We face an enemy who wouldn’t think twice about plowing us under. Time to arm yourselves and be ready to fight back!
We face an enemy who wouldn’t think twice about plowing us under. Time to arm yourselves and be ready to fight back!
Or you can have Diversity.
But you can’t have both.
Soon after a tornado ripped through North Minneapolis on Sunday afternoon, an estimated 20 looters ripped off Broadway Liquor Outlet.
The high winds that downed trees and tore off roofs in the area also smashed the glass storefront of the liquor store at 2201 W. Broadway Ave., which was closed.
The looters stole liquor, cigarettes and cash, said owner Dean Rose. The store had plywood boards nailed to its exterior by 7:30 p.m., but broken glass and cases of beer could be seen scattered on the floor inside. Rose said Sunday night he didn’t know the extent of the theft.
Minneapolis Police on Sunday night could not confirm reports of looting.
“It’s devastating,” said Rose, the third generation of his family to run the store. “It puts us out of business.”
“It’s an unfortunate disaster,” he said. “The whole community has been hit hard.”
Asia Harris, 26, of Minneapolis said she saw the looters as the storm struck. Debris hit the Honda Accord she was driving, but she took notice of the thefts.
“Once it hit, they started taking things out,” she said.
Residents of New Orleans, pictured above, take advantage of an opportunity to loot in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Do you know why America is in a better state than Europe? Because you enjoy more freedom than Europeans. And do you know why Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans? Because you are still allowed to tell the truth. In Europe and Canada people are dragged to court for telling the truth about islam.
I, too, have been dragged to court. I am an elected member of the house of representatives in the Netherlands. I am currently standing in court like a common criminal for saying that islam is a dangerous totalitarian ideology rather than a religion. The court case is still pending, but I risk a jail sentence of 16 months.
Last week, my friend Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, was fined because in a private conservation, which was recorded without his knowing, he had criticised the way women are treated in islamic societies.
Recently, another friend, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a human rights activist from Austria, was fined because she had criticised islam’s founder Muhammad. She had said that Muhammad was a pedophile because he had married a 6-year old girl and raped her when she was 9.
Unfortunately, there are many similar cases.
I am especially happy to be in your midst because here I can say what I want to say without having to fear that I will be dragged to court upon leaving this church.
My dear American friends, you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment. The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called “hate speech crimes” which is only used to punish people who are critical of islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.
My friends, let us hope that this never happens.
Last week, we celebrated Liberation Day in the Netherlands. We celebrated the liberation from the Nazi occupation in 1945. Many American soldiers, including many young Tennesseans, played a decisive role in the liberation of the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. We are immensely grateful for that. Young Americans gave their lives so that the Dutch might be free. I assure you: The Dutch people will never forget this.
Unfortunately, however, the Europe which your fathers and grandfathers fought and died for is not the Europe we are living in today.
I travel the world to tell people what Europe has become. I wish I could take you all on a visit to my country and show you what Europe has become. It has changed beyond recognition as a result of mass immigration. And not just any mass immigration, but mass immigration driven by the dangerous force of islam.
My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: “Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate.” Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow islam to gain a foothold here.
Islam is dangerous. Islam wants to establish a state on earth, ruled by islamic sharia law. Islam aims for the submission, whether by persuasion, intimidation or violence, of all non-Muslims, including Christians.
The results can be seen in Europe.
Islam is an ideology of conquest. It uses two methods to achieve this goal: the first method is the sword. Do you know what figures on the flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country where Christian churches are banned and Christians are not even allowed to wear a tiny crucifix? There is a huge sword on that flag, just below the Islamic creed. The message is clear. Without the sword islam would not have been able to spread its creed.
The second method is immigration. Islam’s founder Muhammad himself taught his followers how to conquer through immigration when they moved from Mecca to Medina. This phenomenon of conquest through immigration is called al-Hijra. My learned friend Sam Solomon has written a perfect book about it.
I had a copy of Sam’s book sent to all the members of the Dutch Parliament. But most of them are worse than Saint-Thomas in the Bible. Thomas did not believe what he had not seen. Most politicians refuse to believe the things they see before their very eyes.
In Europe we have been experiencing al-Hijra for over 30 years now. Many of our cities have changed beyond recognition. “In each one of our cities” wrote the well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci shortly before her death in 2006, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – end of quote.
How did the Europeans get into this situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the concept of cultural relativism, which manifests itself in the ideology of multiculturalism.
Cultural relativism advocates that all cultures are equal. However, cultures wither away and die if people no longer believe that its values are better than those of another culture.
Islam is spreading like wildfire wherever people lack the guts to say that their values are better than the Islamic values.
Islam is spreading like wildfire because the Koran explicitly tells Muslims that they are “the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” and that non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures.”
Islam is spreading like wildfire everywhere in the West where political, academic, cultural and media elites lack the guts to proudly proclaim, as I believe we all should proclaim:
Our Judeo-Christian Western culture is far better and far superior to the islamic culture. We must be proud to say so!
Multiculturalism is a disaster. Almost everyone acknowledges this today, but few dare say why. Let me tell you why: Multiculturalism made us tolerate the intolerant, and now intolerance is annihilating tolerance.
We should, in the name of tolerance, claim the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Let us no longer be afraid and politically correct, let us be brave and bold. Let us tell the truth about islam.
Before I continue I want to make clear that I do not have a problem with people. I always make a distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and islam.
Indeed, I have no problems with Muslims, but I do have a problem with the totalitarian Islamic ideology of hate and violence. The fact that there are many so-called moderate Muslims, does not imply that there exists a moderate islam. A moderate islam doen not exist and will never exist.
And because there is no such thing as a moderate islam, the islamization of our free Western societies is an enormous danger.
Only two weeks ago, the British press revealed how the so-called “London Taliban” is threatening to kill women who do not wear veils in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
In some neighbourhoods Islamic regulations are already being enforced, also on non-Muslims. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings where men murder their wives, daughters or sisters because they do not behave in accordance with Islamic rules.
Polls show that the influence of those Muslims who live according to islam’s aggressive requirements is growing, especially among young people.
Among 15-year-old German Muslims, 40 percent consider islam more important than democracy.
Among Muslim university students in Britain, 40 percent support sharia. One in three of those students considers it legitimate to kill in the name of islam.
Christians are asked to follow the example of Jesus. Muslims are ordered to follow the example of Muhammad. That is why islam is dangerous. While Christianity preaches love, islam preached hatred and practizes violence. Hatred and violence for everyone who is not a Muslim.
Muhammad personally participated in the ethnic cleansing of Medina, where half the population once was Jewish. Muhammad helped to chop off their heads. On his deathbed, he ordered his followers to cleanse Arabia of all Jews and Christians.
To this very day, Christian symbols are prohibited in Saudi-Arabia. If you wear a cross in Saudi Arabia, they sent you to jail.
And now, Europe is beginning to look like Arabia.
Just today, a poll revealed that in Brussels, the capital of the European Union, half the islamic youths are anti-semitic. It is dangerous for Jews to walk the streets in Brussels.
If you wear a cross or a kippah in certain urban areas in Europe today, you risk being beaten up. In the capital of my own country, Amsterdam, a tram driver was forced to remove his crucifix from sight, while his Muslim colleagues are allowed to wear the veil.
In June 2008, the Christian church authorities in the Danish town of Arhus decided to pay so-called “protection money” to islamic so-called “security guards” who assure that church goers are not harassed by islamic youths.
On March 31st, 2010, Muslims entered the Roman Catholic cathedral of Cordoba, Spain, and attacked the guards with knives. They claimed the cathedral was theirs.
Last month, the bishops of Sweden sent out a letter to priests advising them to avoid converting asylum seekers from islamic countries to Christianity, because the converts would risk losing their lives.
In the Netherlands, the city authorities in Amsterdam register polygamous marriages. The authorities in Rotterdam serve only halal meals in municipal cafeterias. Theaters provide separate seats for women who are not allowed to sit next to men. Municipal swimming pools have separate swimming hours for men and women, Muslim lawyers do not have to stand when the judges enter court rooms.
Meanwhile Jews are no longer safe on our streets. In Amsterdam, the city of Anne Frank, Jews are again being harassed in the streets. Even political leaders acknowledged that life has become unsafe for Jews in Holland. Do you know what they said? They advised Jews to emigrate. Jews are already running for Israel. But I say: Jews must not leave, violent Muslims must leave!
What is needed, my friends, is a spirit of resistance.
I repeat: What we need is a spirit of resistance.
Why? Because resistance to evil is our moral duty. This resistance begins with expressing our solidarity to Christians, Jews, indeed, to all people worldwide, who are the victims of islam. There are millions of them.
We can see what islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians elsewhere.
Almost every day, churches are arsoned and Christians are assassinated in islamic countries.
In a report on the persecution of Christians in the world, Archbishop Twal of Jerusalem, wrote recently– I quote: “In the Middle East to be Christian means accepting that you must make a great sacrifice. All too often and in many places, Christians suffer various threats. On some occasions, their homes and churches are burnt, and people are killed. How many atrocities must we endure before somebody somewhere comes to our aid?” – end of quote.
Indeed, how many atrocities before we come to their aid?
Rivers of tears are flowing from the Middle East, where there is only one safe haven for Christians. You know where that is. The only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe is Israel.
That is why Israel deserves our support. Israel is a safe haven for everyone, whatever their belief and opinions. Israel is a beacon of light in a region of total darkness. Israel is fighting our fight.
The jihad against Israel is a jihad against all of us. If Israel falls, we, too, will feel the consequences. If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Rome, Amsterdam and Nashville will fall. Therefore, we all are Israel. We should always support Israel!
Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. The Arab peoples long for freedom. However, the ideology and culture of islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible as long as islam remains dominant.
A recent poll in post-revolution Egypt found that 85 percent of Egyptians are convinced that islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates. The press refers to the events in the Arab world today as the Arab spring. I call it the Arab winter.
Islam and freedom, islam and democracy are not compatible.
The death of Osama bin Laden last week was a victory for the free world, but we will be confronted with Islamic terrorism as long as islam exists, because islam’s founder Muhammad himself was a terrorist, worse than Bin Laden.
And here is another truth: The rise of islam means the rise of sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe we already have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. Britain even has sharia courts.
In my own country, the Netherlands, sharia is being applied by the courts in cases relating to divorce, child custody, inheritance, and property ownership. Women are always the victims of this because sharia discriminates women.
This is a disgrace. This is not the way we should treat women.
My friends, I told you that we have just remembered Liberation Day to commemorate the young Americans and all the heroes who offered their lives to free the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. It would be an insult to them if we Europeans would give up that precious freedom for another totalitarian ideology called Islam.
That is the goal for which my party and I work day after day. And we are having success.
In the Netherlands, we are successfully starting to roll back islam. The current Dutch government is a minority government which can only survive with the backing of my party, the Party for Freedom.
We have 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament and we support the government, in return for measures to prohibit certain aspects of sharia law.
We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the burka and the niqaab.
We will also restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years. We are not going to allow islam to steal our country from us. It was the land of our fathers, it is our land now, our values are based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism and we will pass this on to our children with all the freedoms that the previous generations have fought for.
Let those who want to rob us from our freedoms, stay in their own countries. We do not need them. If you want to wear a burqa, stay in Saudi-Arabia. If you want four wives, stay in Iran. If you want to live in a country where the islamic ideology is dominant, stay in Pakistan, if you don’t want to assimilate in our society, stay in Somalia. But don’t come over here.
We are also going to strip criminals who have a double nationality – for instance Dutch and Moroccan, and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality. We will send them packing, back to their homeland.
My friends, what the Party for Freedom has achieved, shows that it can be done. We can fight the islamization of our societies.
Dear friends, here is my warning. Make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. In fact, it is already here. America is facing a stealth jihad, the islamic attempt to introduce sharia law bit by bit. Last March, a judge in Tampa, Florida, ruled that a lawsuit against a mosque and involving the control of 2.4 million dollars, should proceed under Islamic law.
My friends, be aware that this is only the beginning. This is also how it started in Europe. If things continue like this, you will soon have the same problems as we are currently facing.
Leaders who talk about immigration without mentioning islam are blind. They ignore the most important problem Europe and America are facing. I have a message for them: it’s islam stupid!
My friends, fortunately, not all politicians are irresponsible. Here, in Tennessee, brave politicians want to pass legislation which gives the state the power to declare organisations as terrorist groups and allowing material supporters of terrorism to be prosecuted. I applaud them for that. They are true heroes.
Yesterday and today, I met some of those brave legislators. They told me that Tennessee in particular is a target of islam. Help them win their battle.
They need your support.
While Tennessee is in the frontline, similar legislative initiatives are also being taken in the states of Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana. It is encouraging to see that so many politicians are willing to resist islam.
This gives us hope and courage. I am not a pessimist. We can still turn the tide – even in Europe – if we act today.
There are five things which we must do.
First, we must defend freedom of speech.
Freedom is the source of human creativity and development. People and nations wither away without the freedom to question what is presented to them as the truth.
Without freedom of speech we risk becoming slaves. Frederick Douglass, the 19th century black American politician, the son of a slave, said – I quote – “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”
I have already told you about my court case. This legal charade will not, however, prevent me from saying the truth. Never. I will speak out, even if they drag me before 500 courts and threaten to jail me for a thousand years.
The fact that we are being treated as criminals for telling the truth must not deter us. We are doomed if we remain silent or let ourselves be silenced. Let us not forget, this is our first and most important obligation: defend the right to speak the truth.
Second, we must end cultural relativism and political correctness. We must repeat it over and over again, especially to our children: Our Western culture based on Christianity and Judaism is superior to the islamic culture. Our laws are superior to sharia. Our judeo-christian values are better than islam’s totalitarian rules.
And because they are superior and better, we must defend them. We must fight for our own identity, or else we will lose it. We need to be warriors for the good, because the good is worth fighting for. Neutrality in the face of evil is evil.
Third, we must stop the islamization of our countries. More islam means less freedom. There is enough islam in the West already. We must stop immigration from non-Western countries, which are mostly islamic countries. We must expel criminal immigrants. We must forbid the construction of new hate palaces called mosques.
We must also close down all islamic schools because educating children in a spirit of hate is one of the worst things imaginable. We must introduce anti-sharia legislation everywhere in the free world. Enough is enough.
Fourth, we must take pride in our nations again. We must cherish and preserve the culture and identity of our country. Preserving our own culture and identity is the best antidote against islamization.
And fifth, last but certainly not least, we must elect wise and courageous leaders who are brave enough to address the problems which are facing us, including the threat of islam.
Politicians who have the courage to speak the truth about islam.
Politicians who dare to denounce the devastating results of the multicultural society.
Politicians who – without political correctness – say: enough is enough.
You and I, Americans and Europeans, we belong to a common Western culture. We share the ideas and ideals of our common Judeo-Christian heritage. In order to pass this heritage on to our children and grandchildren, we must stand together, side by side, in our struggle against Islamic barbarism.
That, my friends, is why I am here. I am here to forge an alliance. Our international freedom alliance. We must stand together for the Judeo-Christian West.
We will not allow islam to overrun Israel and Europe, the cradle of the judeo-Christian civilization.
My friends, we will stand together.
We will stand firm.
We will not submit. Never. Not in Israel, not in Europe, not in America. Nowhere.
We will survive.
We will stop islam.
We will defend our freedoms.
We will remain free.
This is the text of a speech by Geert Wilders in the Cornerstone Church in Nashville, 12 May 2011
Supreme Court rules 5-3 to allow states to fine employers of illegal immigrants. Obama has publicly stated that he is refusing to deport any illegal aliens. Going after the employers is the next most effective tool. However radical left-wing activist judges have been holding up state laws in the courts.
The ruling was specifically over an Arizona law, but may halt court challenges in Georgia, Missouri, and other states as well.
Many states are eager to go after employers of illegal aliens because they want the revenue that could be collected in fines.
The radical left and the militant “La Raza” crowd have been hissing with anger all day.
The usual group of Clinton and Obama appointed extremists voted against Arizona and in favor of giving employers free rein to hire illegals.
We could have been on mars.
Engineers, scientists, accountants, congressmen, doctors, educators, all agree.
The money the america has spent over the last 50 years to uplift the poor black man from his genetic predetermined fate could have spent on more wise of return on investment. In total America has spent some 100 trillion dollars on the black community, in the form of ebt cards, food stamp program, welfare, welfare to work program, head start for black youths, schools lunches, closing the black-white achievement gap, affirmative action litigations, equal employment opportunity litigations, court costs, incarceration, prison construction, police expansion, private security expansion, housing expansion for white flight, energy subsidize, low income project housing subsidize, section 8 housing, montage assistance to black community, urban youth programs, gang task force prevention, insurance costs, reconstruction of katrina “victims,” fane mae, fredie mac, and hundreds of dozens of programs for the black community, account for an ever growing, ever increasing black hole within america. There is simply not enough money to close the gap mother nature created, there is not enough gold or treasure on earth to effect the evolution of a people. Today is a sad day.
NASA has officially closed the constellation program, thereby ending Americas space program, america is no longer a space faring nation, we don’t have the money. This program has already 10 billion in invested research and design, but propping up a failed race men in a last ditch effort at normalizing 400 years of unassimilated masses of Africans has cost the United States of America its future.
We are living in the finally years of the American Imperium. I say on to all those with eyes and ears. A nation who collapses, a civilization that dies, due to multiculturalism, diversity of its non homogeneous population, costs of its massive legal/illegal population, and elites who burden the people with debts in the hundreds of trillions, what hope do we have left?
I have seen the future, its the polar opposite of this inverted world we inhabit. Mother nature hates a contradiction, the equation must be balanced, debts must be paid in full. And America has had its chance, its people are weak, its leadership corrupted, its beliefs and heritage lost. We have nothing to blame but ourselves, for what is to come. America may be over, but I fear what is to rise from the ashes of a nation destroyed by diversity and multiculturalism, because it will be anything but.
Be forewarned, time is nil, the ragnarok approaches.
Last year I wrote that women are natural allies of the (alternative) Right. The recent debate on the presence and role of women in the movement merits revisiting and elaborating on some the arguments advanced in support of my thesis, as well as exploring a possible way forward in the face of existing conditions. I contend that women have an interest in ensuring the success of the Right and that it is in the interest of the Right not to limit itself to being a White male rights advocacy movement—our movement is about saving the entire race from extinction, not one particular half of it.
I am not here to posit women’s equivalence to men; I regard the sexes as non-equivalent, by which I mean they are not interchangeable: men and women have strengths and weaknesses unique to their sex. I am not here to campaign for equality of representation; I regard men and women as having distinct, if complementary, roles, but this does not necessarily mean that equal numbers will indicate success in our particular enterprise—functionally, the optimal balance may well be achieved asymmetrically. I am not here to talk about injustices committed by one sex against the other, or to blame one sex for the misfortunes of all; the war of the sexes is an enemy construct and a distraction in the struggle for racial survival. Finally, I am not here to tell women what they ought or ought not to be doing; it is surreal that we talk about women, going right over their heads, without them being part of the conversation—women who care about about the survival of the White race can decide for themselves what or who they want to be and how they get involved.
In Western European cultures, women have traditionally enjoyed high social status and freedom in relation to non-Western cultures, despite well-defined gender roles. This is reflected not only in social organisation, but goes right back to mythology.
In the Norse tradition, Freyja is the goddess of love, beauty, and fertility, but also gold, seid, war, and death. She is a member of the Vanir, a group of gods associated with fertility, wisdom, and precognition. She rules over Folkvangr, destination upon death of half of those who die in combat (the other half goes to Valhalla). Frigg appears primarily as wife and mother, but she is also the queen of Asgard, has the power of prophecy, and is the only one, other than Odin, permitted to sit on Hlidskjaft and see into all worlds. Her companion, Eir, is associated with medical skill. She is also a valkyrie. Valkyries decide who dies in battle. Of those who do not die in battle, a portion is received by Hel, who rules over a homonymous realm, located in Nifelheim. In the Prose Edda she rules over vast mansions and her underworld servants. In the attempted resurrection of Baldr she plays a key role. Gná runs errands for Frigg in other worlds, and rides a flying, sea-treading horse, Hófvarpnir. Vár is associated with oaths and agreements; Vör with wisdom; Skadi with bowhunting, skiing, winter, and mountains.
In Celtic mythology, Morrigan is a goddess of fertility, but also of battle and slaughter, strife, land, and wealth. Morrigan is a triple goddess, of which Macha, is part; Macha is goddess of battle and sovereignty. Epona is also a horse goddess, and embodies the notion of horse power, or horsemanship. Horses were a symbol of power, an instrument of Indo-European expansion, vital for the success and protection of the tribe. Mother goddesses are a recurrent element in Celtic mythology. In the Welsh tradition Dôn, Rhiannon, and Modron are mother figures, as are Danu, Boand, Macha, and Ernmas in the Irish tradition. For the Celts, however, their role and symbolism was never limited solely to motherhood, and in tales bearing children is only mentioned in passing.
In Greek mythology Athena is the goddess of wisdom, civilization, warfare, strategy, strength, female arts, crafts, skill, and justice. Shrewd companion of heroes she is also the goddess of heroic endeavour. Athena’s mother was the Titaness Metis, Zeus’ first spouse and his equal, and the goddess of war and wisdom. Artemis was the goddess of childbirth, virginity, and young women, but she is also the goddess of the wilderness, of wild animals, and the hunt. She is depicted carrying bow and arrows. Rhead, Titaness and daughter of Uranus (the sky) and Gaia (the earth), was known as ‘the mother of gods’. In the Golden Age, she and Cronos, her husband, were Queen and King of the gods, respectively.
In pre-Christian Northern Europe women were revered. In Germania, for example, Tacitus writes:
A specially powerful incitement to valor is that the squadrons and divisions are not made up at random by the mustering of chance-comers, but are each composed of men of one family or clan. Close by them, too, are their nearest and dearest, so that they can hear the shrieks of their women-folk and the wailing of their children. These are the witnesses whom each man reverences most highly, whose praise he most desires.
[I]t stands on record that armies already wavering and on the point of collapse have been rallied by the women, pleading heroically with their men, thrusting forward their bared bosoms, and making them realize the imminent prospect of enslavement — a fate which the Germans fear more desperately for their women than for themselves.
And that Germans
Believe[d] that there resides in women an element of holiness and a gift of prophecy; and so they d[id] not scorn to ask their advice, or lightly disregard[ed] their replies.
And with regard to relations between men and women among Germans:
Their marriage code is strict, and no feature of their morality deserves higher praise. They are almost unique among barbarians in being content with one wife apiece . . . The dowry is brought by husband to wife, not by wife to husband. Parents and kinsmen attend and approve the gifts—not gifts chosen to please a woman’s fancy or gaily deck a young bride, but oxen, a horse with its bridle, or a shield, spear and sword. . . . The woman must not think that she is excluded from aspirations to manly virtues or exempt from the hazards of warfare. That is why she is reminded, in the very ceremonies which bless her marriage at the outset, that she enters her husband’s home to be the partner of his toils and perils, that both in peace and war she is to share his sufferings and adventures. That is the meaning of the team of oxen, the horse ready for its rider, and the gift of arms.
Of course, this did not mean the role of German women as women was not well defined; but the their role was key and implied responsibilities, not subordination:
On these terms she must live her life and bear her children. She is receiving something that she must hand over intact and undepreciated to her children, something for her sons’ wives to receive in their turn and pass on to her grandchildren.
The traditional view of women in Europe, thus, is of their having distinct and complementary roles, which are not necessarily equivalent, but which are certainly both important and do not equate authority with oppression, strength with brutality, maternal instinct with weakness, or devotion with humiliation.
The movement to restrict and subordinate women in Europe and its outposts comes from Christianity. 1 Timothy 2:8-12, Ephesians 5:22-24, and 1 Corinthians 11:3-9 and 14:34,35, prescribe silence and submission of women to their husbands—‘the husband is the head of the wife’. These prescriptions originated with Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee before his conversion, born in what now is Turkey. Therefore, they have an Eastern, not a European, genesis. Derivative ecclesiastical restrictions, from the Patristic Age onwards, however, involved the role and behaviour of women in church, not in civil society (although John Knox denied the right of women to rule in this sphere too). This held until the XXth century, when liberal movements within and without the Church sought feminist reforms. (In paganism, women priestesses remained common, which may have been another motivation for the branding by the church of women priestesses as an evil practice.)
The passage of time made conservative within the religion a policy that originated in the East; and thus the effort to abrogate it, because driven by movements of the political Left associated with prominent Jewish intellectuals, made it a sign of subversion. It needed not have occurred this way; the reform could have come from an indigenous movement aimed at purifying the religion of alien elements and correcting the accumulated errors of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In Germany during the XIXth century, writers like the Prussian Conservative Biblical scholar Paul de Lagarde—an important influence on Nietzsche and subsequently on Alfred Rosenberg—sought to reformulate Christianity along these lines (see Positive Christianity).
In any event, where the status of women is dictated by religion, this is a personal matter for the adherent, not a political matter of racial preservation. And irrespective of any superficial parallels with Leftism in its campaign against conservative Christians, the fact remains that women in the West, particularly in Northern Europe, have traditionally enjoyed a higher status than the women of the East and of the South. It follows from this that the alternative Right can legitimately present itself as women’s friend while following tradition. This would be called archeofuturism.
Even the most conservative Christian sects can hardly compare in their proscriptions against women with those imposed by their analogues in Islam.
As Europe is colonised by Islam, it is worth considering that even without the extremity of Wahhabism, Islamic societies today restrict women far more than Western societies.
In a Muslim-dominated Europe, women can expect to see an end to the freedom, mobility, and status they enjoy in the West today. Sex segregation, oppressive dress codes, marital bondage, civic exclusions, and even public erasure, not to mention the abuse and the violence (public and domestic) such a climate engenders, would become far more common, and enjoy not only the force of law but also divine sanction.
Much of the immigration coming into Europe is from Africa and Asia. In places like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Afghanistan, women are frequently subjected to acid attacks as a response to refused sexual advances, rejected proposals of marriage, and denied demands for dowry. Land and inter-family disputes are also a cause. In Bangladesh they are also a form of domestic violence.
Female genital mutilation is practiced in parts of South East Asia, the Near East, and Northeast Africa. In its most extreme form it involves total removal by cutting of the clitoris and both labia and the near sealing of the vaginal entry. Reasons vary, although in some societies the reasons have been forgotten altogether.
A result of the progressive replacement of Europeans by Asian and African immigrants has been the occurrence of these extreme forms of violence against White women in the West. White women’s beauty has already been targeted by acid attacks in Britain. As the process of demographic replacement advances, such practices will also become more common, and Western women, particularly those exposed to or marrying non-Westerners, will be at greater risk.
Another consequence of immigration, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, is greater violence in general, corruption, and diminished efficiency, resulting in a dangerous, unstable, and unreliable society, a topic about which Jared Taylor has written extensively and which I need not go into detail here.
Western societies are much safer, wealthier, and better run than most non-Western societies, and thus provide a better environment for children to grow up in. Many non-Westerners migrate to the West attracted by these features.
However, along with them come many whose relationship to the West is instrumental, and, having no especial attachment to its culture, seek to conquer it and change it, somehow imagining that prosperity will survive the removal of its underlying conditions. Establishment politicians are objectively complicit with this process through their belief in the miracle of integration.
If a movement seeks to preserve the Western character of Western societies, then in theory it is in Western women’s interest to support that movement.
As has been pointed out before, women possess natural skills and abilities that are either unique, or occur more frequently and / or to a higher degree in their sex. Women are far more than nurturers: they are especially proficient at networking, community building, consensus building, multi-tasking, and moral and logistical support provision. These are all essential in any movement involving community outreach and where user-friendly, low-key, non-threatening forms of recruitment are advisable. What is more, women possess the ability to attract potentially twice the number of recruits, because they can attract other women as well as men. Typically, as the history of White Nationalism has proven beyond any doubt, men will attract more men, but not an equal or even a significant number of women. Women can create a much broader comfort zone around hardcore political activism through organising a wide range of community, human, and support-oriented activities: there is a reason why women who work are over-represented in human resources departments within the private and public corporate sector.
Modern Western culture is steeped in feminism. Feminist historiography presents the pre-feminist (Christian) era as a time of subordination, oppression, and low status for women; and feminism as a movement of liberation. Therefore, any anti-feminist movement, particularly one of a conservative Christian character, will be seen as threatening a return to ‘the bad old days’. Barrier number one is that our movement, backed by many conservative Christians, defines itself negatively as an anti-feminist movement.
Evolutionary psychologists argue that women tend to be attracted to high-status males, as these are likely more able to provide resources and a safer environment for children. The present system is defined by an anti-nationalist, anti-racist, anti-hierarchical ideology, which predictably exalts its proponents and denigrates dissidents. Barrier number two is that our movement has yet to develop independence from the present system, which results either in timidity or ostracism, and therefore in ineffectiveness or exclusion and low status.
Compounding this effect is the gravitating of marginal types to marginal movements, where they think they will find validation and legitimacy. Those who are marginalised may be so because of their non-conforming beliefs, but some may also be so because they are somehow defective, thus adding an influx of undesirable types alongside that of genuine ideological dissidents. The dominant ideology exploits this by equating dissidence with defectiveness. Barrier number three is that, the dominant ideology, because it is dominant, can perpetuate its negative stereotypes, thus discouraging dissidence, especially among the talented and ambitious.
A consequence is that ‘women look for winners’ elsewhere.
Higher levels of aggression, autonomy, and propensity for risk-taking in males may account for the predominantly male character of our movement. This means that defectives will also most likely be male. Said defectives poison the discourse through their cathartic (and often anonymous) expressions of bitterness toward women, which results not from feminism but from their own inability to attract and hold on to women. Barrier number four is that an obnoxious minority has made gender discourse within our movement pathological.
The desire for greater involvement of women in our movement does not mean necessarily a desire for leadership by women. To my knowledge, no such desire has been expressed.
Neither does it imply a dilution or a softening of our message: strength, confidence, conviction, and valour will draw more admirers than wet liberalism.
Conversely, where a desire for female involvement exists, it is not solely men’s responsibility: there are some who will need to rid themselves of their negativity (because it perpetuates feminist dynamics and confirms the feminist narrative), and some who will need to be got rid of altogether (because they are defective), but the organising of women-friendly activities is the responsibility of the women who care about the preservation of the race, not that of men. Men have their own spheres of activity, which necessitate male traits. Women-friendly activities can be organised, and would be better organised, entirely without male intervention, so there is nothing stopping women from getting involved and making unique contributions if this is their wish.
Stating that women are natural allies of the alternative Right is not the same as saying that obtaining their visible support will lead to the Right entering the mainstream. The Right will never enter the mainstream within the current system, as the latter is defined against the Right. Conversely, the fact that the Right cannot enter the mainstream within the current system does not mean it cannot become the mainstream if it is developed as a credible alternative to a discredited system. The visible support of women can help in this process, for it would have the same social effect a woman has on how a man is perceived by others: if a man’s ability to attract women of high quality signals that man’s elegibility, then a movement able to attract women of high quality signals that movement’s credibility. If ‘women pick winners’, as has been stated, then visible female support indicates a movement with a winning strategy.
Critics of Jews regard feminism as a Jewish plot designed to weaken Western society by dividing the sexes and fomenting conflict between them. They call this ‘Judeo-Feminism’. If this is true, then the war of the sexes that results from feminism and the reaction against it helps the Jewish plot, and bitter reactions against women because of real or perceived feminism are as destructive as bitter reactions against men because of real or perceived chauvinism. The irony is thus that those who antagonise women generally because of assumed feminism, are servants of this ‘Judeo-Feminism’, not its conquerors; and in this sense they are objectively not much different from misandristic feminists. The way to overcome this is to demonstrate how feminism has failed to live up to its promises, how it has traded one form of servitude for another, how it has traded one form of unhappiness for another, how it is in fact anti-woman, and how it is inferior as a narrative to one that promulgates harmonious partnership between the sexes.
Conservatives and traditionalists are inherently nostalgic, and traditionalists in particular have a cyclical, non-progressive view of history, which for them begins with a golden age and goes through various degenerative stages until it reaches the point of total dissolution and chaos. An alternative is the organic view of history, proposed by Spengler and adopted by Yockey, where a culture / civilisation, and therefore its history, follows a natural cycle for birth, growth, maturity, senility, and death. In both cases the cycle is recurrent, so the end of once cycle also marks the beginning of the next. Unfortunately, this cyclic recurrence is often forgotten by many outside the cyclical tradition, who typically think in terms of fall and redemption, sin and salvation, and thus seek to reverse the advancing cycle to institute some form or return or restoration, rather than devise strategies for surviving the end and making it through to the new beginning. Those who yearn for a return to the America of the 1950s, the Germany of 1933, or the Britain of 1900, suffer from a limited view: the conditions that led to these stages will never return. The cycle moves forward, on to the next stage of development, with or without our approval.
In terms of the relationship between men and women, it is pointless to seek a return to a point in the past; the same way that it will be pointless for the liberals in the future to look at our era and hope for a return to their golden age, once it has passed.
And it will pass.
Women both comprise half of the race and are indispensable for its continuity. Moreover, women are a measure of the health of any movement. Therefore, any movement that seeks to preserve the race cannot credibly ignore them. Even though it is up to women who care about the aims of the movement to organise themselves and contribute with activities suitable to their interests and strengths (no matter what they are), barriers to their participation must be eliminated. This begins by shedding the reactive misogyny engendered by feminism, reclaiming from the latter the high status and freedom accorded to women by traditional Western European culture and society, taking intelligent women’s advise seriously, ridiculing the war of the sexes, marginalising defectives, rejecting conservatism, and making a clear distinction between personal religious choices and racial preservation.
It must be stressed also that women are not merely baby factories, cooks, cleaners, or gold watches to be shown off any more than they are just labour or wallets that exist purely to fund the system.
Essential for success is accepting that the current system is designed to prevent our ideas from entering the mainstream; the system’s continued existence depends on it. Rather than attempt to make our ideas acceptable to the mainstream, we should seek to make the mainstream unacceptable to everybody, and present ourselves as a credible alternative to a discredited system. Women are important because we are not engaged in a debate; we are engaged in a contest of beauty and strength. Logic, arguments, and rational self-interest are but accessories; the main instruments are emotion, desire, and vanity. This is why it is essential that we begin by looking like we qualify to take part in the contest.
With the correct attitude, tactics, and strategy this is relatively inexpensive to achieve: consider that interpersonal hierarchies are seldom established by brute force, the same way that the sexual domination of women by elite males is rarely if ever achieved through violence; they are established or achieved by posture, manner of speech, and physical appearance. The practical use of power occurs only occasionally; often the mere suggestion of it is enough. The war of ideologies is largely a process of seduction, not one of rational persuasion. The enemy never seeks to convince with arguments—in fact they do not even debate their opponents on the Right; on the contrary, they insult and caricature, hoping that people— especially women—will stay away.
It makes perfect sense: beauty is elitist; ugliness egalitarian. A beautiful White woman represents the apex of human physical beauty, attractiveness, and desirability. This is recognised even by non-White males. Indeed, for many Black males a White woman, particularly if of Nordic ancestry, is a status symbol. Is it any surprise, then, that the enemy would rather they be alienated from a movement that seeks to exalt and perpetuate them? That the enemy uglifies them with feminism? That the enemy destroys them at gene level by encouraging non-reproductivity and miscegenation?
And when it comes right down to its most fundamental, is not our struggle in some way or another ultimately about White women?