A frequent complaint among traditionalist White political activists is the under-representation of female involvement in pro-White campaigning. Certainly, one factor favoring male interest in this political endeavor is the fear that a world run by White radical traditionalists would deny women economic autonomy, relegating them to the traditional roles of mother and housewife. And to a large degree women can be forgiven for being nervous, because, not only is this caricature perpetuated by the establishment culture, but one sees little in the literature associated with White Nationalism that does anything other than substantiate the caricature: invectives against butch feminist excess are twinned with lamentations at the plummeting White birthrate and a longing for the pre-feminist social order. When one considers that many women today view the older order as stupefying, mummifying, and (where marriages were loveless or abusive) a serotonin suppressor, it is not surprising that they regard the White Nationalist proposition as a backward step into a dark age of subaltern womanhood.
We can legitimately argue about how liberal feminism may have contributed to lowering the social standing of stay-at-home mothers; about how the economic structure of modern society may be discouraging family creation; and about how women who would rather stay at home raising their children are perhaps being forced into the labor market, and put under overwhelming time pressure, in order to make ends meet. Yet, it seems to me that if the preservation of European culture in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand is to benefit from greater female involvement, both the discourse and campaign materials aiming to further this cause would need to demonstrate exactly how the lives of White women in general would improve in a post-liberal Western world. Doing so would not only make the face of this cause more attractive, would not only make it appealing to twice as many people, but it would also deprive the enemy of talent — the talent of the highly intelligent and very capable White women who, for lack of knowing better and a viable alternative, currently choose either to join, or at least not to challenge, the enemies of European civilization.
The argument needs to be made that it is not just that we “don’t mind” if women work, but that we actually respect and admire women who — and indeed want them to — exercise and cultivate their talents, wherever these may take them. It needs to be emphasized that we do not differ from the feminists in our attitudes towards female employment: we differ from them in our attitudes towards femaleunemployment. For feminists, marriage is oppression, and stay-at-home motherhood slavery; for us the former is a partnership between two complementary parties, and the latter — if done by choice — a meritorious enterprise for which there is no equiparable substitute.
The presence of visibly powerful women is probably more consistent with traditional European societies than the caricature perpetuated by modern feminist sociopathy: particularly in North Western European societies women have enjoyed higher social status than their counterparts in Asia. Indeed, in many Asian societies, particularly those under the heel of Islam, women live in silent servitude, virtually erased by the veil, legal and economic exclusion, marital abuse, and domestic confinement. It follows, then, that highlighting female visibility and power, however ironic this might seem given the critiques of feminism emanating from the Right, needs to be a core element in any campaign for the preservation of European culture. It follows also that any such campaign needs to highlight how White/European women will be better off in a society that is distinctly European in character.
This is not incompatible with male strength and dominance, or with femininity. My experience has shown that, in fact, even the most assertive, strong-willed women admire and respect assertive, masculine men; these women seem generally contemptuous of the neurotic, effeminate, whining, unmasculine (White) losers they so often see in modern American cinema and television. Interestingly, my experience has also shown that at least some such women, who seem to cluster on the higher IQ percentiles, are naturally feminine, indeed deeply romantic, but have felt compelled to adopt traditionally male survival strategies due to the growing scarcity of worthy mates. They are products of feminism only in a negative sense, for they are indicative of the depression of male status caused by feminist excess, not of the elevation of female status that followed the industrial revolution. (Admittedly, other processes besides feminism have contributed to the displacement of masculinity among White males.)
[adrotate group="1"]
The degree to which the Europeanness of our societies is an important and valuable asset finds its most dramatic proof in the treatment women receive in many non-European cultures. Earlier I mentioned the civic erasure of women in not a few Islamic societies; yet this seems tame in comparison to some of the forms of suppression and abuse practiced in parts of Africa and South Asia. In the former we find various forms of genital mutilation, attached to notions of pre-marital chastity. In the latter we find acid attacks — not as rare acts of psychopathy, as in the relatively recent case of former model Katie Piper — but as common results of family disputes and female rejection.
Many of those immigrating to Europe come from regions of the world where women suffer from low social status, little or no real civic recognition, and a type or a level of abuse that until recent decades was rare or unknown in our part of the world. Combined with the long-term decline in Europe’s indigenous population, the net effect is a convergence between culture and demographic composition, and between our culture and the culture in the immigrant population’s countries of origin. In the United Kingdom, we are increasingly seeing this reflected in the statute books: female genital cutting was once unheard of in this country; but by 1985, after decades of Commonwealth immigration, the practice had become common enough to warrant legislation criminalizing its practice. In a multicultural context this type of negative legislation easily goes in tandem with a positive (and sometimes conflicting) counterpart. Already we have witnessed the principal leader of the Church of England and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales expressing their willingness to accommodate Sharia Law as a ‘supplementary’ or ‘alternative’ jurisdiction or form of dispute resolution.
Viewed in against this backdrop, developing an acute preoccupation with preserving the Europeanness of our societies, and the doubly negative impact of its loss on women, should make perfect sense among Western women today. It does not — at least yet — because presently the pervading belief in the mainstream of culture is that Europe’s complexion will remain predominantly White, despite Third World immigration; and that Europe’s character will remain predominantly European, even if immigration results in a dramatic change in complexion. One worries that by the time events disprove this belief, the transformation will have gone past the point of no return. And it is quite possible that, by the time traditional European culture is replaced by a mish-mash of African, South Asian, and Islamic components, no one, except a vestigial White minority, will be surprised or even care about it. This is because by that point the dominant ideology will legitimize the direction of cultural change as a reflection of the attitudes, worldview, and sensibilities of the dominant non-White majority. Demography is destiny, as they say.
Should nothing be done, within the lifetime of individuals born this century White Western women could well find themselves in a situation comparable to that of their less fortunate analogues in the Third World. In other words, the trend towards ever-greater equality, now apparently unstoppable, could undergo a reversal, ironically not despite the drive towards equality, but because of it, as it is the ideology of egalitarianism that is promoting the multiculturalization of our seats of government. (We have already seen Muslims reach ministerial positions in the United Kingdom.) We can easily conceive a scenario where the ideology of egalitarianism is co-opted by ethnic minorities in their struggle for power; and where the ideology is jettisoned — if not necessarily in theory, certainly in practice — by one of these minorities as soon as it becomes the majority and gains political hegemony. Reversals of this nature begin gradually, under the surface, initially unnoticed by most because they are eclipsed by the dominant ideological trend and the general noise of everyday life; but once the conditions are in place, and the necessary critical mass has been achieved, the transition can occur rather suddenly — this pattern of reversal is evident in the history of the fall of the Roman Empire in 5th century, and we saw it repeated during the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe only two decades ago.
With non-White births amounting to anywhere between 40 to 90% in many parts of the country — which happen also to be the most populous — the demographic critical mass could be reached within a generation or two. I am 40, so this means I am likely to witness it at an age when I will not be strong. A cogent articulation of White Nationalism would from this perspective be the best guarantor of the social, economic, and civic freedoms enjoyed generally by women in the contemporary West. Thus, it is perhaps the absence of adequate information, rather than the absence of power advantages, that are preventing White women from taking their own side. It would be a mistake to neglect half of our constituency because of the cartoonish hostility and adversarial atmosphere engendered by sociopathic feminism; doing so would play into the enemy’s hands, for the rainbow coalition thrives on our divisions. Graphically and prominently emphasizing our conception of women as our allies and partners, as complementary to ourselves, rather than as competitors or opponents, as the feminists have done, would be of great service to any movement with ambitions of saving the West.
Alex Kurtagic (email him; follow him on Twitter) was born in 1970. He is the author of Mister(published by Iron Sky Publishing, 2009) and the founder and director of Supernal Music.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Wow! This is a magnificent article. I’m not sure how I missed, I am going to start going back through the archives.
In many ways, White women (who have been sold down the river by feminism) have the most to lose if White culture recedes. No other culture in the history of Man so esteemed it’s women. Although many White women have been co-opted into attacking White society and White men in particular, I think most are beginning to get a vague sense that their future will be bleak as we become majority non-White. Perhaps this is why there are so many women in the implicitly White Tea Party movement.
We need to address these concerns on the part of White women, as well as amplify how dark their future will be if Whites fail.
I guess KMD (or whoever is running the site) has decided to toss all the old comments to this article down the memory hole. It’s a pity. I seem to recall there were quite a number of them, some rather acidly critical, and maybe that’s why. I guess we all must remember that we’re writing our words on water here.
I don’t think I made a comment on this article at the time it appeared, although I may have. Reading it again, what strikes me is that the “Red Sonja” motif is from the Jewy world of Marvel Comics, perhaps drawn by the un-Jewish sounding apparent crypto-Jew Roy Thomas. One site devoted to celebrating Jewish comics describes him thus:
While it is true that on the whole, White men treated their women better than non-Whites, let’s try to remember that Jews have created the iconography of powerful women like Red Sonja for their own reasons. It goes hand-in-glove with feminism. In actual White history, as opposed to fantasy history, no such warrior-women ever existed. While a few, like Joan of Arc and Boudicca, have been figureheads, women’s biology and weak bodies generally unsuit them for hand-to-hand combat against men. In ancient Greece, women had few privileges and fewer rights, and were basically regarded at best as a means for obtaining progeny, and at worst as a source of corruption and weakness. In Rome, the power of the father, patria potestas, was absolute. The male head of household held the power of life and death over his wife and children, though the perogative of death was but seldom exercised. The moral though is that the health of a race depends on male power over women. This power relation between the sexes didn’t change substantially until modern times. In modern life, male power over women has failed due to technological “progress”. Specifically, the techniques of the welfare state and scientific birth control have combined to strip all power from the man, and hand it over to the woman. A below-replacement-level White birth rate has been one of the most conspicuous results. It’s best to recognize this fact and, it seems to me, extremely unwise to celebrate it. The health of the White race demands its reversal, if possible.
Once again, Der weiße Engel tries to undermine White cohesion. Hopefully everyone has caught on to his racket. The evidence is overwhelming that White culture has been beneficial to White women. No other race has treated its women so well or valued them so highly.
Women have often been standards White men rallied around by the way. They fight to protect their wives, mothers, sisters and daughters. But Der weiße Engel tries to pawn off the idea that it was only through brute cruel force that White men related to White women. He slanders the White men of Greece and Rome as he slandered George Washington – and for the same reasons: Because he wants to harm White advocacy and White morale.
As the article states, White women have more to lose than anyone if White culture falters. Der weiße Engel fears White advocacy will draw spiritual fuel from this message and he attempts subvert it. He tries to exploit any potential divisions along gender lines.
He’s a broken record, replaying three main themes:
- White people are bad, stupid and brutal
- White leaders throughout history have been sadistic psychopaths
- We must embrace some Ted Kaczynski style Mad Max scenario in which all civilization collapses
That’s not pro-White or even pro-human.
Der weiße Engel has been outed by several posters as a fraud but please be vigilant for his next incarnation. He’ll change names and make some superficially pro-White sounding remarks (usually with a lot of hateful rhetoric, ethnic slurs and slyly demeaning remarks about Whites), then start trying to undermine White advocacy once again.
By the way, this article reminds us of a great truth. Only in White culture could such a concept as Chivalry have arisen. We value our women.
It figures that Jeff “I’m using my real Jewish name” Maylor would like an article that underhandedly pimps for Jewish feminism by making use of its iconography. And once again Jeff “I’m using my real Jewish name” Maylor resorts to the usual Jewy smear tactics, falsely portraying my motives as discreditable, rather than challenging my facts. The sad reality is that this self-admitted Jew, who is now so energetically crapping up every thread with twenty or so of his verbal droppings, relentlessly tries to steer every discussion he enters into unproductive channels. In the post above, for example, I give the true reason for the disastrous fall in the White birth rate, and he does everything he can to divert attention away from that, ending his rambling smear job with some non-sequitur about chivalry, of all things. Do you expect chivalry to restore the White birth rate to its former levels, kike? No, of course Jewy Jeff doesn’t, and that’s exactly why he advocates such an insane response.
Also, speaking of kikes, just as every politically-correct nitwit and kike must do, Jewy Jeff takes offense at “ethnic slurs”. Oy vey! He doesn’t want there to be any hurt feelings, you see. The races must love one another, not fight, according to Jewy Jeff Maylor, and if someone uses an “ethnic slur”, or even worse, “hateful rhetoric” (shudder) why, that could cause offense. Worse, it could actually scare away all of the timid White people who LOVE negroes and Jews! Oh, the horror, the horror! We sure don’t want to offend them, do we?? Folks, it just doesn’t get any more kosher than this. Trying to make common cause with the worthless is a sure path to failure, and that’s exactly why Jewy Jeff wants to put everyone on that path.
How long will this blatantly obvious, self-admitted Jewish troll continue to bore us with his goofy act of pretending to be pro-White? Somebody get the hook!
Everyone can go look at the comment Der weiße Engel linked to. It’s clear I was being sarcastic, because Der weiße Engel accused me of being Jewish the first time I called him out on his silly Hollywood Nazi act. He uses accusations like this in a way that no one seriously interested in White culture would. Of course, he has since been outed by other posters.
He portrays all White leaders, including George Washington, as psychopathic sadists, thinks White people are stupid and openly years for some horrible apocalypse that takes mankind back 500 years (in other words, reverses all the good work White men have done). Now, here is a curiosity:
There seems to be a small pack of weirdos that litter this blog with the kind of stupid Marxist remarks that no White Advocate would ever use. We’ve all seen them. Could they all be related? For whatever reason, it is very important to this small band of “people” to discredit this site, not by openly and courageously stating the opposing case, but by pretending to be “one of us” and then pushing a Hollywood Nazi caricature of White Advocacy that no one agrees with firstly, and secondly would go nowhere with the public.
In other words, instead of honestly telling us why they oppose White people or White advocacy, they simply attempt to smear it. Are they bored government workers? Agents for the $PLC? Unknown, let’s just be remember they keep reinventing themselves and coming back with new tricks to smear this site.
Dear Alex:
The subject is too complex to completely cover here, and I may write several articles on the issue, but, basically, there are several problems that, without consideration for them, make your assertions — even if taken extremely to heart by white traditionalist men — mere window-dressing on the wound. Our people’s problems began, not (gasp!) with Marxist feminism in the 1960′s, but with forced European Christianity (key word being “forced”). And the true beginning of the crisis was when the patriarchal construct was used to “brainwash” European families into believing the breakup of the family — separating all the men from homelife to work in fields and factories for elites during the 17th to 19th century Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions in Europe. That artificial adoption of alien semitic gender roles is what has driven everything to date, including inciting the 1960′s version of American Marxist feminism. Had Europeans not adopted Judaic gender roles, the natural order of European ideals would have remained, to organically morph into modern versions (descriptively, not prescriptively) through a natural process. It is very short-sighted — and very convenient, considering arguably natural male tendences and unique interests — that traditionalist white men in our circles choose to see the reaction — Marxist feminism — but never choose to see the cause that prompted it. It is impossible to properly address the latter without understanding and addressing the former. And our circles don’t — men here, much like you — although you’ve done it in a kinder form — attribute everything to women being brainwashed by Marxist feminism. Heaven forbid it might occur to the intellectuals in these circles that there is no brainwashing, and women’s understanding might be intact and the correct one?
There is no painted charicature of what the role of women was before the 1960′s. Women don’t learn what it is to be a woman, or of what life was in the past, from Women’s Studies classes in college. They learn it — like men — through and from their mothers and grandmothers, listening and watching. And those women learned the same way. And what is passed down, I assure you, is a legacy of limited horizons that would shatter your rosy-eyed view of a nostalgic past. You don’t have to be the victim of physical domestic abuse to be affected — just like men today are censured through fear of divorce in this system, women were censured back then for fear of lack of recourse. Occupation has always been a primary factor driving education — women were limited the same way working class young men were limited. Why prepare and send someone clearly destined to be a bricklayer to university? There were very real social and economic glass ceilings and second class citizenhood for women, and feminism had nothing to do with the reality — only by showcasing it later.
When you have had a chain of women in your own line, who never heard of Gloria Steinhem and never attended college, come to you with burning eyes and voice, telling you of the times past and how they went through what they did so their children — their daughters — would not have to live in the confines of their world, you would understand. Putting up with philandering because there was no birth control and a wife had several children, and she was socially and economically tied to her husband. Putting up with male ego and posturing and milder forms of vice to keep harmony at home, covering for an absentee man with a view of fatherhood as a limited parent. When their eyes and voices tell you they worked so hard to make certain their daughters would not have the same environment and choices, you realize that you are handed a torch, not a gift. The pricetag is that you must make the most with what you’ve been given, and do more and go farther than the small periphery of the lives and world they experienced for themselves. Add to that what you’ve seen with your own eyes concerning how men “value” motherhood and keeping a household by the way they talk about women and women’s work, and how everything was left as the woman’s responsibility, even if she worked outside the home as much as her husband did, and you see, very clearly, what to expect in the event you want to have children. The very different fertility rates of countries like Sweden and Norway, where gender roles in terms of childcare and home chores are much more egalitarian, compared to those of Spain and Italy point to where the real issue lies.
The Siamese twin of Marxist feminism — Judaic patriarchal gender roles — is why the older order was indeed “stupefying, mummifying, and … a seratonin suppressor”. If traditionalist white men truly “actually respect and admire women who…exercise and cultivate their talents, wherever these may take them”, then our circles will foster a male social value system that encourages and rewards men in doing everything they can to support women continuing to exercise and cultivate their talents through parenthood, and work to provide infrastructure and incentives that promote men stepping up to hands-on parenting and household chores. And not in a supporting role, but in a leading, responsible, ownership role, which puts fatherhood — the moment to moment parenting, hands-on experience, etc. — on a par with motherhood. Words are empty — circles can say all they want about how much motherhood was lauded in the past and valued. Only it wasn’t, truly — it was just window-dressing to make secondclass citizenry more palatable and justifiable. Let’s truly make it so by lauding quality parenthood — the promotion and encouragement of both parents, along with financial and other infrastructure incentives — as the ultimate value.
It wasn’t Marxist feminism that lowered the social standing of stay-at-home mothers, it was our own society that lowered the social standing of women to justify that they should be nothing else. It was the foreign hostile influence of semitic patriarchy that altered the prior conception of women as allies and partners, turning them into competitors and opponents, who must be controlled to mitigate the extreme influence they can have over a man’s mind, heart and body. Documentation on the ban of early Catholic church on married priests sheds much light on the “competitive” role of women as channels for sin and ruin. Judaic social mores as handed down through the concept of headship, used and misused in its many flavors, set the stage for the very valid malcontent of which Marxists later took advantage by hijacking what was a valid European-based feminist women’s rights movement. White traditionalists make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and rejecting all that occurred as invalid, entirely dismissing the prior situation and stating that women are “brainwashed” by feminism. Does it not seem obvious then, that no thinking woman would throw in her lot with a crowd bent on restoring that social order, dismissing all its issues as feminine delusion, basically? How can such men truly value women, and truly support, respect and admire women who exercise and cultivate their talents, wherever these may take them? They can’t, and they don’t, and women very clearly recognize this. That fact (and a secondary issue concerning disparity in expression of whitness that I cannot cover here) is why there is such a lack of women in this movement.
If you want more women involved, then don’t pretend to value, respect and admire their choices and abilities, but actually do so by supporting and promoting a modified social framework that bolsters them and ties men into parenthood as well, when the qualities men bring to parenthood are just as necessary moment to moment, and just as unique. Motherhood isn’t a woman’s job, it’s a couple’s job — we need to push back further to the past before the Industrial Revolution pushed many of the fatherhood responsibilities into the sphere of motherhood. We ought not promote even the most diluted version of alien gender roles — they ought to be considered trappings left behind as Judaic cultural mores inapplicable to gentiles just as are Kosher dietary laws, a Saturday sabbath, and other clearly ethnicity-specific cultural practices.
Why not really restore original Western civilization gender roles and then compare them to those of other nations? Make hands-on fathering a competition. White Nationalists should be clamoring that subsidies and other incentives given to stay-at-home mothers ought to be given to stay-at-home fathers. Not only is failure to do so sexual discrimination, but, especially in this economy and the “He-cession”, men should have the same educational opportunities that will strengthen their practical or job market skills that women do, and be afforded the same opportunities to spend hands-on time with their children. It ought to be a mantra to White Nationalist men that they must have children, and in order for that to happen, they must be willing to do everything they require from a perspective mother in order to be a good parent, not just a traditional view of good fatherhood. This means refocusing on the spiritual and emotional nurturing that a man provides his wife and children — a warrior or traditional father headship role has to be modified to include these skills and aspects being as valuable and necessary as leadership and self-defense. In fact, they are indeed just other aspects of leadership and self-defense.
When the rest of the world, including the Asian and Islamic cultures you mention, emphasizes the role of women to be stay-at-home motherhood, I can’t help but think it isn’t the role of motherhood per se, that defined Western Civilization. It was the hands-on, unique involvement of Western fatherhood that truly differentiated us and continues to do so today. There were circumstantial and environmental factors that divided labor, certainly, but most of those areas have been addressed by technology. And despite the differences and how it seems, Western men and women are human beings that are much more alike than different. Dr. Kevin MacDonald alludes to that here in his comparison of the Western high-investment parenting, monogamous, high-compatibility, and high-status of women marriage to the Judaic model:
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/West-TOQ.htm
In our modern times, most families can’t get by on just one income. We ought to promote flexibility in our solutions, so that both parents are acknowledged and included in part-time income, childcare, maternity/paternity leave or subsidies, educational subsidies, or other collective arrangements. If a man is unemployed in this economy, he should take up childcare so his wife can concentrate on her job, and use it to also go back to school to make the most of his down time. It beats wallowing in imaginary descreased masculinity. Had men not been so divorced from home life, they might have lent their voices to the struggle women are making now to integrate work and home life, and most workplaces might have started as family-friendly — family bolstering mechanisms spawned from a family-centric society, instead of sweatshops created by an exploitative hostile corporate elite.
If we focus on what men are doing, and need to be doing, instead of on what women are doing and buying into what the media and Marxist feminists tell you women “think and believe” (taking the word of consumerist media and advertising is its own form of brainwashing you know), our circles will foster a male attitude of fatherhood excellence. That carries over directly into attitudes of spousal excellence. I know that today’s men are lost, and latching onto a past model of manhood is expected and understandable. But let us recognize that the past model had its alien influences and bad aspects in the same vehemence and scrutiny used toward Marxist feminist redefinitions of womanhood. And let us not be so fearful — and exploited by — the bogeyman of feminism that we don’t correct the very necessary issues of the past by focusing on a better, newer model. It was, indeed, those past aspects that led to the fertile ground for Marxist hijacking of the women’s rights movement in the 1960′s. We need to restore the hands-on, spiritual and emotional nurturing of fatherhood and the husband role to the modern equivalent the old European versions would have evolved into naturally had semitic influences remained in the Fertile Crescent.
Sincerely,
L.C.
Red Sonja doesn’t exist, neither does Spider Man or Captain America. Real life, exemplary men and women who went above and beyond have always existed, however.
L.C., I’d like to thank you for your post. Everything, EVERYTHING you said is right on. It is usually personal experience and observation that form our opinons, the answer is not always as easy as being “brainwashed,” as the Net warriors like to proclaim. You’ve touched right on a few reasons as to why I am no longer involved with the White movement (the list of other things is about a mile long).
The “chain of women” you speak of remind me of my grandmother. She always encouraged her granddaughters to go to college and be all that we can be, and all that other good stuff. However, she also said that meeting good men, getting married and having a family are important.
I’d also like to point out that writings like these usually mean that there are pro-White women who don’t fit into that traditional housewife ideal, we want to be able to advocate for our race in whatever ways we choose, we want to be accepted for who we are and we want a place in the pro-White movement. Some of us do get smart (it took me about 11 years) and realize nothing’s going to change, there really is no place for us in the pro-White movement, and move on.
Well, good luck, I’m sure if I poke around the pro-White movement in another 11 years, nothing would have changed.