This is the time-honored inquiry made by young men arriving at a party where the presence of the opposite sex isn’t immediately apparent. The same inquiry may also be made in relation to the glaringly apparent absence of the fairer sex in what the media like to term “the extreme right wing of Australian politics.” What is meant by this is nationalism. If the right to left political continuum could be color-coded — blue for boys and pink for girls — the right end would be a deep blue, the center would be lilac, and on the left would be a fair amount of pink speckling.
If validation of this theory were needed one would only need to attend, say, a meeting of International Socialists, and then visit a meeting of anti-immigration enthusiasts and compare the results. At the Nuremberg-like, mother of all get-togethers of over-enthusiastic anti-immigration enthusiasts at a certain beach-side locality several years ago, only a sprinkling of pink petals bobbed in a swirling sea of testosterone.
“Why is it so?” as an eccentric, televised scientist used to ask as the experiment gave the repeatable result yet again. A quick search of the internet reveals a depressing lack of research into this phenomenon. This perhaps could be ground-breaking investigation.
A premise this exploration will assume, much to the chagrin of feminists who constitute many of pink sprinkles on the left (so it doesn’t matter) is that there are fundamental differences between the sexes apart from the obvious physical ones. The physical differences being so pronounced, it should not surprise that men and women also inhabit different mental worlds. Biology is destiny (this is fingernails scraping on a blackboard to Feminists).
Why would it be that the Left is attractive to females?
For starters, that is where Feminism is situated on the political spectrum. It should be borne in mind that we are discussing here the New Left — not the musty old Left that died with history’s failure to conform to the prediction of capitalism’s collapse, not to mention the collapse of its home in the Soviet Union. What we are indeed concerned with here is the New Left.
Along with Feminism as its star recruit, the New Left is concerned with every shade and hue of “social justice,” with perhaps the sole exception of the injustices still suffered by white, working class men. They evidently ended up in the dust and rubble with the Old Left. High ranking union officials like to pretend that that isn’t the case, but to paraphrase the once lovely Mandy Rice Davies, they would, wouldn’t they — given their pampered, jet-setting life styles.
Within the Left there is a curious twist. Notwithstanding its thorny, knotty nature, it was resolved with silk-like smoothness. How it was done must remain one of nature’s impenetrable secrets. The conundrum was the towering contradiction posed by Feminism’s strident defence of “women’s rights” confronted by the Left’s general championing of multiculturalism which, by definition, had to include the brutal trampling of women’s rights that is the hallmark of our growing Islamic sub-culture.
Without discussion, without riotous, blood-spilling committee meetings, this issue seemed to be resolved the way a flock of birds suddenly, without communication, decides to change direction. This pocket of resistance was quietly surrendered to the enemy. Multiculturalism trumped Feminism. Like the pedophile uncle, this matter is never discussed.
With its perennial and “selfless” concern for society’s victims, it is perhaps only natural for the Left to be a lure to women who after all are the carers and nurturers of the race. This should not be a controversial statement but in a world sadly turned upside down, it is. How though could they not be carers and nurturers by nature given the role they play in the incubation and care of the race’s new arrivals?
Unfortunately this natural bent has been exploited many times over for commercial and political gain. The historically low wages and poor conditions of nurses is an obvious example. Using women to inspire men go to war is another. If woman, who is a gentle pacifist by nature, is urging men to go to war, that war must be an entirely just and unavoidable enterprise.
There are of course exceptions to the rule. Our self-styled antipodean Joan of Arc, Pauline Hanson, personified that exception. It could possibly be argued though that it was precisely because of her rarity as a woman on the wrong side of the political tracks that she became such star — a created star at that — created by the media which once they had discovered that the creation was a monster, did their level best to kill it.
While Pauline’s trajectory was arcing through the firmament, a parallel career was almost flat-lining below it. This was the challenge extended to the political establishment by Graham Campbell, a rogue Labor Party politician and former minister who continued to hold the federal seat of Kalgoorlie as an Independent. Campbell was immensely experienced and was loaded with the concomitant political savvy. He was saying most of the same things as Hanson, only much more intelligently, but because of his being ignored by the media and “starved of oxygen,” be died a slow, political death.
Scientific fact: whereas men think predominantly with the brain’s left hemisphere — the home of cold hard logic — a woman’s thinking is shared evenly between the left and the right hemisphere which is where we are thinking when we are said to be thinking with the heart.
To present a hypothesis, which admittedly would be extremely difficult to test, we need a lifeboat packed with passengers who’ve just escaped a sinking ship. In the water surrounding the boat other survivors are struggling, screaming for help and trying to get into the boat.
If those already in the boat were all female, the struggling unfortunates would be helped into the boat. If those in the boat were all male, it would be quickly realised that if any more were allowed to board the boat it would sink and no-one would have any chance of survival. Accordingly, steps would be taken to prevent that eventuality even if it meant smashing heads with oars. The left side of the brain would be whirring with rationalisations about the greater good. The monster of a moral dilemma is neatly resolved. The ladies’ boat is headed for the bottom.
In modern times though, it must be admitted, women have toughened up, but largely in the wrong direction through having been led up the garden path by Feminism. Most women, at least to some degree, have been affected by what has been called “an ideology of pure selfishness.” While initially addressing long standing injustices, once the injustices had been for all intents and purposes remedied, feminism veered off to where all causes based on victim-hood end up: in a perpetual war against a largely non-existent enemy.The non-existent enemy in this case was of course men — all men.
The energy this struggle sapped from women left little to be used in the fight against real enemies. The all-pervading “awareness” of “patriarchy” and men in general as the oppressors left little room on the mental screen for projecting the image of a tyrannical, global elite hell-bent on usurping the natural rights of men and women everywhere, and busting nations in an insane pursuit of transforming the world into one great serfdom.
To be sure, that this could be happening, at first sight, seems so breathtakingly incredible that it is not difficult to see why it is dismissed by so many as paranoid delusion. That this perception could be easily swept aside by means of even the most rudimentary research — needing of course motivation in the first place — goes without saying. But perhaps a more important aid in lifting the curtain on what is coming is a capacity for abstract thinking — the ability to see what isn’t.
Judging by the huge male preponderance in the fields of philosophy and invention, it may not be too outrageous to claim that men may be just a little more gifted than women in this department. (Before the high-heeled shoes begin being thrown, the much fabled women’s intuition is duly noted.) To be able to see what isn’t, one needs to be able to extrapolate from what is, as well as current trends (especially when those trends show no sign of ever stopping or changing course) to see what will be.
Agreeing in advance to the obvious poor value of anecdotal evidence, strong motivation urges the inclusion of just one small sliver. When a young, intelligent woman was told that Australia’s current immigration policies would eventually lead to Australians becoming a minority in their own country, she was scornful. “Do you really think that could ever possibly happen?” she wanted to know.
Because Australia since its settlement has been an essentially white country, she was assuming, notwithstanding rolling breakers of third world immigration, that it would always be so. To someone extrapolating from current trends it was obvious that it wouldn’t.
The same woman apologizes profusely whenever expressing anything that could even remotely be construed as a “racist” sentiment. Whenever this happens, one cannot escape the feeling that this reaction is identical to that of a religious person on letting slip a heresy.
This leads to another possible reason why women are essentially uninterested in nationalism. To anyone with experience of raising or teaching girls it would be readily apparent that they are different to boys — in terms of their being better behaved — girls good, boys bad. When girls turn into women they retain their predilection for being good and being perceived as good. It’s not for nothing that they have been termed “God’s police.”
When, for example, Western society was still strongly influenced by moral values, the demarcation line between “good” girls and “bad” girls was as clearly defined as the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsular. Many’s the man who married the girl of his dreams simply because it was the only way to fulfill that dream in the carnal sense.
Times sure have changed, but not women’s persistent desire to be good in whatever way society deems “good.” With media, the education system, the churches, governments and bureaucracies lecturing us to the point of hypnotism on the evils of nationalism, and even worse, being concerned about your race, is it any wonder women may be tempted to avoid this yawning den of iniquity? To some women, being seen leaving one of these nests of nationalist malcontents would probably be worse than being seen leaving a house of ill repute.
On the other hand, there is evidently a sizable proportion of the male population who don’t mind being seen as “bad boys,” in fact even reveling in it. This is perhaps where most of society’s rebels have come from. This might be where we should be looking for nationalists — provided they have the additional attributes of a capacity for independent thinking and a store of moral courage.
So now at least we might have some idea of why the girls are missing from the party. However, as Mr Marx (not Groucho) so succinctly put it: ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however, is to change it.” How do we get the girls to the party?
Angelic, gentle, pure, and sweet is how man has seen woman since even when she was covered in primeval mud. But she also has another side, hidden most of the time but nevertheless only quietly dozing. It is terrible and frightening. But how to awaken it? What does she care about more than anything else in the world — even the one who thinks he is number one? It is of course her children.
It is for these she will fight like a tigress, and if necessary, gladly die. It must somehow be communicated to the women of this country that the future is extremely uncertain at best, and as perilous as a battlefield at worse. A dark future, perhaps difficult to see now, is nevertheless heading toward us with gathering speed.
As individuals more concerned with shopping, celebrity antics and soap operas than with the survival of our race we are lost. Atomised, the way those who think they own us want us, as we are invaded by those who think and act as collectively as bees in a hive, we have no chance. Our children have no chance. As they come to adulthood in a country that should have been theirs but find instead the ruins of a collapsed tower of Babel where they are the objects of scorn of a hundred different tribes they will scream their rage and pain into the wind: “Why were we betrayed so? Why such a miserable inheritance?”
By a strange twist of synchronicity, as this essay was nearing completion, the perfect ending was stumbled upon. Provided by F. Roger Devlin in “The ‘Reafricanization’ of the West,” American Renaissance, June 2008, it cannot be improved upon.
Many racially conscious whites worry about the absence of women in our ranks, but I believe they have it backwards. We do not need women on our side to succeed politically; we need to succeed politically to have women on our side. As soon as we start winning, the ladies will find our arguments plausible, our faces handsome, and our jokes witty. Direct political action by women is not part of the European tradition; respect for the vital female role in the family is. When we have done our work, they will gladly do theirs: bear our race’s children. (http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/06/index.html)
White Australia, January 25, 2010
19 Comments
Women in the movement is definitely a case of if you build it they will come. The media is wont to portray white racialists as idiots from the low socio-economic dregs of society that blame their failures in life on non-whites. Women and status conscious whites won’t touch such an inviable movement.
In liberal democratic politics perception is everything. No matter how much the average white may agree with the message they won’t join a movement they perceive to be inviable. The perception of viability is not enough. The movement must become viable; politically, culturally, socially and economically. Throw the movement a regular financial contribution. Organise in your networks. Do what must be done to be successful. Success breeds success.
We’re doing this in Australia under the motto of “many fronts under one command”. Take my advice and thank me later when your meetings are no longer sausagefests.
The problem lies not only with white women, but with our men as well. White men, I would aver, including nationalist men, are insufficiently masculine and aggressive. White men need to be hard, fit, and tough. The confidence and warrior attitude (killer instinct) will follow, and with it our women.
Perhaps a question to ask: what kind of females are attracted to political movements? Do we need more women in the pro-white political/vanguard/activist movement? Most would agree it would be better if more white women were racially conscious, but should people expend energy getting women to protest or hold up signs? Or join some political party? Why?
>The same woman apologizes profusely whenever expressing anything that could even remotely be construed as a “racist” sentiment.
So what? Most women don’t want unpleasantness in social situations.
>So now at least we might have some idea of why the girls are missing from the party.
Oh no, the boys are missing the party because the party is wherever the girls are. Instead of boring the women with jabbering about your racist white utopia, why not invite them to a dance at an exclusive, members only social club? Perhaps they will notice the all-white membership, perhaps they will ignore it. Who cares?
“White Nationalism” is boring to most women. The ones who are inclined should be encouraged, the ones who are not should be encouraged to do their “white girl” thing which usually means that talking about “racism” or other races is just uncouth or boring.
Listen closely to the women that speak up, and don’t bother the women that don’t (speak up to you, that is). Everyone has their place and if you want white women to join your club, make it a nice place where they can dance and have a good time. If they want to discuss some author with you, they will.
Your politics are boring, especially to women. Women like men who create facts on the ground.
The lack of females in the WN circle of dissent is peculiar. Take, for example, the drug culture, which has no lack of women. Strange isn’t it that junkies can staff their ranks with the fairer sex but nationalists can’t. It is not so much that girls are good and boys bad because, as we regularly observe, girls like bad boys. Girls will lustfully support bad boys financially, if the romance is present; but there is something about racist white bad boys that the girls run from. Perhaps the thing the girls run from is anger, but upon consideration no, girls in the 60’s found the angry communist revolutionary sexually stimulating and romantic. Perhaps the difference is that the idea of the racist white dissident has never been fed into the consciousness of white females as romanticized figures. The proper brainwashing hasn’t preceded the real life character. Since the white racist is always demonized and never romanticized in media she has no place to place him, other than to the margin. But this will all change. It is clearly a fluid situation, liable to almost instant change.
By the way, I really enjoyed reading the above piece. Thanks for the contribution, John Moffat
`The lack of females in the WN circle of dissent is peculiar. ‘
I might shed some light.
In a community of expats circa 2002, I found an abundance of young American expats who were convinced that 9/11 had been done by a conspiracy of plutocrats. They were very vocal and radical for a while, because as expats they were confident that the local police would not be spying on them. They had plenty of women. Everyone felt that the foreign country was a safe haven.
Similarly, get a large number of white women in a jurisdiction where white consciousness is truly protected, and the women will soon realize that they are in a safe haven – then they will be openly radical.
I think women are attracted by success, or by the security which comes with success. Elements of the movement are so committed to marginalization that they ensure the disinterest of women. Those groups which try to broaden their appeal are frustrated by the overwhelming dominance of the opposition, they after all control all the mainstream media and political parties. The best way forward is to achieve progressive modest steps in building up a successful movement.
It is not only a matter of marginalization or fear of police spies. Remember marginalization is glorified in postmodern America. Punk rockers, drug dealers, drug users, prostitutes, strippers, nerds, elf and alf, militias, all these “diverse” post modern sects are marginal, yet they attract females. I think it is safe to say that burglars and men who specialize in car theft are living with females. There is something else going on here. It is that the media has successfully programmed into the mass consciousness the idea that White advocacy is all things uncool.
Punk was a mass phenomenon, drugs are epidemic and have been for decades. Still there is female friendly marginalization and then there’s female unfriendly marginalisation. Interesting that mainstream music and drugs involve money too. Not all nationalist groups are equally female-free too, so it’s not simply a matter that nationalism as such is repellent to women.
Yesterday I watched the film ‘Gone with the Wind’ in it Scarlet O’Hara says in regards to war: ‘Oh, fiddle-dee-dee. Don’t you men ever think about anything important? ’.
Has it never occurred to anyone to do some actual marketing research? If I had an organization or a publication that would have been the first thing I did.
It would be interesting to hear from women on this issue. If there are any ladies out there with thoughts on this matter, please contact me.
European Nationalists have been quite successful in recruiting women to their ranks. You might want to investigate why this is.
Greetings David,
“Not all nationalist groups are equally female-free too, so it’s not simply a matter that nationalism as such is repellent to women.”
Yes, this is true. Probably a more accurate way of describing the situation is that amongst nationalists we have maybe 20% that are female.
Nowadays, since the majority of people are selfish, the only result is an insane and amoral society. Our society is so deviant and dysfunctional, and the majority of people are so infected with selfishness that they will hate you and maybe even attempt to KILL YOU if you try to make them live in an unselfish manor. They are accustomed to dysfunction; they know nothing else. In other words, WN is not cool to women because it will place demands upon them to improve their dysfunctional behavior. As it is now, they literally get away with murder. There are no consequences to their poor behavior under the current system. They love it! We cannot offer white women anything better than what they have right now. Women love this materialistic, superficial, and narcissistic Judeo feministic society.
You may be able to win a few to our side, but the vast majority will only learn via a total dismantling of the Judeo society. Every white woman I’ve met is extremely feminist, pro-multiculturalism, pro-miscegenation, and xenocentric. They aren’t interested in being right; they aren’t interested in the truth; they’re interested in being perceived as cool, hip, and conformist. Their greatest fear is being excluded from the in-crowd, and WN isn’t the “cool” in-crowd. Even when you point out to them that they’ll soon be the minority they could care less. They want to be cool!
Study this site. I mean, really, really study it. I don’t think we can reverse this. We can prepare to be what comes after it.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/index.htm
I can’t answer the question “Where are the girls” but Harold Covington in his book, The Brigade, gives a good idea of why the men are missing. From page 51
The white man can still show physical courage…..but what we can’t seem to do is to be brave on our own, for our own interests without the Jewish seal of approval. We have developed a poisonous symbiosis with the system. It needs us and we need it, psychologically. White males are addicted to social approval nowadays. We need it like an addict needs his crack pipe. We’ve got to have that supportive peer group around us yelling attaboy. We can be brave in a structured environment, so long as it is an officially approved sort of courage, and so long as afterwards we can belly up to the bar and talk drunken shit with the boys and get slapped on the back, and then go home to the little woman and the comfortable middle class lifestyle from which we have ventured out, however briefly.
Although it is impossible to describe the numerous factors at work as to why women are largely absent from WN circles, I think it can mostly be summed up with 2 points:
1) Women aren’t generally interested in politics of any kind. And, the women who are interested in politics tend to be feminists/leftists. I have met many women who are sympathetic to our cause and they happily choose to take the traditional role of mothers and homemakers. Simply put, women who agree with our ideas tend to be traditionalists and, thus, not interested in politics.
2) Women, generally, are much more susceptible to media propaganda than men. Their ultimate goal in life is to be popular and accepted. In today’s society, this means not rocking the boat and accepting the leftist/multicultural view of the world. I have known many women who, in private, express their revulsion for blacks; yet, in public, they grovel to them like everyone else. To many white women, believing in “diversity” is like wearing high heels to a cocktail party – they don’t like to do it but they know it is what is expected of them.
By the way, Roger Devlin’s article is right on the money as far as I am concerned. Once nationalism begins to achieve political success and, thus, some measure of social acceptability, the number of women in our ranks will grow as well. It also wouldn’t hurt if WN men would get out from behind a keyboard every once in a while and ask a girl out on a date.
Excellent article. I think also that women are naturally not in the movement because it is one movement that truly IS important, IS a real conflict at the highest level of defensive thinking — one that can instantly remove your livlihood and freedom… Like Charles Lindbergh’s wife wrote about Charles when he was going to come out against the Jewish ww2 “war agitators”. She was afraid, wished he would not, because of the social standing and respect they had and because of the “dark storm” he was facing if he did — all while acknowledging he was right and a good man. This is a REAL war we are in — women are not in the army, they do not engage in high-level outside risk or defense, they will defend their children and their children’s immediate future aggresively though. It is a proximal view, one frought with compromise if necessary. It is the male duty to see outside this inner circle to more distant and massive threats to the people as a whole. It is a division of labor that works like a well-oiled machine when we are left to ourselves. It was also for the men to work outside the home and community which needed to be sheltered because children were raised there. They had to scout for both threats and food. They built walls, built homes, tilled fields, hunted for food, etc. Men invented science and dicovered the invisible threat of germs etc. too. We like to look off into the distance for food, information, threats, etc. White men have a need to understand, to know principles of nature from our explorations for its own sake even. The subtle patterns of the environment — whether threatening or a wellspring of defense and invention. Women are better at subtle patterns of personality and emotion, are more patient etc. too. Men are more patient with nature, but need to be impatient when there is an imminent threat that requires action. We cannot tolerate screwing up and foibles when lives depend on it, so we rank our officers. Women have more tolerance for these bumbling and error-prone things because children are like this. Unfortunately, other races are like this too — like children in this way. Just like men have always constituted the military, so it is with this cultural war. We need to pioneer it, we need to get it into culture as an accepted thing, then they too will rise to the new environment and effort — they will become the “Rosie the riveter” of the new cause. There are hardly any women astrophysicists, but they do love to take their children to the planetariums. They certainly did not in the time of Copernicus. Nowadays, the real revolution in thought which is so much more important to our future and the future of the world is evolution and racial science. It has never really gotten off the ground yet. I make a case in my book (The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God) that the entire impetus of science itself was toward saving our people genetically and ensuring the destiny of the great path we are on. I also show that both religion and science have the exact same overall underlying motive — they are the same. Both are traditional male domains.
Readers,
I enjoyed John’s contribution. Thoughtful indeed.
I would say nonetheless, that women can and must be won to major managerial roles in a political movement . I speak here not of a purely cultural movement or an intellectual movement, but an activist phenomenon. Woman may definitely serve in the former, but I cannot see why they should be excluded from the latter.
Mao put it well: “Women hold up half the sky”.
It may be that certain confrontational situations, or more toxic circumstances, are best left in male hands; but I’d say that if we were an army – then, with those few exceptions that allow a more direct role, women must be drafted to the militia. We really have no option. And there they will most certainly see action.
I have observed an increasing number of women taking a stand in Australia. Regrettably, I have also seen men not appreciate the drive and the intelligence of their female comrades. Nonetheless, one would hope that may change.
John very correctly said: of her family “It is for these she will fight like a tigress, and if necessary, gladly die. It must somehow be communicated to the women of this country that the future is extremely uncertain at best, and as perilous as a battlefield at worse.”
Bloody true. That spirit must be conveyed existentially. Even if not on the spot threatened, the threat is general. If a woman decides to fight, then who are we males to say that she cannot?
What was that sardonic joke about the old Confederate States of America, something about its epitath: “Died Of A Theory”?
It would be a grievous error if we allowed our countries to die of a theory that says our women are best left as mothers or last-minute- -defender-of-the-nation- mothers.
John says that women will fight. I think that should be generalised via the means he suggested: a propaganda that shows the danger.
At this late juncture we can do without knightly chivalry or bourgeois considerations. No time.
Dr. Jim Saleam
I know it might be PC, but I think it would be a wise strategy for WN blogs to show support for female causes. By doing this, we may be able to win more women to our side. For example, this site could have a pink ribbon banner showing support for the breast cancer foundation, etc. WN will go nowhere without massive support of women. WN has got to become women friendly. Maybe run my idea of showing support of female causes (breast cancer) on WN blogs by some of the females who write for TOO and see what they think. Those are the only females I can think of who are associated with WN.