defend negros? Never answers, just accusations and lame attempts to shame us into saying “damn the torpedoes” and go full steam into risky venture of marriage/ child production in a system designed to put men at serious disadvantages

    Why can’t women answer those questions? They seem straight forward to me. and by answer I mean an honest reply not the lame shaming bullshit.

    My goal in this thread is not to change the mind of women, but to open the eye’s of White men to the reality of women and marriage. I suggest young White men read through it, see how they react and learn about women and their ways. it will open your eyes and save you a shit load of trouble. and if you make the decision to marry, at lest you’ll know what you are dealing with

  9. Stonelifter is right on the money.

    Women refuse, like the Jews, to recognize that their own behavior is the cause of the problems. It is a rare Jew indeed who will recognize that the theft of an Arab land is the cause of most problems in the Middle East. But even rarer is a woman who will recognize that women have turned marriage into the financial rape of the male. Neither the Chosen People nor the Chosen Sex will admit that they are to blame.

    Women shall not voluntarily relinquish their priveleged position any more than the Jews will give Palestine back to the Arabs. Confronted with this simple truth, Barb, Denise and the rest can only offer idiotic arguments about breastfeeding, Mother Earth Womb Godess and psychological problems the poster does not have.

    The real issue here is not why are women running away from white nationalism; the issue is why are men running away from women and marriage? Stonelifter and I have made very clear the reasons. Barb and Denise, confronted with the hard facts of the matter, can only scream: “Bias against women!” It is the anti-Semitism of the gynocological mind.

    Th

  10. Since Stonelifter and I are now controlling this discussion with our superior logic and insight, I offer some of my cogent essays for less enlightened minds like Barb’s and Denise’s. Read particularly “The Name of the Game is Lie”. It is directly on point for this discussion. And then, read the rest of them, if you want. But be sure to read the first.

    Now a point for Stonelifter. The Spearhead has much interesting material. Yet the editor, William F. Price is completely gutless on the Jews. He insists that feminism has no special connecion with the Jews although it self-evidently does. Why do you think this is? Is it because he is bankrolled by Jews? Or is he afraid that he will lose too many readers if he approaches the subject? Or is he simply brainwashed on the subject? I would be interested in your thoughts.

  11. The real difference between me and Stonelifter is, I’m thinking about the big picture, how to get lots and lots and lots of babies made. I’m thinking what would work large scale. I’m thinking about White people as a people. I’m thinking about the future for millions of White babies. I’m WN.

    Stonelifter is thinking only about his own personal wants, and his sons’. That makes him human, (selfish, but human). But not WN.
    Thinking about the whole of the White Race is what makes one WN

    He asks if wet-nursing would satisfy me. What he’s really asking is, is it okay if his own sons wetnurse?

    Because obviously wet-nursing wouldn’t work on a broad scale of millions of men. You wouldn’t find enough women who, having recently given birth, are willing to give their milk to an unrelated infant, short of slavery. (You’d have better luck getting my extra-votes-for-marrieds idea implemented.) And even then, you’d have wetnurse-to-infant disease transmission issues. HIV comes to mind.
    I could go on a thousand more posts explaining why his scheme for getting White men fatherhood without marrying White women won’t work on a broad (pun!) scale.

    And, in a case of a choice between two less-than-optimal childrearing methods, it’s not okay to be for the method that benefits men if it harms children more. Not being nursed is bad, but no mommy, at all, is even worse. Babies want their mothers.

    “Men have all the jobs; women have all the babies. Perfect equality.The old ways are the best ways.”
    Believe it or not, James, I agree with this. I could get behind a family-wage-for-men law. I’m okay with, believe it or not, that women get paid less. Obviously some women must be in the workforce — single women, hubby is disabled or abandons her.
    Those women do have to do something to keep body and soul together.

    And for those, very few, women who really do have it upstairs to do science as well as men, then to ban them a priori is wasteful of talent, but even those women, I’m okay with her getting paid less, just because she’s a woman (unless hubby is disabled or has abandoned her and kiddos.)

  12. H. Jayzus Krahst. Will you people please just grow tha F*** up… for heaven’s sake, there’s a lot of actual work to do.

    [theme from “Twilight Zone” noises]

    G’awn now. Git.

  13. “Don’t try the not all women are like that, because once again divorce stats say otherwise.”

    All women are NOT like that. Even today, 50% of marriages do NOT end in divorce.

    Breastfeeding is not an idiotic argument, dude. Nursing is so protective of so many poor health outcomes* that formula ought not to be available over the counter. Ah, well, LLL has been working for 50 years to get that changed, to no avail. Nestle makes too much profit from selling formula to uninformed new mothers.

    But, affordable health care begins with breastfeeding.

    *Risks of formula feeding include, but are not limited to:
    In the infant:
    Far higher rates of: respiratory and digestive disease, both minor and serious, allergy, both food and inhaled, colic, necrotizing enterocolitis, juvenile diabetes, ear infections, excessive crying, tooth decay, crib death.

    Later in life:
    lowered IQ, malocclusion, higher cholesterol, higher BMI, higher rates of: breast cancer, ovarian cancer, possibly prostate cancer, lowered chance of breastfeeding in next gen.

    Affordable health care begins with breastfeeding.

  14. Well, we may not have discovered exactly why women reject WN in this thread, but I think now we know why so many men might reject it. Good grief ladies, you sound like communists. Keep that crap for the knitting circle.

  15. Once again, a group of fringe men who are mad at women are going to chase away good WN men and women. Even a happily married man would be offended at some of these comments.

    It wasn’t women who burned down WACO, it was men.

    It wasn’t women who killed Vicki Weaver, it was men.

    It wasn’t women who put together 911, it was men.

    It was not women who blew up the OKC building, it was men.

    To those lurkers out there who are reading these posts, most white nationalist men are not like the ones above. They are the 1 percenters.

    I know quite a few white nationalist men and women and none of them exhibit such crazy anti-female attitudes.

    Stonelifter, you ARE bitter and you know you are. Your anger is clouding your logic. I’m sorry you had such terrible things happen in your divorce. But life isn’t fair.

    My first husband died in a car accident. Was that fair? Not at all. It was hell. But you accept it and move on.

    In my past I’ve had job loss and financial ruin. Is it fair? Nope. But you pick up the pieces and move on.

    Barb, I’m like you, the ONLY reason I post a rebuttal against these men is to show lurkers that most WN’s are kind decent people.

    Many WN’s live in the wound. They wallow.

    How’s that working for white folks?

  16. I know this is tedious to some but I love the display of double standards by women. We have the whole name calling thing, which they want to condemn when men do so and defend when women do it.

    Don’t lie annie, you don’t give a damn. Folks don’t offer true sympathy and then call you crazy. You still can’t refute the problems I’ve mentioned, and don’t even try. Or mention why we need more women etc. Nor have I made a claim that men are perfect so your lines on wacco etc mean nothing in the context of this argument.

    and notice how they make an issue out of my anger and being bitter, about how that clouds my judgement but can’t see their own biases or the harm the current system does men. They only encourage men to put themselves in the current system.

    Life is not fair. Does that mean White men shouldn’t fight the current system in the best way we see fit? Or are we only free to fight it as women see fit?

    Then there is Barbs double standard. Breast feeding is so important men shouldn’t have children on their own, but it’s not so important woman should be forced to breast feed. Only men should be denied children. Mothers are too important to do without, so men must be denied the option of having children without a mother in the picture; fathers aren’t important so women are free to have kids without fathers involved, divorce them at will etc. It’s the double standard and the defense of it that keeps this thread alive.

    Once again barb doesn’t give a rats ass about babies not having fathers, which they do 50% of the time ( or more) or the harm that does to men or children, as long as there is mom. Like almost all women, she doesn’t give a damn about White men. Feminist “liberated” women to do whatever they want, but yet men are not suppose to change or react to that liberation in the way we see fit. That’s not rational. Unless you think men are beast of burden for women and their children. We are supposed to believe children without mothers are harmed more than children with no fathers. Jails are full of children from single mothers, not single fathers.

    Would you protest if we hired wombs in White Moldova? Yes you would because renting wombs isn’t the real issue. The issue is opposing men having independent options, in this case it’s about the way we bring children into the world. Women think we should have none, and fathers don’t mater beyond a paycheck

    The 50% of women who don’t leave their men doesn’t mean they are good wives, don’t go into debt, are faithful, loving, put out or are good moms. It simply means they don’t bail

    Your points on hiring wet nurses and the important of breast feeding are valid. My guess is there would be more women in that line of work if there was pay involved. But if it’s so important why do you give women the option to breast feed or not? Why is it strictly mandatory for men to ensure their offspring breast feed? It still boils down to you wanting everything to go a womans way, but not for men to have other options. Even the deal about single moms getting full pay follows that logic. You don’t give a shit why she is a single mom (most are because they chose to be) Also if there are so few women nursing, doesn’t that invalidated your argument that children without mothers to nurse them are harmed and men shouldn’t have their own children without mothers since not breast feeding them harms them yet so few do breast feed?? If that’s so important shouldn’t all mothers be mandated to breast feed?

    You’re in a logic bind on this one Barb. There is no moral or logical grounds to say breast feeding is so important men can’t have children without women and say women shouldn’t be mandated to breast feed. I’m not denying it is important but it is either so important women must breast feed or it’s not important enough to disqualify men from having children without mothers to breast feed. You’re also in a logic bind in saying fathers should be forbidden to produce children without mothers but not say mothers should also be forbidden to have children without fathers. In fact you encourage children without fathers by stipulating single moms and pay, but you forbid single fathers. That’s hypocrisy

    Ps, I’m not a WN, I’m a Southron Nationalist. I by and large don’t give a damn about Whites outside of those with long term ties to the South. But wouldn’t our race be better off if each man did what’s best for his son while not being a traitor to his race? How is producing children without American White women being unfaithful to our race? White children would be produced, children that would not otherwise come into this world. Gees that’s so horrible….

    It’s not about women being paid less or having jobs, it’s that those jobs go to women because of govt interference through affirmative action in college, hiring promotions, reducing standards etc. But once again barb advocates something that gives women freedom of action in ways they want that do nothing for men, and oppose things that give men freedom of action

    I’d respect women a lot more if they were honest and say we think xyz because we think xyz vs these lame attempts to justify things which cannot be justified.

    lol, thanks for the compliment but my logic isn’t superior. My IQ is only slightly above average. What I do have going for me is, I can be completely devoid of emotion when I need to be; I’m not lazy, mentally or psychically and I read/ think when others watch TV and generally piss away their time

    To be more accurate it was the majority of White women, combined with the negro vote and a minority of White men who did the damage, and the women are responding in a rational manner given their nature and the laws favoring them.

    Look the harm done by feminism isn’t going away anytime soon. Probably not for generations. As long as women are free to go about life the best way they see fit, including kicking men out of the lives of their children, and having access to men’s wealth through child support, alimony and welfare men cannot be expected to live by the old ways. Start lobbying for the repeal of all these laws and when they are repealed, then you have moral ground to deny us living the best way we see fit

    William F. Price is a DWL/ SWPL hippie living in the north west. If his ex-wife didn’t screw him over he’d still be pushing the jewish/ feminist agenda. Price is sort of on board with race realities, in the smallest possible way. He won’t allow negros to run White men down on his webpage but won’t come to grips with how the left is anti White. Getting men to realize the full spectrum of forces aligned against them was my goal when I still posted there. I doubt the jews pull his purse strings. Most folks only have so much truth learning and re-educating in them. I had the advantage of being raised by a righteous man who didn’t let me be indoctrinated. Even then I had a lot to unlearn. Spend a few years reading books written 2-3 generations ago and you’ll learn a lot about the world. It would probably break his mind to come to grips with all the leftist lies he’s been indoctrinated into.

    I also think trying to appeal to women would be a fundamental tactical and strategic mistake. To gain more female supporters you would have to soften the message on many things. Men flee whatever they perceive to be effeminate. Doesn’t matter is its job fields, churches, political groups, “high arts” you name it.

  17. My sense of threse comments is that Barb has more brains than Denise. At least she understands the concept of family wage. I think thst women have useful functions but letting them get on top in a society causes big problems. It was so in both ancient Sparta and the Roman Empire; the same trends are manifest today. See attatched essays.

    FEMINISM AND THE FALL OF ROME

    Feminism is not a new thing. Neither is it a sign of progress, as some imagine. It has flourished in the past with results as disastrous as presently. Many parallels exist between the feminist movement in the Roman Empire and the feminist movement of today. In the early days of the Republic, Rome was extremely patriarchal. The father, the paterfamilias, held the power of life and death over his wife and children. This system lasted until roughly the end of the Second Punic war against Carthage. Then began a vast movement for the “liberation” of women. The war had, in a sense, been won by women. The Romans had lost the entirety of their manpower in three consecutive defeats at the hands of Hannibal Barcas. The final disaster came at Cannae where 60,000 Romans were surrounded and stabbed in the back.

    When women had grown back the dead soldiers and the final defeat of Hannibal was achieved at Zama, Roman women demanded freedom. One of the first concessions granted to them was the repeal of the law against luxury. The repeal of this law allowed Roman women to flaunt their wealth in public. No longer did they have to practice frugality as matron of the household. Next they acquired the right to participate as gladiators in the Forum, the right to enter minor political office and the right to practice infanticide and abortion. The Roman birth rate plummeted and vice and corruption spread among Roman men. A general strike against marriage ensued and the Emperor Augustus tried to revive reproduction with a bachelor tax. It was all to no avail. The situation became so outrageous that a famous Roman remarked that “We Romans, who rule the world, are ruled by our women.” The poet Juvenal remarked that the Roman aristocracy “divorced to marry and married to divorce”.

    At the same time that this female liberation was taking place the Empire was overrun by swarms of slaves and racial aliens. Like many European cities today, it became difficult to find a genuinely Roman face in Rome. Diversity, like feminism, greatly contributed to the fall of the Empire. By Empire’s end, the legions which had conquered the world were half Roman and half barbarian (rather like the American army today, where increasing numbers of Third Worlders proliferate). When Rome fell, the female irresponsibility which had so greatly contributed to the Empire’s downfall made a severe impression on the fathers of the Christian Church. They made a point to yoke females and to impose the virtue of chastity. Given what they had witnessed during the fall of Rome the misogynist viewpoint of the early Christian elders can hardly be criticized.

    The parallels of all this to modern day America can hardly be disputed. Although America is not Rome the same trends, particularly that of the female unleashed, are evident. Women, throughout history, are either the bedrock of a social structure or the dissolvers of the social structure. In early America, as in early Rome, women were baby makers and home makers. In latter day America, as in latter day Rome, women are imitation men and unborn baby killers. The consequences are the same, then as now.

    FEMINISM AND THE FALL OF ROME

    Feminism is not a new thing. Neither is it a sign of progress, as some imagine. It has flourished in the past with results as disastrous as presently. Many parallels exist between the feminist movement in the Roman Empire and the feminist movement of today. In the early days of the Republic, Rome was extremely patriarchal. The father, the paterfamilias, held the power of life and death over his wife and children. This system lasted until roughly the end of the Second Punic war against Carthage. Then began a vast movement for the “liberation” of women. The war had, in a sense, been won by women. The Romans had lost the entirety of their manpower in three consecutive defeats at the hands of Hannibal Barcas. The final disaster came at Cannae where 60,000 Romans were surrounded and stabbed in the back.

    When women had grown back the dead soldiers and the final defeat of Hannibal was achieved at Zama, Roman women demanded freedom. One of the first concessions granted to them was the repeal of the law against luxury. The repeal of this law allowed Roman women to flaunt their wealth in public. No longer did they have to practice frugality as matron of the household. Next they acquired the right to participate as gladiators in the Forum, the right to enter minor political office and the right to practice infanticide and abortion. The Roman birth rate plummeted and vice and corruption spread among Roman men. A general strike against marriage ensued and the Emperor Augustus tried to revive reproduction with a bachelor tax. It was all to no avail. The situation became so outrageous that a famous Roman remarked that “We Romans, who rule the world, are ruled by our women.” The poet Juvenal remarked that the Roman aristocracy “divorced to marry and married to divorce”.

    At the same time that this female liberation was taking place the Empire was overrun by swarms of slaves and racial aliens. Like many European cities today, it became difficult to find a genuinely Roman face in Rome. Diversity, like feminism, greatly contributed to the fall of the Empire. By Empire’s end, the legions which had conquered the world were half Roman and half barbarian (rather like the American army today, where increasing numbers of Third Worlders proliferate). When Rome fell, the female irresponsibility which had so greatly contributed to the Empire’s downfall made a severe impression on the fathers of the Christian Church. They made a point to yoke females and to impose the virtue of chastity. Given what they had witnessed during the fall of Rome the misogynist viewpoint of the early Christian elders can hardly be criticized.

    The parallels of all this to modern day America can hardly be disputed. Although America is not Rome the same trends, particularly that of the female unleashed, are evident. Women, throughout history, are either the bedrock of a social structure or the dissolvers of the social structure. In early America, as in early Rome, women were baby makers and home makers. In latter day America, as in latter day Rome, women are imitation men and unborn baby killers. The consequences are the same, then as now.

  18. FEMINISM IN ANCIENT SPARTA

    Feminism is not a modern invention, as many suppose. It existed in the ancient world – and its consequences were largely the same as now. A classic example is the Greek city-state of Sparta. It would shock most people to know that the famous warrior state was a paradise for women (relatively speaking) but it was. The Spartans granted educational and economic equality to women – and it contributed greatly to their eventual downfall. Spartan girls were given the same curricula as the boys and encouraged to engage in sports. They were also granted the right to hold property in their own name and inherit property on an equal basis. The Spartan economy was largely agricultural. While Spartan men were away on war Spartan women ran the household and controlled the finances. As much as 35%-40% of Spartan land was owned by women some of whom became quite wealthy.

    Sparta suffered quite a decline in its birth rate during its decline. Some of this was caused by economic factors, such as limiting reproduction to avoid splitting up estates and inheritances. But much more it was caused by the independence of women. Women were too busy being “liberated” to bother with the necessities of reproduction. In several centuries time, the total number of Spartiae (Spartan citizens as opposed to the helots and half-citizens) had declined from 7000 down to 700 (a 90% drop). Spartan sterility was remarked upon by many observers, particularly the Romans. The Spartans eventually reached the stage where they could no longer replace their losses in war. They were conquered by the Romans and ceased to exist. Spartan women were noted for their adulteries, particularly in their later stages of decline. There was no stigma attached to adultery and Spartan women could violate marital vows with relative impunity.

    The similarity of all this to modern feminism is striking. The sterility, the free love, the equal educational and athletic opportunities, the female control of the economy are, in essence, the same trends observable today. And this brings up the key point: Totalitarian societies, past and present, do not enslave women, they liberate them. It was so in the ancient world; it was so in Jewish-Marxist Russia; it is true in the degenerating and decaying society of today.

  19. Stonelifter,

    Thank you for every post you made on this thread! The same goes for John Thames and Sean. I’ve seen the same things you have. White American women are basically a liability these days. There is pretty much nothing you gents wrote here that I don’t 100% agree with.
    I think your idea for using dark wombs for female eggs is innovative and cleaver. Not only would offer the potential to make up for the white dearth of babies but it would also prevent these women (in the short term) from reproducing nonwhite children. I just found out about this threat today because Denise was complaining about it on another site. Really good stuff Stonelifter.

  20. ps, the idea is not mine. I forget who mentioned it to me in passing and there is a man in Canada (I think) who did it. Not from a WN point of view but from a man who doesn’t trust women stand point. Apparently the women in Canada are even worse, the laws more skewed

    It never occurred to me it would keep their wombs occupied and out of use for their own kind. Excellent point. Personally, I’m not concerned with Hindus. I’m fair certain they’d not cause problems as long as they were kept to their own nation

    also, I’m thrilled the harpy is getting the word out for me

  21. “I’m not a WN, I’m a Southron Nationalist. I by and large don’t give a damn about Whites outside of those with long term ties to the South.”

    This is not a viewpoint of racialism as such, when physical location trumps genetic relation, and “Outsider” whites, including “Yankees (who) are worse than niggers” can merely look on. Perhaps this statement speaks for the blog itself. A bit off topic, but a matter of deep concern. Going it without the women and “outside” whites….

  22. The Bible says the man is not without the woman and the woman not without the man, in this life — and in heaven, no distinction of male and female (nothing said about distinction in the other place) — though woman is a “weaker vessel” and the first to sin. Also, because a white man is born and bred north of the Mason Dixon line doesn’t make your brother in the flesh of no concern.

  23. The Bible also says its better to live on a roof then with a querulous woman; and White women today are a querulous lot. Should we go against the Bible and live with querulous women?

    The Bible says the Lord hates divorce, yet women seem to love it. Not only do they divorce their husbands 50% of the time or more, they are huge consumers of divorce porn. Is it wise to invest in women who enjoy reading books, watching TV/ movies about women divorcing and then “living the good life” like Eat Pray Love? Doesn’t seem like that would be following God’s advice to be wise like a serpent, or Biblical on divorce.

    The Bible sets the hierarchy as God, man, woman. Men are to submit to God, woman are to submit to husbands. They do not. In fact the law and culture today elevate women over men, and women live that out everyday. Should we engage in such and ungodly system or with such ungodly women?

    Look at what they watch on TV, the movies they like, the books they read and how men are portrayed. That’s what your woman thinks of you and of men. If she didn’t look down on men she wouldn’t watch those things that run us down. Is that the respect the Bible tells women to have for their husbands? I say it is not.

    Should we live with women in rebellion against their husbands, fathers and God? The Bible says those are not good wives or good options for wives and we should separate. ourselves from such people

    The Bible sets a very low bride price on women who are not virgins. Should we not do the same?

    In Biblical times, women were the property of their fathers (or nearest male kin) or their husbands. Biblical marriage is multiple wives, who are the property of their husbands, and the children produced by the wives is his property. Should we not do the same?

    The book of Judges ridicules a judge for relying on woman to go to battle for him. Should we also not ridicule men who don’t lead?

    The Bible says women cannot say no to their husbands request for sex, unless he agrees. Shouldn’t we demand the same?

    The Bible doesn’t grant women the grounds to divorce. Shouldn’t we do the same?

    I know the Bible very well, nothing about marriage and women today is Biblical based. Find a better argument

    Have you not read this blog and the host of problems the damnyankees have forced on us? And for how long they having been doing so? Why should I give a damn about yankees? They are the driving hand against the South. Have been for over a hundred years. For sure not all, but most, and this blog is about Southron Secessions. Which is why I am here. I wouldn’t participate if this were a WN blog

    I don’t care to go to war with yankees. They let us succeed peaceful then I don’t care one way or the other. Y’all can live like kings up there or die like dogs. Don’t make me no never mind either which way as long as yankees leave us the hell alone.

    It bizarre yankees come here, with a pro South and Southron Succession theme, our flag and our heroes prominently displayed, their virtues extolled and are shocked or find it odd that some here doesn’t like yankees.

  24. also, ladies look at Mosin’s post. That’s how you disagree with someone. No personal attacks no disrespect offered, or attempts at shaming, no trying to use emotions to claim an argument is invalid. No appeal to a double standard you made up on your own.

  25. “The Bible also says its better to live on a roof then with a querulous woman; and White women today are a querulous lot. Should we go against the Bible and live with querulous women?”

    Stone- all of this comment is correct. While I tried earlier to moderate, what I had not heard was your take on why you are so angry. Though I find Denise and Barb to be the ‘best of the lot’ (after my own dear wife, GBH), a comment Barb made put it all into focus, after reading your comments about not caring about WN, but rather Southern, Nationalism.

    Men are particularists, Women are genearalists. Men are exact, women are vague. Men shun emotion, women revel in it.

    And there’s the difference. It’s not IDEO-logical, you two. It’s BIO-Logical. Barb wants (in her own WN way) to ‘save the world.’ She is the SF equivalent of Joycelyn Elders, with her ‘…. for the childrrrrrrreennnn’; whereas Stone is like Jimmy Stewart in the movie, “Shenandoah.” Me and mine. My clan, MY family- and the rest of the world can go hang. Because, (frankly) that’s all that matters.

    God is the one who should be allowed to attend to the Universals, Man is the one entrusted with the particulars, with women thrown in as helpmeets. Ladies, even though you are the most beautiful gem in our crown, we still wear the crown. For ‘Even was tempted first, and then Adam’ as it says.

    God saw descendants as numerous as the sand, while Abraham saw only Isaac. But, had Abraham slain Isaac, there would not BE we who are the ‘vast multitude.’
    So, we work out our salvation in synergy, and with fear and trembling.

    Until we form our own White Ethno-State (O’Meara) and restore Biblical Law (theonomy) and utterly rout all of the ‘-isms’: feminism, gay rights-ism, communism, talmud-ism among the first, we cannot have a ‘biblical society.’

    So, ladies, the choice is actually rather clear. Obey your Lords and masters in the Kingdom, and rout the non-Whites, or pretend to have a measure of ‘independence’ living in the whore state known as Satania. There is no other way.

    Women will only join the WN cause, gentlemen, when they submit to their betters- using the older WCF terms. But, with a measure of sincerity in choice of words.

    Until then, yes, the ‘system’ (precisely because it IS antichrist) will seek to destroy all white Male rule. To the men, the question is, Are you willing to DIE as martyrs, so that the women and children shall survive? For that, too, is history- from Greece at Marathon and Ithaca, to the Civil War. Men who will not die for their women and children, are not men.

    We have work to do- each of us. Shouldn’t we be about it?

  26. Fr John – I listen to men who are rational, sensible, and postive, and who have something to offer. And who do NOT hate women, or generalize, or think it’s a great idea to get rid of women entirely. And who do noty make repulsive comments about female anatomy, like the homo Thamsey (The comments about vaginas are a big tip off to a homo that dreads and abhors female anatomy.) I do not “obey” overgrown boys, that use and abuse women.

    We are where we ARE because – yet again – White men had it ALL – White men ruled the WORLD – and White men threw it ALL aay. For what I know not. White women ,and other women, have tried to take up the slack, and done it badly. Of course. Only a man can BE a man, and a women can BE a woman. As far as personal insults – I let tons of ’em slide – but there’s a point whne I am not goign to do that. The Rubicon was crossed long ago.

    The fact of the matter is White women, not other women, do not have to boey any-one. They don’t. But given the blandishments of Satania, and the offerings of the FREAK Stoneloser, and the other EMBARRASSMENTS commenting on this thread – intelligent women will choose Satania. Ift’s up to men to make White men attractive again. Sorry boys. Those are te FACTS,. And it’s up to White Nationalists males, who are sincere in preserving the White Race. The White cause has spun it’s wheels for decades because of LOONIES like Loser.

    I’m going to write this again – for you, Fr John – I cannot in good faith try to indice females to join the cause to save thier Race, when they are greeted with odious insults about vaginas, and “depricing the womb”, and dispensing with them entirely, once their eggs have been mind, because some childish sub-moronic boring CRETIN got taken in a divorce.

    You either appreciate reality on the ground – or you don’t.

  27. Re: “better to live on a roof then with a querulous woman; and White women today are a querulous lot. Should we go against the Bible and live with querulous women?”
    My King James Bible has “brawling” (contentious) for “querulous” (whining) and a few lines further, says: “It is better to dwell in the wilderness than with a contentious and an angry woman.” I’ve always been able to quote those lines, from memory, and of course they are true, but as we compare these “proof” texts with the sense of ALL scripture on the subject we find a balanced view of women, and we know that God who created her didn’t a mistake.

  28. Denise can dish it out but not take it. Who coined the expression “male chauvinist pig” and S.C.U.M., Society For Cutting Up Men, founded by Valerie Solanis who shot and almost killed Andy Warhol? For forty years now, I have heard my sex and race vilified by feminists as the source of all evil. Remember Susan Sontag, the Jewess who called the white race the cancer of history?

    Denise thinks that because I occassionally insult the female anatomy that this makes me a fag. I suppose that football coaches who call their players “pussies” after odious performance qualify on the same basis. And no, Denise, it isn’t just one man called Stonelifter who got financially raped in divorce court; it is all men, all the time, courtesy of females like you. I have no intention of apologizing for anything; I am gratified that my zingers are producing results.

  29. Re: a balanced view: Hunter’s original post was accurate and balanced, I think.

    Re: “I cannot in good faith try to induce females to join the cause to save their Race, when they are greeted with odious insults about vaginas, and ‘depricing the womb’ and dispensing with them entirely…. You either appreciate reality on the ground – or you don’t”: Like Hunter’s original post, she gets to the key point of dealing with the PRESENT reality!

    Good closing lines, Fr John: “Men who will not die for their women and children, are not men. We have work to do — each of us. Shouldn’t we be about it?”

  30. “I’m going to write this again – for you, Fr John – I cannot in good faith try to indice females to join the cause to save thier Race, when they are greeted with odious insults about vaginas, and “depricing the womb”, and dispensing with them entirely, once their eggs have been mind, because some childish sub-moronic boring CRETIN got taken in a divorce.”

    Denise- I didn’t say I condoned THIS, but the comments in Stone’s ONE post about quoting bible, etc. And only that post. (Did you lump me in with ‘all men’? -lol)

    You misunderstood me. Yes, Misogynists are not Godly males. That much (I thought) was clear…..

  31. What I find fascinating, is that Lynda isn’t opining on this topic.

    You’d a thunk that a ‘trad RC’ could join her ‘sisters’ in the fray on this one…
    but, perhaps, she’s not married, and ‘knoweth not a man.’

    That would explain a lot… about her.

  32. John Thames- to equate an ugly Jewish shiksa (like Bella Abzug, Susan Sontag, or even Babs Streisand) with Fair, Celtic Colleens- even feisty ones such as Denise, isn’t the act of a Gentleman.

    It’s merely the act of a boor.
    (I didn’t read far enough back on this post. But with eight pages of comments, why would anyone want to….?)

  33. I appreciate the reality on the ground regarding women and marriage and kids and the risks to White men. None but me has offered any intel any resources any suggestion for what we are dealing with now, that men can do right now, on their own. The harpy and the rest of the women do not appreciate the reality of marriage 2.0 for men. For heavens sake, they can’t even allow a very small minority of White men to have children and opt out of the marriage risk. Think about what the means about how they regard men.

    And there’s the difference. It’s not IDEO-logical, you two. It’s BIO-Logical. Barb wants (in her own WN way) to ‘save the world.’ She is the SF equivalent of Joycelyn Elders, with her ‘…. for the childrrrrrrreennnn’; whereas Stone is like Jimmy Stewart in the movie, “Shenandoah.” Me and mine. My clan, MY family- and the rest of the world can go hang. Because, (frankly) that’s all that matters. Fr John

    For sure a big difference in thinking is biological. I don’t have a problem with that. The insults and what not is what proves these women to be vile, not the disagreeing. Once upon a time, before feminism ruined our women, I think that difference in “thinking” was a good thing. The feminine soften the masculine in the home life. Now they are our enemy. Just look at how they vote.

    Me and mine, my clan, my family it’s the Ulster Scot’s hill folk way. Taught to me by my great grand father, grandfather and father. And funny enough, that movie has always struck home deep into my heart because of it.

    Men who will not die for their women and children, are not men. Fr John

    Bullshit. They are no longer our women or our children. Women are no longer ours. They changed those roles when they elected to embrace feminism. Now they are our equal, but yet they don’t want to be equal. They want to be above us when it suits, and have us be their knights in shining armor when it suits. Well women ended chivalry when they wanted to be “equals”. They are their own persons now. Let them die for themselves since they don’t need men. They are strong and empowered now, they don’t need us. Our children no longer belong to us either. They belong to women and to the state.

    Back to the attacks harpy, without refuting a damn thing. Thank you for proving my point. I’m the sub moronic? Childish? The one who can speak to those who disagree without insults? The one who can actually make an argument based on facts and logic vs emotion and hysteria? Hey White men, here’s your Godly White woman who says she doesn’t have to obey anyone. Wow, so much for that martial vow. It’s husband must be a kitchen bitch or utterly miserable. Behold White men what your women are and what they think of you when you disagree. Look how she worries about men abusing women, but shows not one bit of concern for men ground up by women and the courts, when men abusing women accounts for 6% of divorce. That’s the creature praised here by other White women. They damn themselves when they don’t damn it. Once again, I don’t want to mine White wombs for eggs against a womans will. Or get rid of White women. The harpy lies, she cannot find one post where I have claimed to want to do that. I do want to side step a high risk venture for men with the things men are good at, economics and science. Not one post have I said to do either. Not one you vile lying daughter of satan. I do wish to ban them from my life ( outside of sex) have any of you women considered what women do that men might want to do that? Hell no because you are all 100% certain you are perfect and men are beneath you. And I’v stated only a small number of men would do such a thing. Why cannot a small number of men create a woman free family? How does that harm anyone more than unwed mothers or single moms? I have daughters and nieces I love. Still no recognition that it was a minority of White men and a majority of White women that did the damage. Just blame men. Hell blame men like me who had nothing to do with the politics that led to this mess. No mention of why we need them or any other question I brought up. Just personal assaults on men. And no better suggestion for men who want children without the insane risk of marriage. Hell not even a suggestion on a plea to reduce that risk

    Simply put, White women do not care for or love White men beyond our ability to provide for them. They do not love you as a free person of worth in and of yourself.

    Another thing, if you spend the time to read, you will find my views on women where the historical norm for our people back when we were a great people. Look what the liberal view on woman has done for us.

    Everything I’ve posted is verifiable by research, physically possible and legal. We can see the harpy lie.

    What don’t White men do to be good husbands? It’s not men leaving women, or watching shows like everyone loves raymond or oprha. It’s White women doing that to White men. the reality is, to get women you have to take them off their pedestal.

    I realized another reason why women hate the idea so much. If we could produce children with out them they will have to offer better versions of themselves to earn husbands. That must be the worse thing in the world to comprehend for women steeped and schooled in the hate White man culture of the West.

  34. with Fair, Celtic Colleens- even feisty ones such as Denise, isn’t the act of a Gentleman.
    Fr John

    have you seen the bile that harpy spits and the lies she tells? Gentlemen call out bea behavior and the harpy’s behavior is vile, vile, vile.

    The problem Mosin is, nearly 100% of women these days are the kind the Bible tells us to eschew or hold in low value. It’s nice to know the Bible, but have you sutdied trends in women behavior? These “ladies” are not our grandmothers and great grandmothers

  35. But these “zingers are producing results” — of what kind? As in agriculture we find acheiving “spectacular” overkill results with overuse of pesticides can both destroy the good “beneficials” and also create more resistant pests. Rather, let’s make strategic, carefully aimed statements and effective actions to address this problem. The reality is that not “(u)ntil we form our own White Ethno-State (O’Meara) and restore Biblical Law (theonomy) and utterly rout all of the ‘-isms’: feminism, gay rights-ism, communism, talmud-ism among the first, we cannot have a ‘biblical society’ (quoting Fr John above)”!

  36. Fr John – I did not mistake you.

    The White women that are involved in this benighted movement are the Outliers of Outliers. We are, by OUR Natures, extremely independent thinkers. Most women ARE herd creatures, that do think with their emotions. The social pressures, for women right now, revolve around engaging in NOTHING but happy talk, and pretend everything is “nice”, and to take care of and love all the Darling Darkies. And buy stuff – cause they will make us all Happy!

    For females like myself, Barb, Annie, Lilly, and Lynda – we are routinely scorned for our Racialist views. But we “see” and speak out, and try to spread the word. No matter what resistance is encountered. We do NOT appreciate being undercut by our alleged Racial cohorts. Docile and/or go-along-to-get along females are NOT going to jump into this game. We want to work with males ,as partners – but we are routinely slated for doing so. FYI – Jews USE their intelligent, independent women to ADVANCE their goals. To extremely sucessful effect. Jewish men are not intimidated. Why are Whites?

    ALL we are saying, in the end, is that the relentless and BORING trashing of women is NOT PRODUCTIVE.

    IT DOESN’T HELP.

    Allow me to repeat:

    IT DOESN’T HELP.

    Like it or not – we have to “market” ourselves. We’ve been REALLY bad at doing this. The Female bashing gives our enemies loads of ammo against us – but some of these MORONS can’t seem to grasp this elemental principle.

    We are poised to gain mass acceptance – but let’s keep shooting our feet off – shall we?

    P.S – There is no earthly reason for any-one to make UGLY and repulsive comments about female (or male) genitalia. I’ve known loads of Gays – but only the sickest Homos make the exact same type of comments that the weirdo closet case Thamsey makes. EEEWWWWW. “Holes” etc…Skin crawl time.

    PPS – Lynda is a very cagey dame. I give her immense credit. She should be doing WN Press releases.

    PPPS – The Loser is whining about spewing bile. First STONES being cast and all. Talk about dishing it out and not being able to take it back. Most people learn that fundamental social rule in KindieGarten. He/It did not. But It doesn’t miss a chance ot go after fatties. Cause again – so helpful to the Cause. I, personally, have seen AS MANY lard-butted White males, young and old, as females – but that doesn’t matter, does it? FYI – I would not EVER insult any-one according to personal appearance. It’s RUDE, and STUPID, and UN-NECESSARY.

    IT DOESN’T HELP.

    But – what next? Let’s move on to trashing cripples, shall we?

    The LOSER is an absolute liability, in every way. Perhaps he can get It to convert to Judaism. That would definitely help the White Cause.

  37. Father John,
    I have a lot of respect for you, so this is why I’m asking:
    I’m confused by what you’ve said a bit ago:
    Quote
    “Barb wants (in her own WN way) to ‘save the world.’ She is the SF equivalent of Joycelyn Elders, with her ‘…. for the childrrrrrrreennnn’; whereas Stone is like Jimmy Stewart in the movie, “Shenandoah.” Me and mine. My clan, MY family- and the rest of the world can go hang. Because, (frankly) that’s all that matters.
    God is the one who should be allowed to attend to the Universals, Man is the one entrusted with the particulars, with women thrown in as helpmeets.”

    Let me explain why the statement above has my head utterly spinning:
    You see, I’ve long perceived that some of men’s (legitimate) complaints about women is that we are
    emotional, (which is good when it’s love, bad when it’s pique)
    vague, which I have always interpreted as meaning not very capable of thinking deeply
    and vain, which I have always interpreted as meaning, overly focussed upon ourselves, our own lives and families/children, our own desires/whims, and not very capable of thinking in societal-wide terms — unable to project trends, in short — about how our individual women’s actions affect all of society, when writ large; that is to say capricious, self-centered, lacking ability to see The Big Picture, that is to say, women are particularist, all about Me Me ME.

    I took this criticism to heart when I came to White Nationalism. As an intelligent woman, I have tried as hard as I, being a woman, can, for long as I’ve been around, to use my forebrain to overcome my emotionalism in order to get “outside” my own particular concerns, and think about the Race as a Whole. Not the whole world, Father, not all the people of the world, but the White Race as a whole.
    Honestly, Father, I thought that’s what we were SUPPOSED to be doing.

    But this statement of yours that you made when addressing Stonelifter’s anger because I refuse to condone his reproduction plan (because it would be bad for his kids AND all the White kids conceived and reared that way) has me utterly confabulated,
    “Stone is like Jimmy Stewart in the movie, “Shenandoah.” Me and mine. My clan, MY family- and the rest of the world can go hang. Because, (frankly) that’s all that matters”

    Father? You agree that attitude is correct? that all that matters is the particularism of My Clan My Family?
    Father, I, myself, am about my own clan, my own family, of course, but I’m also trying to be universal to the limits of, and only to the extent of, the White Race. — not about all the humans on Earth, but about the White Race.

    God is the only one who should attend to Universals? Then why any White Nationalism movement, at all?
    Father, when I started learning about White Nationalism, I took to heart this mission statement: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
    Now, much arguing has been done in WN circles over the yars that a huge factor in Whites’ decline is the atomisation, the impulse towards individualism, do your own thing and forget about other Whites. It’s been generally agreed, I though, that we must begin to think not just and only about our own particular lives, our own particular wants, chances for career advancement, the wife’s new car, etc., but we must begin thinking of the Race as a whole. We must do this because that’s what the Jews do and they are wiping the floor with us, using the individualism against us, and if we don’t begin to think collectively as White People, we are going to bring utter destruction upon ourselves.
    I took these arguments to heart.
    Yet, when I advocate for White Children, because having a mommy and being breastfed is Good for White Children, you made fun of me as if I’m Jocelyn Elders, insincerely crying the Chllllldrrrrrrreeeen.
    But, Father, what is the POINT of WN, if it’s not the children? What’s the POINT if it’s all just about the Stonelifters of the world getting their way, regardless of the effect on the rest of the members of the White Race?

  38. I’m a race realist woman and I read this and many other WN sites all the time. A few angry, bitter men don’t turn me off in the least. If I can make it through debating and mocking leftists and liberals, many of whom were my former friends, then a few misogynists are not going to stop me from supporting the cause of dispossessed European peoples.

    If a woman wants to come to WN, she will, regardless of men who have had bad experiences in their personal lives that blame all women.. Who cares what these men think? Let them have their opinions.

    The fight is coming down to the wire, a lot of whites are waking up. The slimy, decadent propaganda is not having an effect anymore, at least on the people I talk to in my neck of the woods. Many I know have rediscovered European history, philosophy and metaphysics. Sites like this one help a lot.

  39. Father? You agree that attitude is correct? that all that matters is the particularism of Barb writes:

    “My Clan My Family?
    Father, I, myself, am about my own clan, my own family, of course, but I’m also trying to be universal to the limits of, and only to the extent of, the White Race. — not about all the humans on Earth, but about the White Race.

    But, Father, what is the POINT of WN, if it’s not the children? What’s the POINT if it’s all just about the Stonelifters of the world getting their way, regardless of the effect on the rest of the members of the White Race?”

    Bingo. And I thought women were supposed to be the selfish, self-serving, and solipstic sex?

  40. Anon – bless you. A very excellent White Man, who has been in this scene for many years, basically advised me to Lose the Losers – and forge ahead.

    Wheat and chaff…..

  41. Just how are women “saving the race” by bumping off white babies by the millions? What kind of selfishness is that? Barb says we should all sacrifice for the common good. Ok. Just what kind of “sacrifice” is a woman making when she puts her own convenience over that of the unborn child? Just who is setting the standard here?

    It is very easy for women to talk about the “good of the race” when said good is equal with what is good for women. Note however, that when what is good for the race (the birth of another white child) is contrary to Mommy’s desire to avoid another mouth to feed, the “common good” rhetoric disappears as selfish mommy comes first. “Sacrifice”, then, is for men only.

    Since women are in love with sacrifice, the noblest of all concepts, I suggest that they sacrifice by dying to protect men, going down with the Titanic so that men and children can climb on the lifeboats, giving away everything their money paid for in men take all divorce court and paying their child support on time to the more capable child raising sex.

    As for Father John, I accuse him of suffering from Georgia Peach Pussy syndrome, just like Mr. Wallace.

  42. if race is all that matters to them, why do they oppose White men having White babies without them? Answer: race doesn’t matter as much to them as team woman does

  43. @john thames

    Just curious, but why do you insist on continuing this petty fight? Everybody has expressed their feelings, aired their grievances, and lit into one another in full. It seems that each time the embers starts to cool on this thread, you show up and dump fuel on it. I’ve stayed out of this, because in my eyes both sides truly have legitimate reasons to be angry at the opposite sex, depressing as that is. But I think any observer will conclude that this discussion is fated for no other outcome than a bitter stalemate. So why keep it up?

Comments are closed.