Apr 30, 2015

Professor MacDonald: Psychological Mechanism of White Dispossession

via Majority Rights

On the 18th of April, 2015, Logik Förlag in cooperation with Counter-Currents Publishing hosted a number of lectures and a book release in the city of Stockholm.

This particular lecture was held by Kevin B. Macdonald, professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach, and the subject is "The Psychological Mechanism of White Dispossession".

Debate on Christianity

via Counter-Currents

Editor’s Note: This is the complete text of the debate on Christianity between Jonas De Geer and Greg Johnson in Stockholm on April 18, 2015. De Geer’s opening statement is reprinted from here. Johnson’s is reprinted from here. The rest of the text is a transcript by V.S. from the YouTube video of the debate here.

Opening Statement by Jonas De Geer

“Is a strong Christian identity a necessary condition for the future cultural and political life of the European peoples?”

I shall for the purpose of this discussion focus on the sociological benefits of Christianity to our societies in general and the nationalist resistance in particular. This is not be understood as though I have a functionalist approach to the Faith or would reduce it to some sort of psycho-political tool.

Also — when I refer to ”European” or ”Europeans” I include the European descended in America, Australia, South Africa, etc.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Churches of today, at least in the western world, with no significant exception, are in a most pitiful state. They have become intellectually and spiritually deformed beyond recognition by that mental virus we call political correctness; by their imbecile, pathological urge to find a place within a modern paradigm inherently and fundamentally hostile to Christianity.

Not least the modern Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has — theological and ecclesiological issues aside — without comparison been the main cultural, intellectual and political force in Christianity (by the way, not long ago, in civilized times, “Christianity” was synonymous with “the Western World” or “the White World”).

In the words of T. S. Eliot, who was not a Catholic:

When we consider the Western World, we must recognize that the main cultural tradition has been that corresponding to the Church of Rome. Only within the last four hundred years has any other manifested itself; and anyone with a sense of centre and periphery must admit that the western tradition has been Latin, and Latin means Rome.

It is an indisputable, but in nationalist circles often little understood, fact of history that the implosion of the Catholic Church is simultaneous with, or indeed just precedes the moral, social and ethnic self-destruction of the European World. This is no coincidence.

The Catholic Church was in many ways destroyed in the early 1960s, with the Second Vatican Council, a church-meeting under the Pope’s auspices, attended by all the bishops of the World, held in the Vatican 1962–1965. This did not come as a complete surprise to knowledgeable Catholics. In fact the history of the Church during the 1800s and early 1900s was very much about fighting of attempts at infiltration of the Church Hierarchy by Jewish and Masonic forces, and the ideologies they promoted: “modernism” and “liberalism.”

There is a vast literature from the 19th century, mainly in French, but also in English, about this conspiracy against the Church, and it is well documented stuff, not fanciful speculation.

Nevertheless the Conspiracy eventually triumphed in the early 1960s, which, given the influence of the Catholic Church, had disastrous cultural and social consequences for all of Western Civilisation, indirectly also for those parts that were predominantly Protestant.

It is immediately after the Second Vatican Council that the cultural revolution,  the so-called sexual revolution, divorce on a large scale, institutionalized abortion, mass-immigration, proclamations of “multicultural societies,” etc., etc., are introduced, with full force, since the last bulwark of European integrity —  the Church — had just been eliminated by the powers that be. Now the floodgates were opened wide and the European population could be reduced to a mass of degenerate, brain-dead consumers.

It all happened so amazingly fast. No ten years in the history of our civilization have seen such drastic social and moral change as those between 1965 and ’75.

One very telling example of what has happened since the reshaping/destruction of the Church is  how Hollywood could abandon the MPPC (Motion Picture Production Code) or Hays code. After having been threatened by boycott from American Catholics, the major film studios had grudgingly adopted a moral code for film production in the early 1930s, which stated that there was to be no ridiculing of the clergy, no foul language or nudity, but also no miscegenation on the screen. This system was in use until 1968 when it was deemed obsolete. Of course it was then needed more than ever, and ever since the Jewish film studios have had a green light to bombard generations of hapless westerners with all sorts of propaganda and all kinds of filth. Perversely enough, generations of westerners have enjoyed this psychological warfare against them as entertainment, the effects of which can hardly be overestimated.
It is true that the Church as institution, as it has been known for centuries, well over a millennium, has been hijacked by its enemies, but it is not dead, it can not die, its tradition, the deposit of Faith are intact, the apostolic succession unbroken.

It is also true that the European World as a whole is becoming more and more secularized. Sure, but that is part of our programmed self-destruction.

In the long run, no people can survive without religion, and a viable religion can never be constructed. It can be man-made, of course, but never contrived in order to suit a political agenda.

The attempts that have been made at creating new religions or recreate old ones in certain nationalist circles have been hopelessly futile, to put it mildly.

Another important thing here is that we today find ourselves in a situation where Europe insanely has imported tens of millions of Muslims, who in most cases take their religion quite seriously. Regardless of what one thinks about the 9-11 and Charlie Hebdo episodes, and although it is true that the architects of multiculturalism have been mainly Jews, hardly any Muslims, the Muslim colonization is none the less a ticking bomb. What most secularized westerners do not understand is that both Muslims and Jews still regard us as Christians, albeit decadent Christians that have lost their Faith and through that their morale. They don`t think for a moment that Christianity made us weak, in fact they know it is quite the opposite, that we are pathetically weak without Faith, without traditional morals and values. This is one of the reasons organized Jewry has done its utmost to undermine the Church for centuries. That, and of course a very old, very deep running hatred of Christ and His Church. People will not fight and die for some notion of having a precious DNA, or some nationalist interpretation of sociobiology. You can only resist those fueled by religious fervor with religious fervor, with Faith; this is as true today as it was at Poitiers, Malta or Lepanto.

So it makes very much sense to tap in to the religious Tradition of the West, a Tradition that, in spite of what has happened to the established churches during the past fifty years, is still unbroken and alive.

Also for those who do not have a personal belief in God, it would certainly be wise and wholesome to, if not embrace the Faith, at least acknowledge the fundamental, vital role that Christianity has played in our history, in molding our mentality and our values throughout the centuries, to rediscover that Traditional, Christian European culture from which, by now, several generations have been alienated.

Europe is the Faith, the Faith is Europe, as Belloc famously put it. This is truer than ever. The implosion of the Catholic Church and its indirect effects on all of western culture in the early/mid-sixties left the European world defenseless, and since then it has been rapidly dissolving — morally, intellectually, socially and ethnically.

There are, of course, other factors behind this universal tragedy, but this is the most important one.

If we are to rebuild our civilization in one form or another we need to reconnect with its roots.

If the future will not be based in western Tradition, to which Christianity is essential, there probably will be no future for western man.

Opening Statement by Greg Johnson

RabbitDebateWhat is the relationship of Christianity and European identity? I do not say “Western Civilization,” because I wish to speak of the whole of Europe, East and West, and the whole of European history and prehistory, not just the civilized bits.

There are two perspectives we can take on this question. One looks back at history. The other looks forward to the future.

Looking back at history, we see that Christianity played an important role in Europe for more than 1700 years. It might have been otherwise. Many wish it were otherwise. It might be different in the future. But even if there comes a day in which Europe is no longer Christian, there will never come a day when Europe has never been Christian. In that sense, Christianity will always be part of European identity. Just as pre-Christian religions and cultures stretching all the way back to the last Ice Age will also always be part of European identity.

But although there was a time when Europe was Christian, Christianity was never European. I am not referring to the Jewish origins of Christianity, although that should never be forgotten. From the start, though, Christianity was as Hellenic as it was Jewish. Moreover, it defined itself in contradistinction to Judaism, just as Judaism has defined itself in opposition to Christianity.

What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion. Because of its nature as a universal religion, Christianity is not tied to any particular race or people. Christendom is not and never has been co-extensive with Europe. European folk believed in Christianity, but Christianity was never a European folk religion. Many Europeans believe in the cause of Christianity, but Christianity has never believed in the cause of Europe. For the Christian cause is the salvation of all mankind.

Defenders of both Europe and Christianity point to the fact that, in the past, the Church supported the defense of Europe from Islam. But the Church was defending Europe only incidentally. What she was really defending was Christendom, which at the time was centered in Europe, but even then extended into Ethiopia, the Middle East, and as far away as China. And the Church has always been willing to shed European blood to defend and extend Christendom, from the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land on to centuries of global missionary work that continues to this day. Far from being an example of the harmony of Christianity and the ethnic-genetic interests of Europeans, the Crusades are an example of how the Church led Europeans to shed their blood to recoup lost Christian territories in the Middle East.

Let us now look to the future. If present trends are not reversed, European man will cease to exist. I do not fear for the artifacts of European civilization, since Bach and Rembrandt would continue to be prized by Jews and Orientals. I fear for the race that created these glories, and can create new glories. Our race is facing simple biological extinction due to below-replacement fertility, miscegenation, and the loss of our homelands to non-white invaders. If European man is to survive, we must exclude all non-whites from our homelands and adopt policies that cause our birthrates to rise, particularly the birthrates of the genetically best-endowed. In short, we need White Nationalism with pro-natal policies, preferably eugenic ones.

Is Christianity likely to help or to hinder White Nationalists in preventing the biological extinction of our race? To answer this question, we must first look at the actual behavior of the existing churches. All of the mainstream Christian denominations are opposed to White Nationalist policies. Instead, they provide intellectual and institutional support for ongoing white dispossession that is at least on a par with the support of the organized Jewish community, their senior partner in crime. Regardless of the views we may hold about “true” Christian teaching, if the white race is to be saved, we will have to fight the existing churches every step of the way.

Naturally, this battle will be aided if we have sympathizers inside the churches. All too often, White Nationalists who are also Christians spend their time battling against non-Christians in our ranks rather than against anti-whites in their churches. To prove that their White Nationalism is in good faith, they must instead take the battle to the churches. I wish them the best, but I also caution them. Political entryism within the churches will be no easy matter, since the churches were long ago subverted in just this manner, and the existing clergy are Old Masters in that particular black art. They will see you coming.

The battle within the churches will be aided if White Nationalists can find resources from the Bible and the traditions of the Church that support rather than oppose ethnonationalist politics. I have no doubt that such resources exist. Mobilizing them is an important metapolitical project, and it will be credible only if carried out by believers.

However, the battle within the Church is not likely to be successful unless our movement makes progress in the larger social realm, for the simple reason that the Church follows secular opinion rather than leads it. The church has a long history of supple accommodation to secular power, simply because its kingdom is not of this world. Its ultimate goal is the salvation of the soul. Thus, if White Nationalism achieves political power, the churches will hunt for Biblical precedents for our policies and reinterpret, downplay, or ignore contrary tendencies. The Church knows how to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Our job is to become Caesar.

Many defenders of Christianity argue that societies and individuals need religion, and they recommend Christianity simply because of its illustrious past and the fact that it is still here. Of course, this argument is somewhat premature, because the white race first has to survive before we can worry about how we might best organize a future white society.

Furthermore, in the last century, Christianity has been dramatically declining in Europe. Indeed, I have argued in New Right vs. Old Right (here and here) that for three centuries now, liberalism, not Christianity, has been the de facto civil religion of Europe. I see no reason to believe that Christianity will be more significant in the future than it is at present. It may revive; it may continue to decline; it may persist in diminished form; or it may cease to exist altogether.

Thus the mere fact that Christianity is here does not recommend it, if we are choosing a religion based merely on social utility. Indeed, if that is our primary concern, I have argued that we would be better served by trying to reform liberalism in a race-realist, non-individualist direction, since liberalism dominates everything today, even Christianity itself.

European Christianity will have a future only if European man has a future. But the Church is at best indifferent to white survival, and today it is actively working against it. Thus my recommendation to White Nationalists, Christian and non-Christian, is to focus primarily on white survival, which requires that we be more concerned with battling the churches than preserving them. The Christians among us must be White Nationalists among them. They must be our fifth column, doing whatever is possible to weaken the Church’s opposition to us. They need not fear for the Church, which will survive even if whites do not. God will take care of His Church, but whites must take care of ourselves.

Reply by Jonas De Geer

First off, I re-emphasize that there’s no doubt that we have to fight the existing churches just in the same way we have to fight our own present governments. That is the situation. But the questions remains: to what point can we do without religion? And it is a fact, and a very compelling fact, that secularization has made us weak, has made us defenseless. Not the other way around as some nationalists have claimed in the past.

I would not say that the Crusades in any way were a mission of the Church as such. In fact, it led the European people to unite in a sense. That has never happened before or since. Now, this is something that we really should celebrate and try to emulate.

Christianity has historically defined us as nations. We are now in a country that still has a Christian cross for its flag. Some people in this country question that. They would rather have that done away with. Christianity is an object of both resentment and hate of the same people that are destroying us. This should tell us something. And it’s the same thing all over Europe. The cross is a symbol for towns, municipalities, etc. Now, what does this tell us? You say we can either look to the future or look to the past, but I think we need to look to the past or connect to the past in order to have a future at all. That’s the point.

So, I say it again, the enemies of Europe, the same people that try to completely destroy us racially, destroy our societies, have a profound hatred of Christianity. This is just a fact. They do their utmost to ban nativity scenes, to ban crucifixes from public places, etc. This is a part of the war against us.

I also stress again that I am not talking about people developing a personal faith, because such things can be very difficult. You can be a good, moral person without being a devout Christian or a believing Christian even. It’s not about that. It’s obvious though that the moral capital that generations of Christians have created is something that has benefited our societies. The word here is integrity. A people that has no basic concept of moral integrity will certainly have no integrity ethnically either. That’s kind of the point I’m trying to make.

I also want to thank you, Greg, for having such a polite tone in this debate. I’ve tried to do the same.

So, will ethnic integrity survive without religion? I don’t know. I find it unlikely and I definitely think that the historical evidence that we have speaks against it. This is something we have to consider very closely, because it’s a very serious question.

Reply by Greg Johnson

In replying to Jonas, I want to begin with several brief points, and then I want to develop something in more detail.

First, although Eliot is of course correct that the distinction between East and West was based on the Orthodox versus Catholic divide, East and West were both Europe and both Christian. So, Europe is bigger than the West.

Second, contra Belloc, Europe is not the faith and the faith is not Europe because European man and civilization are older than Christianity, and Christianity has always extended beyond Europe, and the aim of the Church has always been a universal church, the salvation of all mankind.

Third, it strikes me that the Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965, is both too late in time and too parochial in scope to explain our predicament. The forces of decay are far older, and their field of action is far wider. I think that Vatican II is best seen as the Church’s capitulation to the regnant forces of liberalism rather than as a cause of their triumph.

Fourth, it is one thing to argue that religion is needed for society to function. I would argue that religion is needed for society to function. And it’s quite another thing to argue that this or that particular religion fits the bill. Christians that argue the second point on the grounds that Christianity has a long past and is still around, I think, are making a very weak argument, because Christianity today is at a very low ebb, especially in Europe. Every argument for religion based on social utility can be used to make a far stronger case for Islam than for Christianity, because Islam today is a growing, war-like, patriarchal and fecund religion, which is why certain European ultra-reactionaries and Traditionalists have actually become converts to Islam.

Now, my last point will require a little more development, but I’ve got plenty of time, so bear with me.

In my book New Right vs. Old Right, I have a couple of chapters, one is called “That Old Time Liberalism,” and the other is called “Racial Civil Religion,” and the main ideas that I want to state here are found in those two chapters, particularly the latter one, “Racial Civil Religion.” I do think that every society needs religion, and I understand religion as a way of concretely expressing and honoring and propagating that society’s idea of the highest good. That is a definition of religion that encompasses both secular and civic religions. There are civic religions, including religions that are non-theistic such as Buddhism or Confucianism, and also supernatural religions like Christianity.

Now, why do we need religion? What do all of these religions have in common? They have in common narratives — stories, myths — which can appeal to anyone. Arguments are very hard to teach. I used to teach logic. It was very difficult to teach logic, especially in the United States. But any fool can understand a story. We start out with nursery stories. We understand stories even when we are very young. Religions have rituals, which are concrete actions that make real and palpable some ideal, just like narratives do, and religions also have authority. They command belief. They don’t just persuade or cajole.

Why do we need that in a society? We need it primarily for moral education and formation. I taught Kant. I taught the categorical imperative. And let me tell you, if society depended upon people reaching college age and then understanding Kant in order for there to be morality, we would be back in the jungle in no time. We need moral education starting very, very young, and rationality, arguments cannot provide it, but religious education and formation do just that. So, there is a very strong case, I think, for the necessity of some kind of religion.

So, what kind of religion? The kind of religion I think we need to aim at is a racial civil religion, the topic of my essay. I think that the conflict between Christians, pagans, and agnostics and atheists within the White Nationalist movement needs to be reframed in a larger context, because I think that the true dominant religion of our time is not Christianity. It hasn’t been dominant since the 17th century. Christianity bows to liberalism. Liberalism is the reigning religion. It is hegemonic. I think that if we are going to fight the reigning religion of our time, an anti-Christian crusade is not the way to do it. We need to strike at the real dominant power, a power that even the Jewish community pays lip-service to in order to enjoy the power that they have. It’s their handle on us. If they just appealed to naked Jewish self-interest we wouldn’t be anywhere near as amenable to their aims.

So, what do we need to do? I think that honestly there’s nothing wrong with liberal modernity — I’m putting this provocatively: There’s nothing wrong with liberal modernity that couldn’t be fixed with biological realism about the differences between the races and the sexes, and an ethos that’s somewhat more collectivist, meaning that the individualism that we all hold so dear should not be the highest value, and that when individualism conflicts with the health of the body politic we need to be willing to sacrifice individualism.

What would the results be if, through our efforts, those sorts of ideas became hegemonic, if racial awareness, racial pride, the values of racial preservation and flourishing became the hegemonic ideas? What would happen to the other religions?

What would happen, for instance, to Islam? Well, Islam would be banished to the Ummah. It would be gone from Europe.

What would happen to Christianity? Well, Christianity would have to contend with the new Caesar in town, but they’ve been very good at that. We’ve seen a long history of that. I would predict that Marcion, Origen, Swedenborg, William Blake, and Simone Weil would become the topics of theological discussion, because it would be imperative for the Church to try to erect the cordon sanitaire around its Jewish roots, and those particular thinkers have been very useful for that in the past.

What would happen to paganism, Nordic and Hellenic, under a racial civil religion? I think it would continue to grow and revive.

And what would happen to liberalism, our dominant religion? Well, I think liberals would basically be able to accommodate themselves to it quite well. The texture of daily life, their little micro-breweries and coffee houses and the like, would continue to function. There would still be foreign films to watch. They would still be able to fawn over dogs and cats. They just wouldn’t be able to import little Black children for the same purposes. In short, what they would lose would be more than compensated for, I think, by the glorious feeling that Whites as a race once more have a future.

So, that’s the vision that I have. I think that we need a racial civil religion that prizes racial survival and flourishing above all other things. And, like every religion, like every dominant discourse, it is intolerant of the opposing views. We will take the degradation and destruction of our race off the menu. It will no longer be a topic of polite conversation. It will no longer be welcome in polite society. But, like every other system, we will be tolerant and pluralistic on all matters that are unimportant. And I think that religion is fundamentally unimportant compared to racial survival.

So, that’s my vision, I would say, of an alternative to a revival of Christianity, which I think is a quite old religion. I think that instead of working to revive or reform Christianity, we would have better luck focusing our energy on battling and overturning or reforming the really dominant religion, which is the religion of liberalism.

Concluding Remarks by Jonas De Geer

Well, I can just reiterate: liberalism has killed us. With all due respect, Dr. Johnson, but your vision is entirely speculative. I try to be realistic, and we have seen how Christianity has been necessary, how it has indeed saved Europe in the past.
Yeah, things are looking pretty bleak right now. I admit that. I’m not optimistic in any way. But you cannot create religions, and that is my main point.
And when you say that the Second Vatican Council is a bit too late . . . Yeah, it’s true that society started changing, but you cannot compare 1960 to 1970. It’s such a drastic change and it completely coincides with this change in the Church which actually sort of gave Catholics a green light to completely ignore or skip religion. So, I think definitely, absolutely there’s no coincidence there.

We need morality. We need to get our defenses together, and people are never going to be willing to fight or die for some notion of having superior DNA. It’s not going to happen. You need a religion and we need to tap into the faith of our fathers, because I can see no alternative, and I think history shows us that.

Concluding Remarks by Greg Johnson

Whenever a people faces a crisis, they have to reevaluate their priorities. They have to look at what they’re doing wrong. They have to try to get a sense of who they are. They have to go deeper. When superficial institutions and identities and solutions no longer work, we have to look deeper.

I think that in this crisis we do have to look to our past. We also have to look into our nature. I think that we will not come out the other side of this crisis by connecting to the Sermon on the Mount and its values. I think we will get out of this crisis by connecting with the pagan ethic that the Sermon on the Mount is basically designed to overthrow. I don’t think that it’s time to turn the other cheek. I think it’s time to get mad and shove back rather than just be shoved off the stage of history. So, I do think we need to reconnect with our past, with our deeper roots, our biological roots, if you will. I think we need to get in touch with the middle part of the soul that resides in the chest, the thumos, which is stigmatized in some ways by Christianity as the sin of pride. We need to get angry again. We need to start taking our own side. We need to start loving our own and realizing that there is nothing at all wrong with doing that, but that it’s natural, normal, and right for people to have a preference for their kin over strangers, for their nation over its neighbors, for their race over other races. I think that’s what we need to get in touch with.

I really have to question again the relevance of the Second Vatican Council. How important was Catholicism in Sweden in 1965? Or in Norway or in Finland or in Denmark? I think that it was practically non-existent, and therefore transformations in the bowels of the Vatican I just don’t think can really explain the trajectory of decline that we have found throughout the Protestant north in particular. So, I remain skeptical on that.

I do wish to reiterate, however, that there will never be a time in the future when Europe never had been Christian. It’s part of our past. It will always be part of our past. It cannot be undone. I think that the cross on flags and things like that may someday be about as relevant to our religious beliefs as the Norse gods in the days of the week. Namely, it will be there; it’s part of our history. I am a great lover of Greek mythology and Nordic mythology, but I don’t literally believe its truth, and I think there are many things in the Bible — especially the New Testament, let me make that perfectly clear — there are many things in the story of Jesus that are moving to me. There are many elements of Christian art throughout the centuries that are of permanent aesthetic appeal, and I do think, like Guillaume Faye who is not a Christian either, I would be there to fight against the bishops who want to hand over the keys to Notre Dame so it can be turned into a mosque someday. I’d shed some blood to stop that. So, I think we need to recognize that this is part of our past. But we’re not going to save it by reconnecting with the ethics of Christianity. We’re going to save it by reconnecting with our pagan roots and beyond that with our biological roots, our sense of destiny, our sense of identity, and also our capacity to get really, really fighting mad.

Space to Destroy

via Radix

Baltimore burns, and an army of redcoats didn’t do it this time. Instead, it’s Dindus pillaging and burning Charm City, while the State has stood by and watched.

Rioting first broke out in Baltimore on Saturday when a part of the peace-loving Black Undertow made its way to an upscale area of town and wreaked havoc. After that incident, the Black Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, told reporters she wanted to give the demonstrators “who wished to destroy” space to, well, destroy.

On Monday, the Undertow had ample space to do so. Nursing homes, convenience stores, cop cars, liquor joints all received the torch last night as the city descended into a third world hellhole. During this outburst, the Mayor was denouncing the “thugs” who were devastating the city and promising stern measures to restore order. But it was too late to act like a figure of authority and the Dindus knew they had a blank check to rampage and get away with it. The unrest stems from an incident where a Black man, Freddie Gray (not Frederick, apparently), died as a result of injuries suffered while in police custody. Police knew that a tough response would only further exacerbate the mayhem and stoke the ever-present media rage at their actions, especially on the same day as Gray’s funeral. While rioters ran wild on Saturday, an unfunny female comedian ripped on police racism at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner held only a few miles away, to the knowing chuckles of her elite audience. The urban elves have already picked a side—and they’re not with police. Their attitude was encapsulated by The Huffington Post’s Tuesday morning headline: “Baltimore Burns. Cop Throws Rock At Protester.”

With the media and local government implying the rage of Baltimore’s Blacks was justified, why are we surprised that they went into full-blown anarchy yesterday? It’s a cliché in our circles to cite Sam Francis’s concept of anarcho-tyranny, but there is no better way to describe what is happening in Baltimore and other cities beset by Black unrest. Cops are automatically seen as the villains in this narrative and are thoroughly demonized—even though they are the System’s only barrier separating order from chaos. As America’s demographics continue to darken and more and more non-whites enroll on welfare as their jobs disappear, we’re seeing the creation of a new class that is entirely dependent on the government, yet has no respect for the government or its laws.

Instead of trying to resolve this problem, the government and the media continue to coddle and apologize for this growing underclass while that same class continues to demand more and more from its White benefactors. The latest demand is the cessation of tough police measures that made cities like New York and Washington livable for Whites once again. When the race riots that sent many American cities downhill broke out in the late 60s, Whites demanded that law and order be restored. That cry was echoed by Richard Nixon, George Wallace, Spiro Agnew, and a host of other politicians, and they were rewarded at the ballot box. Today, White America has no idea what to do about these riots and just directs more anger at “Obama’s America.” Even our politicians (read: Republicans) have no answer for these riots. . .except for Rand Paul, and his answer is to end mandatory sentencing so more violent felons can return to their communities and demilitarize police so towns can endure more violent unrest. The first response from Whites to all of these cases of supposed police brutality is blind belief and outrage at the apparent injustice, even from conservatives. As it eventually turns out that the cases were trumped up and largely false, we then get a somewhat fairer look at the event, but always with caveats that Black anger with police is still justified and reasonable. There’s still a problem with the police while those communities just need to be empowered, turn to God, or learn about the wonders of the free market in order to succeed. It is fitting that the community center for the elderly that was burnt down was a Southern Baptist project—the same denomination that’s trying to sell “race reconciliation” to well-meaning Whites and integrate its churches. The result of conservative attempts to reach out to Blacks is illustrated by the community center’s smoldering ruin.

The mindset of instantly siding with Black grievance undermines the authority of police and gives Blacks a free pass to riot whenever they’re upset. When the idea that police are racist and unjust is drilled into the minds of non-whites, it’s not shocking that they now riot over any incident that results in a Black man dying while cops are around. What we’re seeing here is the System throwing its own grunts under the bus and turning them into scapegoats for the harsh measures that provide stability for an unstable, multiracial society. The System benefits when police have tanks to quell riots and drug dealers receive long, mandatory sentences. But it also has a dependent underclass that it has to appease and provide for. Additionally, this underclass has the sympathy of the chattering class and Blacks as a whole are granted a moral superiority over Whites in any given situation. Thus, the System is taking the side of the Black underclass against its own foot soldiers. The managerial elite knows that the Black Undertow is subsidized by the government and that they can’t live outside of the state, so they see no apparent threat from letting them run wild and wreck a city like Baltimore. While this seems to threaten the System’s legitimacy and its appearance of providing order, its managers understand that Blacks will return to the fold after any violent outburst. After all, the Los Angeles Riots in 1992 ceased after its perpetrators lined up to receive their welfare checks, courtesy of the State.

But what this means is that the System is willing to allow a small degree of chaos and undermine its ability to contain it if it empowers and soothes its dependent class. We saw this in the first few days of Ferguson rioting before the tanks arrived. We saw this last weekend and last night in Baltimore. The System hardly has the stomach to unleash the full-force of the state on those righteous Blacks, unless they get too out of hand. But even it that comes with claims of police overreach. There are no politicians running on a platform of restoring law and order and both liberals and conservatives—even Maryland’s Republican Governor who’s vowing to clamp down on rioting “thugs”—are clamoring for “justice” to redress the wrongs of cops just doing their jobs. All of the momentum and moral high ground is in the corner of those wanting to sap police power and acquiesce to Black demands. We see this when it is now perfectly acceptable for Black commentators to encourage rioting on national TV and endlessly repeat Martin Luther King’s admonition that “a riot is the language of the unheard.”

What we are currently witnessing in Baltimore is the escalation of anarcho-tyranny. When the System and its minions are more concerned with punishing White fraternity brothers who say “nigger” rather than Black rioters, you know you have anarcho-tyranny. When we spend more time hand-wringing over using the term “thug” than dealing with thugs, you know you have anarcho-tyranny. When Baltimore burns and the media frets over a single police officer throwing a rock, you know you have anarcho-tyranny.

Last year, I wrote of the militarized status quo America is beginning to accept to deal with racial chaos. It is now on its way to Baltimore in the form of 5,000 National Guardsmen. The State will tolerate violence and disorder on a small-scale, but it will employ military-grade tech to prevent cities from turning into Dresden and to ensure Blacks don’t harm the economy too much. We’ll see how this plays out tonight as the city is reinforced with more cops, well-armed troops, and the eyes of the nation glued on to its every move.

But this will not resolve the growing unrest festering in America’s ghettoes and forgotten neighborhoods—and summer hasn’t even begun. . .

There’s a fire rising in America—but will Whites be awakened by its flame?

A Response to Matt Parrott’s Feminism

via The Daily Stormer

The Daily Stormer war against feminism continues
as I invite Matt Parrott to put on the glasses
Matt Parrott wrote a response to my recent series rticles on feminism, and I would like to give a response to his response.

Before I begin, I want to say very clearly that this has nothing to do with “infighting,” but is simply a gentleman’s disagreement. I have a very high level of respect for Mr. Parrott and all others involved in TradYouth, and I feel we can have an open dialogue as comrades without there being any subtext of hostility.

On the whole, Parrott seems confused not only about what it is I am trying to communicate, but what he himself is trying to communicate as well.  The understanding he has of my positions on this topic could have come from a feminist report on what I have written rather than a direct reading of my material, and his own position changes drastically in the course of the essay.

I will go through point-by-point and comment, skipping only the introductory paragraphs.

Parrott begins with some kind words about our project here at the Daily Stormer, and then agrees with my position that political spaces should be fundamentally male spaces. He states some facts about the nature of women which I would wholly agree with.
Women, young and old alike, are neither designed nor inclined to develop or encourage politically aggressive subcultures. Women tend to prefer compassion and compromise over conflict, albeit social or physical. Women tend to tag along with the herd rather than staking out their own course. Women tend to be more sensitive to safety and security considerations, with a general attitude of risk-aversion. Women tend to think in terms of people and details rather than abstractions and ideals.
All of these general inclinations make for superior nurturers, superior community organizers, and superior secretaries. But they also make for counter-productive and corrupting distractions from the development of radical subcultures if they’re allowed to set the tone, guide the conversation, or steer the decision-making process.
I could have written all of that myself (though I probably would have used the word “tend” much less). So here we see that we definitely agree more than we disagree, for the time being.
Women are absolutely equal to men in value for our communities and for our cause. They’re complementary halves of our racial whole, and we should strive to respect them, protect them, and go out of our way to put their energy and talent to use for our survival.
Here, we begin to differ slightly as Parrot begins his veer to the left. I would never use the e-word in a discussion of sex, as I believe it is dishonest, a way of pandering to modern sensibilities.

Of course, it is true that in strict biological terms, men and women are both necessary for the continuation of this or any other species which reproduces sexually, but that having been said, women’s abilities in virtually all relevant areas of life outside of those relating to children and keeping house are significantly less than those of men. We also might note that a group of men could clearly survive until they grew old without women, women could not survive at all without men.

“Equality” also implies an equal share of power in society, which should clearly not be the case.  All of the power in a society belongs to men.

Women were not involved in the politics of Rome, and it was arguably the feminization of men which led to its collapse.

Women were not involved in the politics of Rome, and it was arguably the feminization of men which led to its collapse.

So, though this may partially be an issue of semantics, I don’t feel it is correct to use this liberal buzzword in a discussion of gender roles.
But Anglin’s correct on a fundamental point: Our work is implicitly male at this stage and we can’t afford to waste time trying to make it more comfortable for or inclusive of women. Predictably, he goes astray in his application of this point for the same reason Anglin always misses the mark, because his approach is ultimately secular, modern, and biologically reductionist.
This idea of a secular vs. a religious position is interesting to me, and I would have liked to have heard how my secular stance differs from a religious stance in his perception. Unfortunately, that is not something which Parrott elaborates on.  If I were to elaborate on it myself, I would note that Biblical gender norms are the same as any other historical European gender norms and the sort I am promoting.  I don’t exactly know where Parrott could have gone with this thread, or why he mentions it at all.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." -1 Timothy 2:12

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” -1 Timothy 2:12
And though I would fully agree that my position on this matter is secular – my official position on all matters is secular, given both that I believe it is only professional and appropriate in the context of politics to focus on the scientific and that my own spiritual belief is that the natural world itself is inseparable from the divine – I see nothing at all “modern” about my own position. I have in fact, repeatedly, used the word “medieval” when describing my perception of appropriate gender roles. Regrettably, Parrott does not elaborate on that accusation either.
In the general framework of Radical Traditionalism, more specifically within the Christian Traditionalist framework, a dynamic has been developed wherein men are trusted and expected to lead in political matters while women are afforded complementary opportunities which are every bit as vital to our long-range success.
I would need a citation on this, as Parrott is apparently claiming the authority of a “radical tradition” which I am not aware exists. When we speak of “tradition” (whether “radical” or otherwise) we are generally talking about a consistent historical precedent, and I dare say there is no historical precedent whatsoever for the position that women are “every bit as vital” as men to the success of a political agenda.  We could go all the way back to ancient Greece and all the way up through the industrial revolution and have a very hard time finding a single man who would not burst out laughing if you claimed that women were vital to your political agenda.

My own position – which is absolutely backed up by consistent historical precedent – that is, tradition – is that women are irrelevant to the success or failure of a political agenda, assuming they are barred from being involved in politics. If they are involved in politics, then they are at best a hindrance, at worst devastating.

What have women done?

What have women done?

Of course, women have been a part of the Jewish cultural Marxist agenda to break down society, but this is categorically different, as this was a psychological and sociological war of destruction. The Jews have built absolutely nothing, and have used women in the political realm for the purpose of tearing down existing social and moral structures within our society. And, suffice to say, there is nothing traditional about cultural Marxism.
Simply borrowing from the “manosphere” and its groupthink to arrive at our approach to gender relations is as toxic as imbibing the implicitly feminist and egalitarian approach to gender relations which secular women who happen to be pro-white generally expect.
I’m unclear about what is meant to be communicated here. What specific concepts from the manosphere are we referring to? How does “groupthink” relate? How could anything be as toxic egalitarianism?

Elaboration is needed here, though none is given.  Instead we are left with vague insinuation (the core theme of Parrott’s essay).
A synthesis of insights from tradition, from the manosphere, and from the small but growing number of complementary feminine traditionalist projects is necessary, one which discards both the feminization of contemporary Christianity and the misogynist resentment of MRA culture.
Here we see that Parrott agrees, apparently, with certain aspects of the manosphere, while as noted above, disagrees with others. Still nothing specific.

He also mentions tradition, which I believe should be the sole place from where our ideals of gender relations are drawn; anything that I appear to have borrowed from the manosphere (I have used some of their terminology, simply because accepted definitions of terms are helpful when conveying larger concepts) were elements of traditional gender ideals which are a part of the manosphere.

Lastly, he mentions “feminine traditionalist projects,” but gives no examples of what those are. Without knowing what they are, I cannot comment, though I can say I would be sceptical about anything which would be defined that way.

The term "

For me, the term “feminine traditionalist project” conjures up imagery of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, a radical Marxist group which hid behind a façade of alleged Christian tradition.

He wants to discard feminized contemporary Christianity, which is good, but then he speaks of the “misogynist resentment of MRA culture,” which is yet another thing which needs elaborated on. The word “misogyny” is so meaningless to me that I won’t even comment on it. “MRA culture” does contain a lot of men who are resentful towards women, generally with good reason. The problem with discussing “resentment” in the context of a discussion of political and social ideas is that resentment is an emotion, not a political or social concept. One can say something while feeling resentment or while not feeling resentment and it doesn’t change the truth or falsehood of what is being said.

This having been said, I do not resent women, which Parrott may or may not have been suggesting. I find modern women shameless, ridiculous and disgusting, but these are simply observations. And though my personal emotions towards women are not relevant, because Parrott has brought up emotions, I will say that when looking at the modern woman, there is one emotion which I feel strongly and that is pity.
We could use more white girls supporting our projects and standing with our men, but we can’t and won’t achieve that by catering to them, propping up tokens, or watering down our message to make it more female-friendly.
This is fair enough, I suppose, depending on how we would define “supporting,” and I of course agree with keeping the message centered on men.  Though as we will see, Parrott will later disagree with this statement he’s made here and accuse me of being a “misogynist” for “driving women off.”
There’s a small contingent of white girls who are genuinely willing to marry and support men who have chosen a life of conflict with the system and sacrifices for the cause, but the drummer from Def Leppard can count them on his fingers.
Here we seem to be missing a core concept, which is a theme throughout this shifting essay. What a woman wants at a certain time is as relevant as the weather on a certain day. Expecting that you can base decisions on what a woman says she wants is like expecting you can buy your entire wardrobe, for the rest of your life, based on whether or not it is raining the day you go to buy it.

With a man, you can expect that if he is using logic in a manner you find to be sound, the odds are he will continue to use logic in that same manner. His positions may change, but those changes in position will be based (all things being equal) on processing new information, or a new situation, with the same logical mechanism. A woman’s position at any given time is based on her emotions, and her emotions are subject to environmental influence, meaning you as an individual have extremely limited control over what position she holds at any given time.

This is the core of the problem with women, Matt.

The largest influences on her emotions, and thus on her political and ideological positions, are those which dominate the environment.

Men acting like men leads to women acting like women.

Men acting like men leads to women acting like women.
When you have a society which is good and righteous, the default position of the woman is to follow the norms of that society and behave in a way which is good and righteous. She can be swayed the other way by desire or influence, but it is not the default, and she will be naturally driven back towards the society’s norm.

Conversely, when you have a society which is twisted and unnatural, the default position of the woman is to follow the norms of that society and behave in a way which is twisted and unnatural. She can be swayed the other way by desire or influence, but it is not the default, and she will be naturally driven back towards the society’s norm.

Women under fascism

White women under fascism
Women under Jewish democracy

White women under Jewish democracy
As such, there is no logical reason to ever place faith in the declared political or ideological values of a woman. Instead, you should simply assume that her value system will be the value system of the system.

So, as I have argued, saying #NotAllWomen is unhelpful, and simply shows a reluctance to accept the basic nature of female biology.
Being a political soldier in today’s environment is pretty much antithetical to being an ideal mate for most women. You’re not going to be “settled,” you’re not going to be financially secure, you’re not going to be respected by mass society.
I don’t know if that is true or untrue. Rebelliousness is a form of power, and power is what women are after more than anything else (security, money and respect are all forms of power), so it may be that women will be attracted to men involved in this scene. But that isn’t really the point of this discussion, and this is a non-sequitur.
Women in our scenes should stop nagging about the relative lack of “suitable” mates, because the problem can’t be resolved to their satisfaction at this time. The system systematically degrades, humiliates, and marginalizes the men who stand up against it. All things being equal, judging matters objectively, young women looking for a mate will be able to find a more settled and suitable mate outside of our subcultures. And that’s fine. Go.
Again, I don’t personally know the truth or untruth of these statements, and do not view it as important to this discussion, or even very important in a more general sense.

There shouldn’t be women in our scene in the first place unless they are already someone in our scene’s girlfriend or wife. My argument would be that it is men who should be looking for partner’s elsewhere, if they desire a partner, as the type of woman who shows up on the Nazi scene is unlikely to be stable for the simple fact that she is engaging in an unnatural behavior by rebelling against the norm (there may be exceptions – I don’t know or care, in all honesty).

Conversely, it is the natural behavior of a woman to adopt the belief system of a man she is involved with, as that is a method of supporting the man.

In Nazi Germany, all the girls were Nazis...

In Nazi Germany, all the girls were Nazis…
...because all the men were Nazis.

…because all the men were Nazis.

A woman who is excited about a Nazi scene because her mate is is something natural, while a woman who claims she is interested because she decided she believes in it through her own logical mechanisms is probably dangerous or deviant in some way.  Unless she is subconsciously looking for a man, in which case that is fair enough, but not something that we should be tolerating.
The few who are willing to make that sacrifice because they value the political soldier’s courage and commitment to the cause over material comfort deserve a great deal of gratitude and respect not only from their partners but from the entire dissident subculture, but the women who aren’t willing to make that sacrifice have a duty to stop complaining about the situation and go marry any one of the numerous men out there who quietly agree with our positions while refusing to make a public stand.
The only place wherein a woman will ever make a sacrifice is for her children, period. If she is involved with a political soldier, it is because she perceives power there. Power is what produces good children and what protects them, and so power is the only thing a childless woman desires. All romantic notions aside, this is just the reality.

Methinks that challenging this assertion of mine would have made a much more meaningful article, as it seems to be the core of what Parrott disagrees with, but rather than address it and offer a counter-argument, he has merely danced around it, misconstruing things I’ve said and repeating things I’ve already addressed without acknowledging that I’ve addressed them.
At a certain point, several years from now at the least, our dissident subcultures will hopefully develop to a critical mass point where women can have their cake and eat it too, finding mates who are settled and capable of offering them a comfortable life, while also enjoying high social status. Until that happens, things will carry on like they’re carrying on now, with pro-white men complaining that not a single pro-white woman will have them and pro-white women complaining that none of the dozens of men who will have them are up to their standards. That’s okay. Not all men could or should reproduce, and they should actively avoid marriage to women who insist on dropping their dissident work as a precondition for courtship.
Continuing with the non-sequitur here.

I’m trying to go point-by-point here, but I don’t really have any response to this. Seems like meaningless lecturing. The solution would be to do away with the concept that there is such a thing as “pro-White women,” and accept that women are not political creatures, and that if a woman is claiming to be pro-White, she is after something.

I am not familiar with the phenomenon of these allegedly “pro-White women” complaining about not being able to find a mate, but I will take Parrott on his word that this is happening. A woman saying that is obviously actually saying “I am looking for a man, are any of you men that man?” More likely than not, she would be of the “I’m a hard woman to handle, I’m outspoken and opinionated and you need to be a real man to be able to tame me” variety, which is the worst variety of woman, a modern phenomenon which has crawled up out of the sewer of the feminist project (then again, she might be okay, and genuinely looking for a man with strength, but I don’t personally care).

The entire purpose of a woman's existence is to create and care for children.  Everything about the way she thinks and behaves is geared toward this end.  This really couldn't be more simple.  But our programming blocks this simple reality from our perception.

The entire purpose of a woman’s existence is to create and care for children. Everything about the way she thinks and behaves is geared toward this end. This really couldn’t be more simple. But our programming blocks this simple reality from our perception.

Engaging a woman saying something like this as if she is presenting a serious complaint which needs addressing can only be looked at as a form of insanity.
Reproducing is important, but our political work is more important than marriage if the two are to be juxtaposed, as they typically are. The man who heroically sacrifices himself so that white families can thrive is more needful and necessary at this point in our struggle than a man who has and raises children. Both are important work, but the implicitly feminine and biological reductionist attitude that we must all breed and must make whatever compromises we need to make in order to breed must be rejected. The men who perished at Thermopylae made a greater contribution to the replication of their genome than the men who stayed behind with their wives.
Glad to see Parrott is on-board with this point (at least while typing this paragraph). I’m more than fed-up with the ongoing “White nationalist” chant of “do your duty and have babies!”
We indeed have important work to do which does not involve our penises.
Personally, I don’t believe that implicitly male spaces like Daily Stormer should disrespect white women or drive them out. It’s not necessary or constructive.
I have engaged in neither disrespect or driving out. I have, unemotionally, stated my positions and backed them up as well I could.

Note the change in Parrott’s position from above, where he stated the message should not cater to women, and here now states that it should.  He would, presumably, say that he is not saying that the message should be catered to women, but claim that I have specifically tried to drive women away.  However, this would be false, as my writings attest.  All I have done is given a perspective on the biological nature of women, as well as stated the belief, based on available data, evolutionary biology, historical precedent and personal observation, that women do not belong in politics.
All they need to do is confidently and consistently remain implicitly male in their leadership, focus, and rhetoric. Websites aren’t tantamount to war rooms or initiatic leadership circles, and I believe Anglin’s recent aggressively misogynist effort to drive women off is unnecessary and less than honorable.
“Aggressively misogynist effort”? He does do not qualify this, or give any specifics as to what he is referring to. And I would have to assert that it is less than honorable to claim that I am less than honorable without specifying exactly why you believe this to be the case.

Next thing you know, TradYouth is going to be accusing me of being a racist, anti-Semitic homophobe.
Next thing you know, TradYouth is going to be accusing me of being a racist, anti-Semitic homophobe.
Again, this entire piece strikes me as a frantic jig around an elephant in the room which is my position on the biological nature of women, and the fact that Parrott does not wish to address it. Instead of addressing it, he repeats things I’ve already said, repeats arguments I’ve already addressed, lectures both men and women on proper mate selection and finally insults me.

There is absolutely nothing in this article which serves to forward a discussion on the topic this article was ostensibly written to address, which is my own view on gender roles.  (Truly, this single sentence could have been my entire response to this essay.)
Plenty of women enjoy and constructively participate in implicitly male spaces. From time to time, women will come along who insist on making the space implicitly female, and they can be ignored or driven off on a case-by-case basis.
I don’t agree that there is room for the implicit in what we are collectively attempting to accomplish, and so I have explicitly chosen explicitness.

With some things in life, there is no room for grey areas.  Just Black and White.

With some things in life, there is no room for grey areas. Just Black and White

But again, this is just saying something I’ve already addressed while pretending I’ve not addressed it. My question for those claiming that women have something to offer the political realm was explicit: I asked what they could possibly offer. The gentlemanly thing to do here would have been to give a direct response to that question. We already know that a lot of people are saying “they can constructively participate” but thus far no one has said how. And I have asked: how?

Because I am a traditionalist, Matt, and to me, as a traditionalist, the unqualified assertion that women have a role to play in politics appears patently absurd.  I have asked for that assertion to be qualified and explained in specific terms. It may be I don’t completely disagree with it, even (I have, for instance, not banned women from commenting on my site), but in order to comment further, I will have to know exactly what it is Parrott is talking about.

He may also wish to respond to the assertions I have made about the problems involved with including women in male spaces, which I went into in some detail in my FAQ about feminism and masculinity, and which anyone who has ever been in a workplace with women is fully aware of. They cause absolute chaos, on purpose, in order to make themselves a center of attention.

It has nothing to do with making the space “implicitly female” – what would that even look like? – they certainly don’t try to make everything about babies, cooking and nail polish. They want to exploit and break down the male dynamic in order to serve their own emotional needs.

"Women in the Workplace": Our ancestors don't know whether to laugh or weep

“Women in the Workplace”: Our ancestors don’t know whether to laugh or weep

Along with this, male-bonding is something which has been brutally attacked by through feminist idea of egalitarian inclusion Parrott is presenting. Male-bonding is the root of male identity, and thus of masculinity, and masculinity is the root of authority, authority the root of a healthy society. And it is entirely necessary for a right-wing political movement to have its roots in a sense of camaraderie between men. Both women and homosexuals destroy that when they are allowed to interfere.

So, when Parrott explain these as of yet completely unknown but assuredly vast benefits of having women in our political movements, I do hope he makes sure to explain how these outweigh the negatives.
There’s an important and operative difference between confidently asserting one’s masculinity and one’s implicitly male spaces…and disrespecting or degrading what’s female and feminine. Women are good for much more than making sandwiches and babies, and some of the most talented and dedicated advocates I’ve worked with over the years have been women. In fact, it’s not uncommon for them to have more physical and social courage than the average white guy. White girls are, love it or hate it, generally more assertive and less submissive than non-white girls, and we can’t simply borrow an Oriental approach to gender relations because our women aren’t Oriental.
I am not clear on what he is attempting to communicate here. Masculinity, necessarily, involves dominance over women – this is an inarguable fact, emotions surrounding it don’t matter, they are programmed by the modern system and our baby-boomer mothers. It does not involve disrespecting women, or femininity. I would assert that by attempting to include women in male spaces, Parrott is the one disrespecting femininity, given that it is extremely degrading to a woman to allow her to participate in such things, even if she claims she wants to. Again, one look at the modern workplace should make this explicitly clear.

You’ll note that Parrott is now claiming that women should be involved in political activism, whereas above he appeared to claim that this was a man’s role.  He is also apparently claiming that politics is a feminine activity, after claiming above that it isn’t.

All throughout history, up until the last hundred years, White women were expected to behave as Asian women presently behave or they would have been subjected to physical discipline. Regardless of whatever emotional response we may have to this historical fact, it remains an historical fact. It would be degrading to both myself and Mr. Parrott for me to list citations here. Reading any history of the role of women in European society before the 19th century and we are going to see the exact same thing: women were expected to serve a specific role in society in a sphere completely separate from the world of men.

The idea that gender roles are culturally determined is a Jewish myth

The idea that gender roles are culturally determined is a Jewish myth
Source: all of human history

Source: all of human history, archaeological records of pre-historical man
Parrott suggested above that his position is based on tradition and mine is not. In reality, he has simply paid lip-service to traditional gender roles by saying “yeah, genders are different, women shouldn’t be involved in politics” before going on to say the exact opposite, that they should be involved in politics and that it is feminine for them to be involved in the realm of politics, after already conceding politics is a masculine realm, “because, hey – we don’t want our women acting like gooks, just running around giggling, cooking, making babies and serving men’s needs – they should be out on the streets doing political activism because they’re assertive and strong-willed empowered creatures.”

It’s all a bit silly, Matt.
Implicitly male spaces rather than explicitly male spaces or explicitly gender neutral spaces are vital for the success of our dissident subcultures, as the risk-affinity, boldness, and social courage expected in those circles will naturally attract two kinds of women who are critical to our success; women who are seeking to be helpmeets of men with high status in those dissident circles and women who can and will thrive in and contribute to an implicitly male environment.
These are incredibly extreme claims, drawn directly from Marxist philosophy and going against all historical precedent and basic common sense, claims which Parrott starts his closing paragraph with after having offered no arguments at all to support them.
While the mere presence of women does categorically entail that some women will test those boundaries, the answer is to strengthen the boundaries, not to drive off all the women. After all, even if you drive out all the women, there are more than enough men who are risk-averse, easily taboo-triggered, and mortified by the prospect that somebody, somewhere, might give them the stink eye at the water cooler if they find out he believes his people have a right to exist.
So, the final closing statement is that we need women because men are too big of cowards to do their own political activism.  He also appears to be suggesting that I don’t want women involved because I believe they are cowardly, something which I have never claimed or insinuated in any way, and which does not even make sense to me.

If it is true that men are such pathetic cowards that we have to rely on women to do our political activism for us, the best option is definitely just to give up.

Fortunately, I don’t believe that is the case, and know that by taking a traditional position on gender roles all we are going to do is strengthen a movement which is almost entirely male to begin with.

The time has come.

The time has come
In conclusion, I found Matt Parrott’s essay highly disappointing, given that it came across as so fundamentally dishonest, failing to address any of my points, avoiding the core concept of my anti-feminist presentation, distorting what I said for the purpose of making it easy to attack.  I also found the technique of beginning with an argument and then shifting that argument into the opposite argument by the end of the essay very weird.

I will give Mr. Parrott the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that he himself is still working through these issues in his own mind.  It is hard to believe that he would have knowingly posted an article which has opposite positions at the beginning and end of it, so I must assume he is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance, attempting to find some middle ground between tradition, which he speaks quite highly of, and his own Marxist programming, which he probably has a hard time admitting he still suffers from.  Regrettably, no such middle ground exists, and one must choose between tradition and Marxism.

The first step for Matt will be to acknowledge that my position is the historical precedent and that his position is much closer to Marxism than it is to anything which could be called “traditionalism.”  An infinite number of vague insinuations and allegations of “misogyny” cannot change this objective fact.  After accepting this as fact, he can then decide for himself whether or not he wants to embrace certain aspects of Marxist philosophy or reject it all, but at least we can have a real and open discussion of the topics without all of the unnecessarily confusing rhetorical acrobatics wherein somehow feminism is a part of “radical Christian traditionalism.”

I look forward to Mr. Parrott’s response and clarifications.

African Abundance

via The Audacious Epigone

Riffing off Steve Sailer's prime example of an instance where a picture is worth a thousand words, in 1950 sub-Saharan Africa's population density was on par with that of contemporary Idaho (8 people per square kilometer). By the turn of the next century, UN population projections predict that Africans will be packed in more tightly (170 p/sqkm) than people in New York are today. That shakes out to more than a twenty-fold increase in 150 years, a mere six or seven generations.

Europe's population density, in contrast, is projected to remain nearly static over that same period of time, from 24 p/sqkm in 1950 to 28 p/sqkm in 2100, or from today's Mississippi density to that of West Virginia.

Take a moment to dwell on this. In 1950, there were three times as many Europeans in any given place in Europe as there were black Africans in sub-Saharan Africa. In less than a century, there will over six times as many black Africans in any given place in sub-Saharan Africa as there will be Europeans in Europe.

Put in another way, at the close of the 21st century it is estimated that for every one extant descendant of a European alive in 1950, there will be more than 18 living descendants of a sub-Saharan African living at the same time. This is a veritable Darwinian rout.

Parenthetically, the contrast is even starker than it appears at first blush, since over the intervening 150 years net migration has been and will continue to be from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe. In other words, in the year 2100 virtually all of those 170 p/sqkm in sub-Saharan Africa will be black Africans. A lot of those 28 p/sqkm in Europe, in contrast, will be of non-European ancestry.

For some reason I'm not confident that a twenty-fold increase in sub-Saharan Africa's vibrancy over a century and a half is going to be enough to incentivize black Africans to stay put. Excepting Europe's abrupt (and politically unthinkable) adoption of Israeli-style perimeter security on a continental scale, how does camp of the saints not become the story of the 21st century?

How the State Disrupts Fertility for Political Gain

via Henry Dampier

One area where the political left has experienced almost total success since the 1960s has been in successfully imposing by force and persuasion a new fertility pattern on the Western world. Historians commonly attribute many of the changes to oral birth control, but changing mores also had quite a lot to do with it as well.

While women have been encouraged to delay child birth, be promiscuous, take contraception, and perform the roles of men in the working world, other forces have rushed in to supplant the missing mothers and home-makers.

In the domestic roles, we have some minor improvements in automation, but perhaps the larger change has been in things like food and dress — people now tend to buy ready-made meals (at greater expense to the household, health, and quality of life), wear simplistic, clownish clothing, and outsource most child-rearing responsibilities to the state.

The last is perhaps the most important part — because the family has been broken down as an independent, decentralized set of mini-institutions, most of its roles have been subsumed by corporations and the central state. None of those gains would be possible without the new morals around gender, sexuality, and contraception.

Further,  the lack of issue from the native stock increases demand (at least temporarily) from corporations to increase skilled immigration to the country. Because the best of the natives are curbing their fertility to make time for husband-and-wife careers, they have no time to raise their own children adequately to become highly productive. Instead, the hope has been to skim the best of the foreigners, educating them in the United States, and using global trade to make up for domestic deficits in quality of governance and corporate management.

As we’re seeing in Europe especially — but the United States as well — this complex isn’t properly sustainable. It’s not even sustainable in the corporations that tend to push for greater immigration — too much cultural diversity in any institution increases communication costs, which reduces competitiveness and effectiveness without any proof of compensatory benefits.

The solutions aren’t apt to be all that simple, in part because most of the culture has adopted this new family pattern with gusto. It’s become awkward to behave in the best interests of the broader community, and socially adroit to bend to the needs of the state and its partners. This is a pressure that young women in particular tend to feel from their peers — to conform to what the state wants from them, rather than other sources of influence — even real interests of their own families for perpetuation.

Just in terms of what’s socially acceptable for the better quarter of Americans — it’s embarrassing to even think about having children before the early to mid-30s, like admitting to being a bumpkin who loves monster truck rallies. To have more than two children is to appear to be like you belong in a trailer park. The fashion is to be suicidal, hard-working, pill-popping, and eager to divorce.

But some temporary awkwardness in that department is likely to be what’s necessary to keep the show going in the West, despite all the difficulties which are likely to arise.