|
|
|
A toast to Gina I want to use this brief post to express my thanks to MR reader Gina. Here’s why. She mailed me a few days ago to let me know that she had discovered during a visit to Manchester that MR is blocked by the web-filtering software used on one or other local authority network. Internet filtering is something we’ve known about for quite a while. It’s three and a half years since Johan Van Vlaams warned us about its coming. At the time, the software was still being explored by the purchasing bodies (who are mostly central and local government bodies). It was immediately apparent that this blog might be bracketed with the more stereotypical nationalist and dissident sites. And, indeed, it was not very long before the first case of MR-blocking reached our ears through the auspices of erstwhile commenter Effra (WJ Phillips) who reported that we were blocked from the PCs in his local library. Frankly, blocking the public’s access to any political site that doesn’t encourage law-breaking or otherwise break the law itself is a vexing issue - and not just for the website operators. The censors, too, are exposed to the possibility of making errors of judgement. Inevitably, it is not straightforward to identify a consistent and defensible basis on which sites can be blocked. Official dislike is obviously not enough, though it’s the danger, of course. An opportunity always exists for the ban to be challenged and overturned, and I am pleased to report that, in one Manchester local authority’s area at least, that is what has happened with us. When Gina mailed me on 11th July, I asked her where the PC was located. She did not immediately respond, but set about contacting the person in Manchester responsible for the decision to list MR among the sites deemed unsuitable for public viewing. Today I received another mail from her with a message appended from the relevant Systems & Technology Manager. It read:
This is a very small victory. But it is also gratifying and instructive. We should not accept the dispensations of a hostile bureaucracy. We do not merit the labels our opponents apply to us. Ask why “antiracist/nonracist” thought so ill of us, or why Robert Lindsay considers Prozium and every White Nationalist “a maggot”, and you will receive no coherent reply. Defending prejudice, as the social constructionists so love to tell us, is an impossible task. Thanks Gina for doing a little bit to defeat the prejudice under which we labour. You’ve set a good example for the rest of us. Comments:2
Posted by Q on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:47 | #
Perfect! Thanks, Gina. 3
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:06 | #
Actually, he said “Nordicists are just about the lowest form of rotting, stinking maggot-life on Earth…” It will ultimately be of great interest to discover, well past my time no doubt, if forty years ago today will mark the epitome of the accomplishment of Nordic man when an adventuresome traveler with pale blue eyes first stepped upon the lunar surface. Why preserve those rotting, stinking maggot-life Nordics? 4
Posted by Q on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:26 | #
Robert Lindsey and his ilk can be described as E.Coli speading on warm Canadian beef! 5
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:48 | #
Amen. ... 6
Posted by Bill on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:22 | # Gina is a very rare specie on this blog, not only because of what she has accomplished but also because of what she is - a female. Females of the human specie are rare visitors to these shores - why is this? Perhaps Gina could enlighten us males, why it is the that such a vital topic which is dominating this site is so neglected by females. (Maybe all such sites as this) It has intrigued me from the get go as to what are the feelings and opinions and general take of the white female is, always assuming of course that Gina is such a person, but hey! trust has got to start somewhere. Half of the white population is female and yet we males have no insight what-so-ever as to what they think - other than notions and half guesses. As I’ve said before, my take is, women (in general) are not wired up to territorial and associated concerns and I suspect tend to leave that sort of thing to the male. I also suspect the female of our specie is an intuitive and instinctive creature. (Ouch!) I must admit I’m in unknown territory here but can’t help thinking that the female of our specie will have a profound influence as to the outcome of what we are discussing here. 7
Posted by Armor on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:01 | # ” Females of the human specie are rare visitors to these shores - why is this? “ Most women are less interested than men in politics, and are uncomfortable with heated political debate. It is not just about immigration and the defense of the West. 8
Posted by Astrid on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:44 | # It’s posts like Fred Scrooby’s that keep women away from mr. He just spews forth, generalizing and bad-mouthing. I am a middle aged woman. My mother was the first person I know who was aware of the invasion. She used to drive us crazy about it 40 years ago. Since I’ve become aware, probably nearly 10 years now, I’ve had one man say, ‘I’ll never be the hater you are.’ He later took it back, acknowledging that I’m not a hater at all, and then gradually came to see more clearly. But he still likes to think of himself as a great guy, who wouldn’t be against anybody. Another said to me, when I said something negative about the Bush cabinet, ‘why do you hate your country?’ Should I think all men are dumb? A woman I know had lived in a white suburb and was naive. She started a job at a very multiracial place. It was only a few weeks before her thinking did a one eighty and it never went back. Most white women are instinctively racial. They wouldn’t have anything to do with a man from another race. Most white women LOVE white men. Do white men love them back? In a respectful way? Sometimes it doesn’t seem so. And at some point a lot of white men gave up on manners and gallantry. Maybe Hugh Hefner helped with that. Reifying women. Off the pedestal, to say the least. Sex objects and breeders. Thanks. As far as women who misegenate, media brainwashing has given a neglected or wounded daughter a place to take herself, a way to get even. Then of course they just get hurt again. But what about this? Recently I saw a 50ish couple, very white, obviously well off, intelligent looking, with their daughter and her boyfriend. The daughter was an ideal sex object and breeder, excuse me, a fair beauty, the boyfriend was black as night, with the face of a devil. He was all over her walkinjg down the street, and the parents were walking with them, pleasant as can be. Should I think all men are dumb and clueless? 9
Posted by astrid on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:30 | # I really don’t think she would, Fred, especially the recoiling in horror part. She did recoil in horror at the antics of a few ‘people of color’ at her job. But to be fair, I’ll ask her. 10
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:24 | # The Jobbik video showed that Hungary is blessed with a number of Ginas and Astrids. One thing I’ve found with women who agree with our extremist normality is that they often won’t support the policies that are needed to make it happen (e.g. repatriation). 11
Posted by Thunder on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:38 | # Astrid said, As far as women who misegenate, media brainwashing has given a neglected or wounded daughter a place to take herself, a way to get even. Then of course they just get hurt again. I saw a very typical and sad example of this recently. A daughter of my sister’s friend married an African and returned to Africa to live with him. My sister said she married an African to spite her father. She soon returned home to Canada, with two dark children in tow. He would not support her and was abusive. She couldn’t cope with the culture there at all. So she settled for living in Canada on welfare. A sad life for an otherwise intelligent young woman. 12
Posted by formerly tyrannized by ambiguity on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:45 | # “Maybe Hugh Hefner helped with that. Reifying women. Off the pedestal, to say the least. Sex objects and breeders. Thanks. “
13
Posted by Thunder on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:50 | # I believe Astrid has a point about this site not being attractive to women because of the comments of some contributors. Could we work in some manner to be more attractive to them? I wish I had some great, creative solutions but I do not. Although it would be good if some of the more creative types here put forward a few suggestions towards that goal. My suggestions: Flagged female-friendly comment streams. A few articles on those positive things we do admire in our women. More references to exceptional women. If it helps at all, Astrid, I have been married for thirty two years and have two daughters. I love them dearly and do respect them. I do not believe I am an exception among white nationalists. 14
Posted by formerly tyrannized by ambiguity on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:55 | # “A sad life for an otherwise intelligent young woman. “ It’s that otherwise intelligent we have to get over. If otherwise intelligent can’t safeguard the integrity of one female, it is useless to the notion of safeguarding a race. At this point our females would have to be lobotomized to be of any political use. Ever notice that most of the females finding their way to white nationalist sites are middle-aged grousers like Astrid? We all know why good females aren’t here: because good females are idiots, eye-candy, and they go where the mainstream goes, wherever & to whatever it lead. Pretty simple. Otherwise intelligent is worthless against biopolitical myopia, for which females are not, and will never be equipped. Go read back in the old anti-Semitic literature of the 19thC.—women wanted no part of the Kulturkampf then either, and it wasn’t because they were busy on their pedestals, or whatever Astrid imagines to be her kind’s fall from grace. They’re too flaky and shallow and emotional for the big stuff. Why do these basic facts of life have to be recast as mysterious questions? 15
Posted by Euro on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:58 | # Could we work in some manner to be more attractive to them? I’ve got a better idea;why dont they work to be more attractive towards us? How ‘bout it Thunder?Enough with pandering to women! 16
Posted by ftba on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:00 | # “never be equipped” Obviously I mean they’re not equipped to understand or grapple with the immense problem of biopolitics. That sounds trite, but it’s everything. One cannot convey any of MR’s nuance to females. Try it sometime. In the end you’ll be just what their TV God told them we are: “neo-Nazi haters”, or per Astrid, disrespectful atheists in the theology of the depedestaled goddess. 17
Posted by Thunder on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:08 | # Okay Euro, Yes you do have a point about pandering to women, too many men have for the sake of some whatever. And yes I believe it important to make it very clear to them what our beliefs are. But a world ahead without white women on our side is not attractive or even possible is it? Getting them onside does not mean we have to pander to those aspects of them which we do not agree with. 18
Posted by ftba on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:13 | # “More references to exceptional women. “ Yea. That’s what the leftists have been doing for decades. The lists are always predictably short. Pandering to women introduces the same sort of reality-denying imposed on us by the left; I’m pretty sure those who come here do so for relief from all that. WN femmes come in approx. three kinds: 1. The middle-aged grouser. Typically childless, she’s hung up on the petty complaints she picked up before she started looking at WN sites—men don’t worship us enough, no more chivalry, etc. All this is contrary to reality and discloses only the grouser’s needs. What do we learn from this? WN women want two things from men: either precisely what non-WN women want, that is to say a domestic slave, or a slave posing as a domestic tyrant. Why is this? Because women were let off the leash. I’m not entirely clear on how it happened, but it did, and there’s no coming to terms with them after the fact: all sex is moot in these parts. The masses breed; here we only talk about the masses and what befalls to them. 20
Posted by Thunder on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:47 | # ftba, I don’t know maybe you have some valid points, there does seem to be alot of cynicism there though and I think too much generalising. I can best tell you my view from personal experience. With women you have to be honest and strict from the start about your opinions and continually remind them especially early on in the piece. I do not like my women cavorting with non- white males or even suggesting they are attractive etc. Over time the need for any rebuke lessens as they know where you stand and what the consequences will be. You have to be prepared to get physical if any male, especially a non-white oversteps the bounds. Women appreciate that. Also some women are naturally more inclined to accept the white nationalist arguments. I even think there is possibly a genetic predisposition to do so. I come from a very ethnocentric, working class family. This seems stronger in the men than women but common among them as well. Between my wife and daughters, the youngest is the most naturally ethnocentric. She does not want to have anything to do with a non-white male. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:25 | # When I talk politics - not necessarily immigration and race-replacement - to another guy there is, at some level, always an understanding between us: we have a common duty to protect something. The identity of what we individually seek to protect varies, of course. For those who are not motivated wholly by self-interest, politics is only a battle to determine the nature of that protection. But for every man engaged in that battle, this basic masculine life-purpose is a lingua franca. In contrast, women belong to the category of the protected. Certainly until they broach the frontier of motherhood they will not see much of life in a man’s terms. We speak to them in this language of ours and they do not hear what we say. Of course there are exceptions, and in extremis there will be many more exceptions than in times of peace and bounty. In extremis they may know they belong to our tribe. They will listen for meanings in our language, because they know those meanings are valuable and necessary to them. But very few will speak the language as we do. 22
Posted by astrid on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:50 | # %$& paints a bleak picture. Does he really believe this is women, half the race? I will say that he has described three definite types, but he‘s just naming the obvious and common. If that‘s all there were, life would be hell. He has failed to count the many many many who do not fit in these categories. I can’t really describe them, because they’re all different, but for sure they’re all intelligent. How about, e.g, happily married intelligent women of varying ages, and happy intelligent women period, who have no desire to stick it to anybody, which is what liberalism is a cover for, who can think and see and at some point either they or their husband, or a friend, woke up and guided the mate or friend to sanity. As far as the third type frtu mentioned, fortunately or unfortunately, I’m not sure which, at a certain age girls are doused from within with chemicals which change them. I saw my independent, smart as a whip, high energy daughter change to a quite passive, slightly foggy headed young woman. Thinking about it at the time, I thought it had to happen, There was no way that the girl she was would be willing to be at the beck and call of a husband and 2 babies, as she is now. She did not lose her intelligence, which is very high, but it‘s definitely compromised. Women in these years should ideally have a strong and loving husband. They are in an altered state induced by nature. The middle aged grouser is a cliché, overdone possibly more than any other stereotype. Granted some exist, but so what. They have their male counterparts. Many middle aged women are really smart and have developed minds. I forget her name but the economics prof on mr recently would be an example. Point is, just don’t generalize. Fact is, statistically, most men aren’t very smart, but should one keep mentioning them? I don’t think mr should pander, recruit, refer, or welcome or any such thing. Just be fair and rational. And don’t generalize. 23
Posted by Astrid on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:32 | # women don’t like it because women don’t like race or nation. Fred, I just can’t believe it. I don’t believe it. Can you prove this? 24
Posted by astrid on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:39 | # Double standard. “And here’s why it’s best MR hasn’t many women hanging about. Astrid, take the litany to Stormfront—they worship talking vaginas there; we don’t.”
25
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:51 | # Its not complicated. Most women (not all of course Astrid) of whatever age, status or station in life are really just not that interested in politics. Generally Ive never found them to be that interested in the sort of abstract, strategic level, joined up thinking that politics is bound up in. Sure, when I was a student, girls I knew would moan about “the Tories” or “Thatcher”, but they really had no interest or understanding about most of the issues involved. They could not see how one issue connected to another. I don’t find that has changed much now even though its now older women I mix with. It is true that women tend to gravitate to a left/liberal position but its all about feelings and emotion, that maybe a stereotype but its largely true. Dont be surprised or saddened that women don’t generally beat down the doors of WN, they are hardly more effective on the left either. I was arguing on a youtube thread last night with assorted American leftists until the wee small hours, I guarantee they were all guys. Reality surely is that women will gravitate toward the dominant political culture. 27
Posted by Mark I. on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:17 | #
Yes, Astrid’s comment which you quoted has Stormfront feminism written all over it. Those females. They know feminism is Marxist but can’t resist it’s seductive wiles anyway. Which goes back to your point about the inherent impressionability of women. Alex Linder, is that you? 28
Posted by Mark I. on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:23 | #
That’s extreme. Nordicism is bollocks and hack science. But Nordicists at least agree with me vis-a-vis white racial preservation, more than can be said for cowardly philosemites. 29
Posted by Mark I. on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:44 | # Before I get lambasted: I’m “Nordic” myself, so no “dago” speculations if you please. Btw, “dagoes” aren’t even whites, but instead are the result of non-white incursions into Europe dating in some cases as far back as when the Roman Empire was flooded with Afro-Asiatics from West Asia and North Africa starting 3rd century AD. 30
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:48 | # Seems to me (and Ive said this before) we often hear about Nordicists but rarely from them. It’s almost as if the whole thing were made up as a divisive issue. Silver seems to have a peculiar obsession with, they are like the fairies at the bottom of his Australian/Greek/Serbian/Asian/British garden. He can see them, no-one else can. 31
Posted by Mark I. on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:26 | #
According to nordicism.com: “People with Superior Aryan Genetics, Blonde Hair and Blue Eyes.” Does that about sum it up?
Isn’t Desmond an admitted Nordicist? Or espouses beliefs that could be called Nordicism? —- I’m not Silver. My whole point was that “Nord” v. “Med” is arbitrary crap, thank you for agreeing with my point. Those two things come up when discussing phenotypes belonging to European populations. Always there is argument over which is better, more desirable. And always I say, “how useless; both of these are just phenotypes that occur in greater or lesser frequencies throughout any truly European population.” People who are genetically Aryan/European without non-white admixture are my racial kin regardless of phenotype. Period. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:36 | # n/a provides an excellent definition.
The 1924 immigration restrictionists were fully aware of their Northern European origin and were very vocal about preserving it. The divisiveness is in the Jewish construct of white which of course did not exist prior to the 20th century. It was embraced by other European and Caucasian ethnies as a strategy to further their ethnic interests. The full scale war on the Nordic/Anglo-Saxon founding people of America is of course the race-replacement that cannot be named. Whiteness has no meaning. http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/03/nordicism-racial-preservationism-and.html 33
Posted by Mark I. on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:58 | # Desmond, My apologies if you were offended. Preservation of North Euro genetics is as much in my interest as it is in yours. If you understand Nordicism to be North Euro racial preservation, then I’m a Nordicist. I was just pointing out the uselessness of classifying Euros into “sub races” on the basis of phenotype. 34
Posted by Mark I. on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:18 | #
True, although we’ve been over this ground before.
All Aryan/European tribes have a common origin, common genetics, and so forth. That’s no “construct”. But if you mean “white” as in denying the diverse European folk their individual nationhoods, I agree completely.
Here in America we had the Jews and Irish doing it. But also snobby upper-class Anglo philosemites didn’t lift a finger to stop it. Most opposition to it came from “flyover country”. That’s still true today.
Fine, but even so I cannot see my fellow Europeans as a greater threat than non-Europeans. Here in USZOG the lines are mostly blurred anyway as many people (like myself) have partial Anglo heritage with other European blood mixed in. 35
Posted by Bill on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:27 | # Whenever pondering on ‘What’s it all bout Alfie?’ I have no problem in finding the source of my answers. No it’s not religion, it is to Mother Nature I look for answers. We humans, split evenly into male and female and through the union of nature, replicate our own kind. It’s called continuity of the species, to me there seems no other reason for our existence, none. Either nature has designed through time (Evolution) what we are today or an unknown source of intelligence has specifically designed what we are from scratch. Either way, this is not the place to explore further. If the sole purpose of our existence is to ensure the survival of our specie then we have to look at what is the design role of both participants - man and woman. The human male is is the impregnator and the woman is the receiver, and it is from this beginning that the roles are cast. The male is the strong hunter gatherer provider and protector, the female is the vessel carrier, nurturer and up-bringer of his seed - result the future. To deny these basic tenets simply flies in the face of of what is. We are living in and coming to the end of a one off technical civilisation. This civilisation, which by the existence and discovery of fossil fuels, has enabled man to create the age of modernity, and by thus doing has interfered and subverted the course of nature itself. During this age, humankind discovered it could alter and thwart the very basic tenets of Mother Nature, so much so, the female of the specie can deny her role of ensuring the continuance and survival of the specie. Relieved of this designated task, females can now pursue an alternate lifestyle devoid of any natural role, they now have a conscious choice of lifestyle - albeit hampered by the inner turmoil of matriarchal instincts. So it is within this new context of female freedom that we males should view the attitudes of the female, that, and the whole panoply of bombardment of the mass liberal zeitgeist to re-engineer the role of the modern female. (And Man for that matter) I’m with Lurker on this issue. Relieved of the most onerous responsibility of nature, the female gravitates to the flippent and trivial, clothes, celebrity, romance, dreams, Utopia. Hey, come to think of it, they are natural liberals disconnected from the naturally aggressive world. Do they give any reasoned thought to their natural role in life. IMO, women seem to be creatures of matriarchal instinct, lacking natural aggression thereby civilising the excesses of the hunter gathering male. So I suppose it is only natural for the female to leave the affairs of politics, war, territory and survival of the tribe to the male for they, as they see it - have different fish to fry. 37
Posted by Armor on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:31 | # “Feminism was a masterstroke on the part of the Global Capitalist elite. Without it Western countries like the U.S. and U.K. might have rejected immigration in time” By the way, I think feminism hasn’t worked as well in France as in Britain, the USA, the Netherlands and Sweden. Government and the media are pushing it everywhere, but the leftist base has not embraced the cause yet. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:42 | # Armor: I think feminism hasn’t worked as well in France Catholicism? Ant-American cultural hegemony? What’s the reason? 39
Posted by Armor on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:07 | # I doubt whether resistance to American cultural hegemony could translate into resistance to feminism. It must be something deeper… 40
Posted by Armor on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:50 | # I have to qualify what I said about feminism being less widespread in France. A French law was voted in 2000 (with little resistance) so that in any election with a proportional list system, each list must now present an equal number of male and female candidates. It means that in order to achieve gender parity, a political party may have to field women candidates who are only vaguely interested in politics and all the more likely to surrender to the engineered zeitgeist. 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:25 | # Wade Williams does a nice job of explicating the processes in society from the global capitalist (or power elite or money power) standpoint. Of course, we are all standing on the outside looking in, and we have to make out the forms we see through the glass as clearly as we can - which may not be very clear. But my assumption, for what it’s worth, is that the formulation for world government given by old man Rothschild ... or was it Rockefeller? ... a Jewish giga-banker, anyway ... the formulation of “government by bankers and intellectuals” allows for more delegation than Wade infers (another, looser formulation, of course, is “Capitalism + Marxism”). In other words, end-products like white demasculinization, dependency, decadence, dispossession, deracination etc are not picked out by the money power as specific targets, but just flow from the Jewish intellectual engine of culture war. All that flows is desirable to the bankers, so they raise “intellectuals” from academia via the think tanks and globalist forums to the position of formative influence. The bankers are the masters of our economic product, and the intellectuals are the masters of our psyches. Sam Francis’s take on Jewish intellectual input was Burnhamesque but correct in its essentials. The Jewish tribal supremacism which is apparent in Judaism and which MacDonald politely infers with his “evolutionary survival stategy” is not the purpose of money power machination, notwithstanding the Jewishness of the main players. Jews are useful to the money power. There is synergy. If there was a more effective agent for delivering global hegemony, the money power would use that. This has implications for the way nationalist discourse is conducted. The eternal tribal hostility of Jews to Euro-Christendom, itself a product both of natural tribal competition and of, as Jews see it, the theft of their Messianic faith-object by Europeans, cutting them historically adrift as adherents to a dead and mistaken cult ... this hostility, and all that flows from it, is a mighty offence to European peoples and must be addressed, but it is not the totality of the problem. Resolving the Jewish Question is a secondary problem, and has to be accompanied by a resolution of the primary money power problem, the other second-level problems of capitalism, intellectualism and politics, and all the problems at the tertiary level such as race-replacement, immigration, decadence, etc. 42
Posted by S on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:42 | # women don’t like it because women don’t like race or nation.” I’m a middle-aged woman. And if I’m guilty of grousing, it’s because I don’t like what I see the future bringing for my children. Here’s, I think, why you see middle aged women coming to WN: Because when we were young and fluffy, we were, also, immature and lacked sufficient life experience that 20 years of child rearing causes an expansion in viewpoint. Also, high levels of estrogen, I suspect, interferes with logical thinking. As menopause comes and the estrogen neuron-short-circuiting brain-flood recedes, it’s much easier for an XX to think rationally, rather than emotionally. From what I’ve seen, women, especially young, attractive ones, do what is FASHIONABLE and what is socially acceptable. Because miscenegenation has been, by Jew media, made fashionable, silly young women do the fashionable thing. I think it is more immaturity and lack of life experience causing young women to believe what they see on TV and, thus, overriding her instincts. My own mother and the women I met from my mother’s generation were DISGUSTED by miscenegenation—far MORE than the men. I can remember my Canadian aunt asking, “Well, why SHOULDN’T there be a country for just White people?” Yeah, these are anecdotes I’m offering, but if I could think of some examples of old, non-Jewish White women—who tend to speak their minds frankly—telling young women that breeding with men of other races are a good thing, I’d be more convinced of your assertion, Fred. 43
Posted by S on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:15 | # S,” thanks for that thoughtful and instructive reply. All I can say is, as I said to Astrid, I’d be overjoyed to be totally wrong about this. I certainly intend to keep an open mind. If I’m right, Fred, then it seems to me that White Nationalism could benefit from the assistance of sensible, menopausal women telling the young women that copy-catting what they see on TV will lead to their own demise. I do so to all the young women, every chance I get. I get a lot of eye-rolling—which is more about the teenage-ness than the female-ness. My son’s friends eye-roll at me, too. So, the real question is, how to get through to teenagers/ early 20s? It has to be pitched to the reality of their short-sightedness, that is, what are the IMMEDIATE consequences? For instance, I convinced my kids and their friends not to smoke, not because emphasema, cancer, heart disease when you’re old, but because….it causes ACNE. (which is true, and not mentioned nearly enough, imo) So what are the immediate consequences for young women about taking up with a black / other race man? Rather than bashing the women for something (doing what’s fashionable, although ultimately self and race-destructive) they’re not fully in control of, due to the estrogen brain-flood short-circuiting their ability to follow an argument to its logical conclusion —ask her how she’d feel having her face scarred up by that Black man’s violence. Also, the pro-miscenegenation on TV and movies needs to be countered. 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:35 | # Women of the KKK.
Women from the KKK march in Bellingham, May 15, 1926. Photo: Whatcom County Historical Society.
46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:48 | # American WASP women, in the twenties, supported race and nation as much as men. One of the reasons they don’t today is because “whiteness” does not provide the sense of community, common history and awareness of being part of a group that ethnicity does. 47
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:24 | #
Desmond, do you not think that WASP (‘settler stock’) was also an aggregate, manufactured ethnic identity? It was less diffuse than White, but it still smoothed over ethnic differences. I’m not saying I prefer White to WASP or Nordic, but all of these involve varying degrees of aggregation. But why do you think White is so much worse than WASP (besides personal EGI-based reasons)? Like WASP, White is an attempt to deal with the racial situation as it exists in North America and the Antipodes. Is it too shallow? Perhaps now. Maybe the coming struggle will forge a stronger identity. Is it a bum deal for Nordics? I think it makes the best of a bad situation. We still make up the dominant ethnies in that White group. Before we can get better (e.g. restoring previous ethnic balances), the wound has to be cauterized. 48
Posted by Armor on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:59 | #
What started the whole process was scientific and technical progress, more than oil.
Much the same thing could be said of the majority of men. Women are better than men at taking care of children and the family, and we expect men to focus much more on their jobs. But most men are not competent about politics either, or they would understand that our problem N° 1 is the race-replacement crisis, and they would act accordingly. At the same time, it is a good thing that not every man is interested in politics, or the world would stop running. Fred Scrooby says that female-suffrage is a recipe for disaster, and I am sure there is some truth in that, but he could say as much about the idea of giving every man the right of vote. Most white men have not realized yet that their government is trying to destroy them. Most people, both men and women, want immigration to stop, but they allow themselves to be manipulated by the system. In other words, democracy doesn’t work. 49
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:10 | # Why, because people like Franklin, Jefferson, Grant, Vaile and Henry Cabot Lodge believed it with every fiber in their body and soul. Lodge:
Read some of the USSC decisions on whiteness. Syrians were white, Jews although sometimes proclaiming themselves Asiatics, scrambled to save the white designation. Lindsay advocates that Afghans were the first white people. Haider did not emphasize whiteness. He disparaged Poles, Croats and Russians, all of whom may proclaime they are as white as the fresh fallen snow, if they so desire. However, they share little or no commonality, or sense of community. Even Mill said it:
50
Posted by Matra on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:03 | # American WASP women, in the twenties, supported race and nation as much as men. One of the reasons they don’t today is because “whiteness” does not provide the sense of community, common history and awareness of being part of a group that ethnicity does. Unlike then, WASP women today perceive weakness in their men. As Osama Bin Laden nearly said: ‘when women see a strong horse and a weak horse they prefer the strong one’. Also, as S says, it is important, especially to young unmarried women, to be fashionable. Isn’t following political fashion just a display of obedience towards those with power? Who has so much power over the economy, education and culture to determine what is fashionable? 51
Posted by Astrid on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:29 | # Exactly who, in a properly run democracy, should get to vote? I love that question! Even though it’s a very difficult one. I’ll respond to myself. Dream on, Astrid. Mantra wrote: Unlike then, WASP women today perceive weakness in their men. As Osama Bin Laden nearly said: ‘when women see a strong horse and a weak horse they prefer the strong one’. But illusion rules these days. White men aren’t weaker, they only appear so. Forgive an anecdote here. One day I saw this in a big US city: An young Asian man spied a bike which was a leaning against a light post, not locked up. He hurriedly got on it and was just about to ride away when a very skinny, unhealthy - as in smoked and drank too much and ate badly - thirtyish White man stepped up, said not one word, just took hold of the back tire and lifted it high in the air. The Asian fell off the front and ran like absolute h***. The owner was totally cool. Not a word, didn’t look to right or left, just got on his bike and rode off. Loved it. To me, this is White man at one of his bests. 52
Posted by S on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:28 | # Exactly who, in a properly run democracy, should get to vote Net taxPAYERS. Excluded: anyone who receives a direct check from gov’t—either a paycheck or a welfare check. If you are paid by a local gov’t you are barred from voting in local elections. If you receive a federal check, you are barred from voting in federal elections, but can vote in local elections. 53
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:19 | # Exactly who, in a properly run democracy, should get to vote Everybody, but to differing degrees. 54
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:16 | # GW, when I read that delightfully splenetic and salient comment by ‘Effra’ on the thread to which you linked I was reminded of the great HL Mencken’s famous verdict on democracy, viz., “Democracy is the art of running the zoo from the monkey house”. 55
Posted by Alex on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:16 | #
That’s a great quote that Scrooby linked from the Mangan’s site. I’d heard something like that before, about a capitalist society in general, and how things were geared to ‘opening markets’, but had found it difficult to grasp. Then I happened to come across this US published magazine called ‘Metropolitan’ that was published in late 1922 which had all sorts of articles about ‘flappers’ and an entire section on ‘the new girl of today’ which interviewed various women and the types of activities they were engaged in (often work related) and you could see quite plainly that this was about opening up the new market of woman. That does not mean that there have not been plenty of problems in the relationship between men and women, even severe ones, that have needed and do need adressing in some fashion, but that attempting to address those problems by way of commerce clearly is not the way to go about it. 56
Posted by Alex on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:26 | # Speaking about ‘opening markets’, just prior to the 1920’s, cigarette executives at the time came up with the idea of providing free cigarettes to women marching in suffragette parades and demonstarations, so as to get women (and girls I suppose as well) to start smoking in large numbers. A more modern example of that below…a cigarette ad published in 1989.
57
Posted by Alex on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:37 | # Note in that ad the black and white image of the ‘overbearing male’, either the ‘woman of the past’ father or husband figure, and then the color image of the beautiful woman ‘of the present’ smoking a cigarette. Yet clearly the promotion of such is neither ultimately in women’s or men’s interest, to either resolve problems that may exist, or for much of anything else… though I suppose it may help open up additional markets of divorced singles and that of broken families. 58
Posted by Alex on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:44 | # And let’s not forget about the ‘opening up’ of new cancer wards at the hospital. There’s money to be made there too, you know… 59
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:13 | # Alex is going to be contributing main articles from here on. So I will take the opportunity with this comment to formally welcome him onboard. His commentary was so unusual and interesting and, as Fred notes, well-researched, I’m not sure how he can improve on that with main postings. Anyhow, as the blind man said, we shall certainly see. Good luck, Alex, and thanks for giving it a go. I hope you will find the experience rewarding. 60
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:29 | # Perhaps the biggest market-opener in terms of advancing women’s lib was last century’s two suicidally insane World Wars, the prosecution of which necessitated the introduction of females into the industrial workforce. 61
Posted by Bill on Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:18 | # Posted by Alex on July 23, 2009, 08:26 PM | In the journey of my quest trying to get a handle - I came across this guy. He is credited by some to be the father of modern consumerism. Like most things here, I don’t know a lot about it, but thought I might throw it in for good measure. Edward Bernays. “In the 1920s, working for the American Tobacco Company, he sent a group of young models to march in the New York City parade. He then told the press that a group of women’s rights marchers would light “Torches of Freedom”. On his signal, the models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of the eager photographers. The New York Times (1 April 1929) printed: “Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of ‘Freedom’”. This helped to break the taboo against women smoking in public. During this decade he also handled publicity for the NAACP.[4] “ 62
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:50 | #
Fred, this seems to go against their policy, though, of glossing over black underachievement (best example being perhaps Negro IQ test results). It might make sense if they wanted to provide an impetus for cleaning up the city* or hoped that the spike in criminality would result in more news stories. But on an apriori basis, it doesn’t ring true. If they were going to break down societal morals, why do it in a way that targets the Negro community? * In The Dream and the Nightmare (a book, by the way, which I would never buy now, but did when I was back in my more traditional conservative stage), the author describes walking down the street in NYC and seeing a Negro defecating on the sidewalk. Even among the elites, who could live away from this zoo-like environs, there must have been the feeling that things were getting a bit too wild for comfort. 63
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:01 | # ‘a priori’ Fred, I agree with you that the NYT, moralistic preening aside, is indifferent to the suffering of their championed minorities. It’s collateral damage in an ancient tribal war. 64
Posted by Alex on Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:27 | # Thanks Fred, am glad to be back by this place after having been away for a bit. I think I’ve probably learned more than anyone by visiting this site, and you’re posts certainly don’t lack in their punch. And thanks GW for the warm send-off and an opportunity to contribute. 65
Posted by Alex on Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:33 | # That’s exactly what I was referencing, Bill, but I’d forgotten some of the details. 66
Posted by Q on Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:20 | # Our friends over at CNN and SPLC are at it again. This time their target is Lou Dobbs. Why? For simply requesting President Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate proving once and for all he is a natural born U.S. citizen. For that Mr. Dobbs gets this:
Post a comment:
Next entry: Abortion: the hidden holocaust
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
.html
Posted by Thunder on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:16 | #
Yes, thank you Gina.
Can we clone her?
I am always grateful when I read something positve to our cause being intiated or aided by a woman because such women are too rare.