Posts Tagged ‘White Nationalism’
Why did they bring several more “desperate-sounding” charges against Steele? Is it because the original charges were too questionable and they want to make sure that Steele doesn’t slip through the net?
Yes, yes, it’s just a coincidence that whenever a well-known White nationalist finds himself in a legal pickle, a federal informant is central to the government’s case against him. Things just, ya know, happen that way…each time…
Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit.
Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.
Via Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Meanwhile, Steele has been indicted by a federal grand jury:
Another day, another well-known WN facing federal charges. Why is it that top WNs never face state/local charges?
Makes some good points, but communism has automatic advantages over White nationalism. For example, communism is an equalizing ideology/movement and so “feels better” to Joe Sixpack. Also, the (Jewish/left-wing) pop culture is always (more-or-less) sympathetic to communism. WN is a whole ‘nother breed of cat:
by Christopher Jon Bjerknes Judaism teaches the Jews to rule the World, destroy all nations other than their own, steal all wealth, and kill off the best Gentiles in preparation for killing off all Gentiles. How do the Jews achieve these ends, and why have they been expelled from so many nations? In their foundational [...]
The deadline for the current TOQ Essay Competition on Libertarianism and Racial Nationalism has been extended to July 1, 2010. You have an extra month to compose your submission and get it to us. The relevant web page will be altered in the morning to reflect the change. I have been experiencing some minor technical difficulties with the template.
I’ve only seen one of the essays submitted myself. It is a really good one. I had intended to write a contribution before taking this job. I definitely have an opinion on the subject and will probably write something anyway to contribute to the anthology.
Site Note: The first article from the previous issue of the journal should ready for release tomorrow. Stay tuned.
There are thousands of racially-aware White people in South America who we could be networking with, but unfortunately, many of them don’t speak English and most of us don’t speak Spanish. Perhaps more WN websites could feature language-translation engines on their front pages?
As I read the comments section today, a thought suddenly occurred to me: I rarely hear liberalism/cultural Marxism/egalitarianism called a “sickness” in the real sense of that word [1]. But let’s think about it for a few minutes, ok? Shouldn’t we be publicly calling it a sickness? Isn’t it an actual mental illness – like “sir, you need serious professional help”? It sure seems to be. You can even “catch it” from too much TV, too many Hymiewood movies, from schools, from churches, and so forth. For simplicity, I’ll call this sickness “modernity” (that’s a word from John Murray Cuddihy’s book, which I’m borrowing here as a catch-all term, because I think it has a ring to it).
Modernity is completely abnormal – for examples, race-mixing and feminism. Without modernity, women would stay at home to raise kids, instead of abandoning their husbands for their “careers.” Without modernity, Whites wouldn’t marry negroes. Modernity goes against human nature. Therefore, it’s a sickness, an illness, and the West must be cured of it. Right? Maybe looking at modernity in this way (instead of looking at it as an ideology/belief that we don’t agree with) can eventually change some minds? [2]. Perhaps we in the WN community could update our language and our terminology to reflect this “new” way of thinking – or is it really new? Would such an updating be, in reality, just pointless repackaging of older propaganda? What do you think, readers? Is this a topic that could be fleshed out, or is it just nonsense that’s not worth discussing?
[1] imagine a public school teacher being prohibited by the state from teaching due to his “illness,” i.e., a liberal/egalitarian mindset
[2] granted, liberalism may be “hard-wired” into some people
Suggestion: when you’re confused and you don’t know what to think about a certain issue (like this one), just ask yourself: “WWPT?” (What Would Pierce Think?) [1]. (By the way: speaking of Christianity, do you like Mexicans? You can thank Catholic priests for them – i.e., they’re the result of church-sanctioned unions of White Spaniards + Mexican Indians):
[1] see footnote #2 [Here].
Billy Roper, the Nationalist Party of America’s candidate for Governor of Arkansas, has informed us that a couple of researchers are soliciting input from White Nationalists for a study. The stated purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of attitudes of the White Nationalists represented on the White Revolution Internet website, although Roper invites all White Nationalists to participate.
The study was launched on April 30th, 2010, and is being conducted by David Bugg of SUNY Potsdam and Dianne Dentice of Stephen F. Austin State University. The fact that Roper is urging participation is an endorsement of their credibility. David Bugg is an assistant professor of sociology at SUNY Potsdam, and Diane Dentice is an assistant professor of sociology at the college of liberal and applied arts at Stephen F. Austin. They’ve chosen to use Survey Monkey to post their survey.
All responses are confidential and your identity will remain anonymous. The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of report they might publish, they will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject. Research records will be stored securely and only researchers will have access to the records. It is anticipated that the results of this study will be published in academic journals. Only aggregated information will be used; no names or other identifying information will be used in the publications. The authors claim it can take as long as 30 minutes to complete the survey, but that depends upon the answers provided to the three essay questions. It took me about 10 minutes. Even so, if you still have questions or concerns about this research study, you may contact either David Bugg by email at buggd@potsdam.edu or by phone at 315-267-3481; or Dianne Dentice by e-mail at denticede@sfasu.edu or by phone at 936-468-2241.
Access the survey HERE.
The survey is divided into three parts; a series of 15 multiple choice questions, three essay questions, and 13 questions regarding personal attributes such as sex, age, educational background, occupational background ,etc. I have cross-posted the questions, along with my own responses, to this blog; this begins after the jump:
Section 1 – Multiple Choice. The available responses are Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree.
1. I believe that minority people are not as intelligent as Whites.
My Response: Somewhat Agree2. Ethnic groups such as the Irish and Italians adapted to American culture without massive government aid programs and that is what minorities today should do.
My Response: Strongly Agree3. I am comfortable with my personal attitude toward minority groups.
My Response: Somewhat Agree4. Minority groups deserve to be treated fairly.
My Response: Strongly Agree5. The government pays more attention to minority concerns than they deserve.
My Response: Strongly Agree6. Minorities get more media attention than is necessary.
My Response: Strongly Agree7. About all that is necessary to achieve racial equality in the United States has been done.
My Response: Strongly Agree8. I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world.
My Response: Somewhat Agree9. There are some things about America today that make me feel ashamed.
My Response: Somewhat Agree10. The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like Americans.
My Response: Somewhat Disagree11. Generally speaking, America is better than most other countries.
My Response: Somewhat Agree12. Minority groups in America demand too much.
My Response: Strongly Agree13. To be a real American, you have to speak English.
My Response: Strongly Agree14. In my opinion, White immigrants can easily become American.
My Response: Strongly Agree15. In my opinion minority immigrants can easily become American.
My Response: Somewhat DisagreeSection 2 – Essay Questions. There are no word limits or character limits imposed, so you can provide longer answers than I did. Please be sure of your spelling before answering so as to promote the best possible image of the White Nationalist community.
1. Please explain what does it mean to be ‘White’?
My Response: I use the “David Lane Rule”. It’s based on what he once said, namely “If a man looks, acts, talks, and fights White, then until he proves otherwise, he is our Folk”.2. How do you define ‘White culture’? Do you think most Whites feel that they have a distinct culture? Why or why not?
My Response: White culture is simply responsible behavior. You consider the effects of your actions upon those around you before taking action. You modify your responses according to your surroundings. You don’t behave as presumptively towards strangers as you can towards those with whom you have a relationship.3. If you have a religious preference, please describe it. If not, leave this question blank.
My Response: I am an inactive member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I still believe in its doctrine.Section 3 – The last 13 questions are merely personal questions about yourself; sex, age, employment status, etc., and are not replicated here.
If only the Serbs weren’t White, the globalists would leave them alone? Regardless, the facts surrounding the Serbs don’t matter to the heavily-Jewish NWO crowd – facts like this: in the modern era, the part-White Albanians started the violence (against the White Serbs), beginning with Albanian student uprisings at Pristina University in Kosovo in 1981, which led to widespread anti-Serb violence. But when the Serbs retaliated, the West only focused on – you guessed it – the Serb response. As if defending yourself is a crime. What makes the Serb nationalism all the more interesting is that they were ex-communists/leftists (at least the leaders were, e.g., Milosevic), which shows that nationalism can/does trump politics, a little detail not lost on the Jews who run the West [1]:
[1] some have argued that Serb leaders “switched to nationalism when it looked like communism/socialism was running out of gas,” a charge that can probably only be verified by the Serbs
Sad news, but what was Barrett thinking? White leaders usually avoid Blacks. (The media calls Barrett a “White supremacist.” A curious term. If Whites aren’t supreme, who is?):
One of the major disadvantages American white nationalists face is that American nationality can plausibly be separated from white racial identity. This is a huge difference compared to the European situation.
As Paul Gottfried notes, European countries are now defining their identity in terms of abstract human rights and some kind of egalitarian universal history. Nonetheless, whatever the propaganda, few people really believe it in their bones. When people say “English,” they mean white. Someone like “Sir” Trevor Phillips, even if he became Prime Minister or somehow heir to the throne itself, will never be a true son of Britain, and at some level, everyone knows this, including him. European nationalists therefore have a great advantage. A party such as the Vlaams Belang can appeal to a “Flemish” identity and everyone automatically knows what they are talking about, namely, who is Flemish, and who is not. In the politically correct modern West, it is also an advantage that Europeans can fall back on national identities that are solely white but not defined by race. A pro-Flemish group can not be portrayed as racist the same way that a “pro-white” group can.
In contrast, American identity, as painstakingly outlined by Tomislav Sunic in Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, is now almost exclusively defined by an ahistorical narrative culminating in a mythical equality. Ignoring that equality and liberty are mortal enemies, and that the Founding Fathers were by any modern standard white nationalists, America has been successfully redefined into a sort of club where the price of admission is a belief in a vague concept of human rights and a shared appreciation of contradictory figures like George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Muhammad Ali.
Now this is absurd of course, but people really do believe it. In some sense, it is plausible because an ethnic identity for Americans, what people like President Teddy Roosevelt called the “American race,” has been abandoned. The late scholar Samuel Huntington, in his greatest work, attempted to the square the circle and marry the universalistic American creed with the American culture that grew out of the Anglo-Protestant ethnic core. However, even he admitted that American identity, though dependent on a core ethnicity, was not defined by it. Once that connection was broken, the only fallback was an American identity defined by white racial identity.
After the Civil War and Reconstruction, this essentially existed. Left wing scholars in “white studies” are ironically close to the truth when they show how a conception of white identity that encompassed non Germanic whites was indispensable in creating the “normal” American identity. They err of course, in believing that this is some kind of capitalist oppressor plot as opposed to an alliance based on biological and cultural reality. However, Negroes were still in some sense considered Americans, even if only second class ones. Eventually, after the so called civil rights movement, this core American identity was opened up to non whites. This naturally transitioned to the abstract American identity we have today and now even saying that there even is something called an American culture is suspiciously racist.
As always, leftists are actually closer to the truth than conservatives here. Leftists admit that America was founded as a white country. White American conservatives, even when they prop up embarassing minstrel acts like Lloyd Martin are essentially conceding that “white” cultural norms are synonmous with American cultural norms. However, until they are able to make the implicit whiteness explict, this is more reactionary posturing, waiting for Mexicans to care about the Constitution written by white slave owners or urban Negroes to thrill to the sounds of Yankee Doodle.
The Tea Parties are overtly anti-racist, and implicitly non-racist. Nonetheless, they are overwhelmingly white. Just the idea of whites gathering in white numbers has leftists scared out of their mind, in the same way that they hate and fear harmless crowds like NASCAR fans, gun lovers, or Sarah Palin supporters. And now, someone has noticed the implications. That someone is Pat Buchanan.
It is amazing to think how establishment Pat Buchanan really is, when all is said and done. He was communications director for Ronald Reagan. He has lived in Washington DC practically his entire life. He knows everyone, and is essentially friends with everyone, even the liberals. If conservatives hadn’t decided to sabotage themselves in 1992 and again in 1996, he could have been President, which would have saved America from mass immigration, 9/11, fiscal collapse, and eventual dissolution. The rise and fall of Pat Buchanan will go down in history as the last chance the United States of America had to save itself.
Now, however, even Pat knows the writing is on the wall. In a bracing new column, “New Tribe Rising?,” Pat notes that America is breaking apart along the lines of ethnonationalism. He knows that whites, and only whites, keep this farce of modern America limping along. He also sees signs that whites are beginning to react against their constant demonization and degradation by our governing elite. He writes,
Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separate identity and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other… Palin and Tea Partiers now repeat Obama’s disparaging line about their clinging to Bibles and guns — with defiant pride. As others have done in our multicultural and multiethnic nation, this people is beginning to assert its identity, unapologetically.
Pat also notes that other peoples have already defined themselves. “Black America seems united. White America is the house divided, for it is in the womb of white America that this new people is gestating and fighting to be born.”
There’s the rub. The hard part is that white Americans, real Americans, still identify with the cultural symbols, governmental institutions, and historical narratives of the United States, even though the United States of America is objectively the most anti-white force on the planet. One can imagine a Southern secession movement or a Northwest Homeland crushed by Red, White, and Blue waving conservatives who think they are fighting for God and Country when they are really fighting for Goldman Sachs and Lady Gaga.
Any American white nationalist movement will have to accomplish the neat trick of somehow claiming the true American identity (which is historically correct) while denouncing and destroying just about everything the United States of America has come to symbolize today as well as the puerile Enlightenment silliness that led us inevitably to this point. It will not be easy.
However, step one is simple to define, if not to achieve. White Americans need to realize that however much they resist it, try to squirm out of it, or try to beg Michael Steele to free them from it, they are a people. As Samuel Francis stated,
At a time when anti-white racial and ethnic groups define themselves in explicitly racial terms, only our own unity and identity as a race will be able to meet their challenge. If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as Robert Mugabe has threatened to do to whites in Zimbabwe, they will do so not because we are ‘Americans’ or ‘Christians’ or ‘conservatives’ or ‘liberals,’ but because we are white.
A number of far left blogs are crying “Oh noes! Racisms!” as could be expected. Someone dared to mention white Americans exist and that they may have interests. Of course, no one is actually opposed to ethnonationalism, not even the “I don’t see race conservatives” who are busy giving money to a party headed by a man cosponsoring conferences with his co-ethnic Al Sharpton. It is whites, and only whites, who must sit down, shut up, and fund the people who hate them.
Whites are at least beginning to see the double standards. We shouldn’t be over optimistic or do another “finally, people are waking up” type post. They aren’t — not yet. However, the gestation for a new people is at least taking place.
Saul Alinsky noted that you can not speak to people in terms that are outside their own experience. White nationalists need to step up and start speaking to our people in terms that they understand. Occidental Dissent’s posts on Hitler and esoteric National Socialism and various movement dramas are all very well. However, we need to start thinking realistically, practically, and politically about how to reach our noble, naive, and so easily abused white American folk. While thought exercises like the ones today are fun, tomorrow is a new day and that needs to be our primary focus.
Occidental Dissent, April 21, 2010
“New Tribe Rising”
April 20, 2010
Quotes:
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people,” said Golda Meir. When she said it, she may have been right. But as generations have grown up under the occupation and two intifadas and a Gaza War, the Palestinians are a people today.
Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separate identity and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other.
Obama in the campaign of 2008 recognized that “out there” in Middle America existed another country, far from the one he grew up in, far from the privileged Ivy League community to which he belonged.
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Palin and Tea Partiers now repeat Obama’s disparaging line about their clinging to Bibles and guns — with defiant pride.
As others have done in our multicultural and multiethnic nation, this people is beginning to assert its identity, unapologetically.
Sioux gather at Little Bighorn to celebrate the massacre of Custer’s command. Hawaiian natives demand a new ethnically based government — and receive Obama’s blessing. Hispanics march under Mexican flags in Los Angeles to demand citizenship for illegal aliens.
Now Southerners are proudly commemorating ancestors who fought and fell in the Lost Cause and demanding recognition of Confederate History Month. And state governors are acceding.
In 2004, when Howard Dean reached out to “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” Shelby Steele wrote that this was “absolutely verboten. Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America” because of their history and white guilt.
This, Sanneh suggests, is changing. The imputation of racism to Tea Partiers has not intimidated or cowed them.
When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, there was no hesitation in blistering her for showing contempt for the rights of Frank Ricci and the white firefighters of New Haven, cheated of the promotions they had won in competitive exams.
When black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested by Cambridge cop James Crowley, most Americans, despite Obama and media suggestions of racial profiling, sided with Crowley.
Why are the Tea Partiers not intimidated the way Republicans often are? Why is the charge of racism not working?
First, they do not feel the guilt of country-club Republicans.
Second, they know it to be untrue. While Tea Partiers are anti-Obama, they are also anti-Pelosi, anti-Martha Coakley and anti-Charlie Christ. The coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal.
Black America seems united. White America is the house divided, for it is in the womb of white America that this new people is gestating and fighting to be born.
Read the whole article here.
I’d do it. I’d push the button.
If there were a button that would instantly and painlessly annihilate alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, and all other addictive recreational drugs, I would push it, simply because nothing has done more damage to the people I love, including my race as a whole.
I do not think that our enemies could have pushed the destruction of the white race to this point if we were not so prone to turn our anger inward and numb ourselves with drink and drugs. Without them, white people would be a whole lot meaner and harder to push around, and that would be a good thing.
I would push the button, even though I am not immune to the pleasures of alcohol. In fact I love it, albeit in moderation. Some of my friends call me a teetotaler and a killjoy, but that is only because they are alcoholics.
But let’s wrench ourselves away from such a utopian vision and turn our attention to Realpolitik. When a white homeland is established in North America, its founders will eventually get around to the issue of drug laws.
I think that a white ethnostate should consider junking most of America’s drug laws. I think we should consider making alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, opiates, psychedelics, uppers, downers, and the like available for purchase without special taxes and restrictions, save two: first, to buy and use such drugs, one must be a responsible adult (18 or over and of sound mind) and second, there should be strict penalties for those who become addicted to drugs and thus cannot fulfill their familial and social responsibilities.
Why do I favor such sweeping liberties regarding drug use? Let me first make it clear that I am not a libertarian. I don’t believe that human beings have some sort of natural “rights” to the maximum amount of liberty possible, consistent with the equal liberty of others. Nor do I believe that the sole legitimate function of the state is to insure the freedom of social atoms to pursue their individual goals.
I am not an individualist, but a racial collectivist, a racial communitarian. For me, political philosophy begins with the question of what institutions, laws, and customs are necessary for the survival and flourishing of race. It just so happens that a good deal of individual liberty makes sense in the context of a white society.
In particular, I believe that today’s drug laws just would not make sense in a healthy and homogeneous white society, simply because such a society would lack the two main reasons why present-day drug laws exist: (1) a culture that encourages selfishness, hedonism, irresponsibility, and prolonged adolescence, and (2) the presence of non-white groups with strong genetic predispositions to drug and alcohol abuse and inferior capacities to control their appetites and impulses.
Individual liberty makes sense only if people are responsible enough not to abuse it. Today’s white Americans—from the boomers on—are perhaps the most immature and irresponsible generations in our history. Liberty is not just wasted on us, it is an actual danger. So all talk of drug legalization in the present context is grossly irresponsible. It would just make a bad situation worse.
But this rampant hedonism and irresponsibility is largely artificial. It is the typical product of cultural decadence, in this case a decadence engineered by cultural aliens out to destroy us. But one does not have to go back too many generations to find white men and women who were mature and responsible enough to start businesses and begin families before today’s kids are even allowed to graduate High School.
In a White Republic, adolescence would not be prolonged, and hedonism and selfishness would not be encouraged. Men and women would be ready to assume adult responsibilities by the age of 18, including decisions about using alcohol and other recreational drugs. A White Republic would be all about empowering youth: about giving them what they need so that they can begin independent and productive lives as soon as it is biologically possible.
But what if some of them develop problems? Then society would intervene, on the grounds that individuals are not mere atoms and their problems are not merely private. Drug abuse—whether of drugs that are legal or illegal in today’s society—interferes with the ability of individuals to fulfill their responsibilities to their families, to their race, and even to themselves. Addicts would be forcibly dried out and barred from buying drugs. Repeat offenders should probably be sterilized.
But, by the same token, a society that seeks to cultivate personal responsibility should not deny everyone access to certain substances merely because some people abuse them.
Drug legalization advocates love to point out that many drug laws were racially motivated, and this is true. Laws against opiates were directed at the Chinese. Laws against marijuana and cocaine were directed at blacks.
A homogeneously white society would have no need to use drug laws to target non-white populations. There may, of course, be other reasons to ban such drugs. But at the very least, a homogeneously white society should look for good reasons rather than uncritically carry over laws that are artifacts of the multiracial societies we are struggling to leave behind.
Some people will dismiss such talk because drug legalization is “liberal” and they are “conservatives.” Of course, if one turns the clock back far enough, one will find an America without drug laws and other aspects of the nanny state. So why not conserve that America? Today’s conservatives are often just clinging to the consequences of yesterday’s liberalism.
Others simply have silly racial prejudices about drugs. Alcohol is for white men. Pot is for blacks. But if that is the case, then a society which outlaws blacks will have no need to outlaw pot as well.
Such discussions are, of course, a bit premature. But we will never get from here to there unless we have a pretty clear image of what “there” will look like. Thus there is a place for speculation about the possible laws and institutions of a White Nationalist society.
Although nobody knows how to have fun better than some White Nationalists I know, our enemies have successfully established the image of White Nationalists as dour jackbooted totalitarians. Many of our friends have helped them, truth be told. Thus it is useful to emphasize anything that conflicts with that stereotype.
I submit that there is a lot of appeal to the image of a society in which children of the sun are equipped with the independence and responsibility of adulthood in the full bloom of youth, so that they can enjoy the freedom to explore, create, and celebrate life. Jackboots optional.
That said, since alcohol is already a major problem in today’s White Nationalist movement, the last thing we need is an influx of drug enthusiasts. Thus although I favor drug legalization in the White Republic, as far as the White Nationalist movement is concerned, I am all for Harold Covington’s General Order #10: Nobody working for a white homeland may use drugs or alcohol for the duration of the struggle.
Let’s save the toasting for the white homeland, comrades. Or for Valhalla.
White Nationalist groups are almost exclusively men’s clubs, and most of the men are bachelors who complain that they cannot find suitable women. Furthermore, those men who are married frequently complain that their wives are indifferent or even hostile to their views about race. Men, it seems, are far more willing to espouse politically incorrect views about race than women. After perusing various websites and forums discussing this topic, I’ve found that many men resent this fact, construing it as some sort of moral failing on the part of women. But it is not. It merely reflects the hard-wired biological differences between the sexes.
Sex places different pressures on males and females. Eggs take more energy to produce than sperm, and females alone have to bear a pregnancy. And in over 90% of mammalian species, females provide substantial parental care while males provide none whatsoever. Thus females make a much larger parental investment in each offspring than do males. Parental investment increases the reproductive success of the offspring receiving it, while simultaneously decreasing the parent’s future reproductive success by consuming resources that could be spent on additional offspring.
Differences in behavior between the sexes came about as a result of these differing demands. A female’s potential reproductive success is relatively small, and is limited more by the number of eggs she can produce (or pregnancies she can carry) than by the number of males she can convince to mate with her. In contrast, a male’s potential reproductive success is relatively large, and is limited more by the number of females he can convince to mate with him than by the number of sperm he can produce. This difference in potential reproductive success allows us to predict that males will compete with each other for access to mates, while females will be selective about with whom they mate. Sexually, males are adventurers and risk-takers, while females are risk-avoiders.
These differences in reproductive strategies manifest themselves in behavioral and physical differences that go beyond sex. The competitiveness of males drives them to take risks more frequently, not just when appealing to females, but also in day-to-day decision-making. Car insurance rates are higher for teenage boys than for girls for precisely this reason. Risk-taking “raises the stakes” of many decisions, increasing the potential rewards but also increasing the consequences of failure.
This risk-taking makes evolutionary sense, because males are far more expendable than females. If all women were killed except one, the race would take many generations to return to its original size, if ever. Yet if all the men were killed except one, the remaining man would have his work cut out for him, but the race could theoretically repopulate within a generation. Since males are not as necessary for the maintenance of population size, males tend to take more risks, be more aggressive, and tend to work towards establishing themselves higher in social hierarchies than do women.
But if women are inherently conservative, then why are they generally more supportive of left-wing causes than men? First of all, in spite of the leftist rhetoric about progress and radical change, the leftist emphasis on social welfare, social planning, and anti-competitive egalitarianism has an obvious appeal to risk-averse females. Furthermore, in spite of the leftist posture of always being outsiders, the left now controls most of the authoritative institutions of society: the educational system, the news and entertainment media, the churches, etc. Leftist opinion is the “status quo.” Women are brainwashed to accept it and loath to criticize it, for fear of the risks to their social standing, their employment, and especially to the well-being of their children.
But more women support the White racialist movement now than in the past. I know this from personal experience. I have been reading racialist-oriented USENET newsgroups (and web-based bulletin boards, once the technology was developed), ever since I first went “online” back in 1994 or 1995. I posted a personals ad on Stormfront years ago, shortly after the personals section was created. I didn’t receive any responses. I did the same thing just several months ago, and was contacted by a number of women.
Part of the reason may be that women are more comfortable expressing politically incorrect ideas anonymously on the internet, a far less risky prospect than espousing the same views openly.
But surely that is not the main reason. For the same reason that women have been slow to take up the White nationalist cause, women may eventually become its strongest and most uncompromising supporters: their maternal instincts. More women are joining the White nationalist cause as it becomes increasingly evident that the health and welfare of future generations of Whites is at stake.
Aside from the love and protection my own mother gave me (which continues to this day), my first encounter with female maternal instinct came when I was seven or eight years old. At a lake near my old school, I observed a mallard duck leading her ducklings. Curious boy that I was, I ran over to the ducklings and picked one up. Although most adult ducks at the lake were apprehensive about approaching humans even when they were sharing food, the mother turned, came right up to me, and started quacking loudly. When I knelt down, she proceeded to flog my arm with her wing until I released the duckling. I was shocked at the length this mother would go to protect her baby. She went from risk aversion to quite possibly risking her life, but the underlying biological imperative was the same.
I have the feeling that more White mothers will begin behaving like that mother duck, once they can no longer ignore the fact that the world their children will inherit will be worse than the one into which they were born. In the meantime, more individuals need to stick their necks out, especially young men. Future generations of our race are counting on us.
Occidental Dissent, April 12, 2010