The Heretics' Hour: Patriarchy and Homosexuality are the "New Right?"

Published by carolyn on Tue, 2012-10-02 00:44

Oct. 1, 2012

Carolyn has two main topics  – continuing in the first hour with circumcision funding from the National Institutes of Health, a U.S. Government agency that hands out $31 billion annually for medical research.  She talks about some of the pro-circumcision personalities and also some organizations for circumcision fetishists like the Gilgal Society, the Circlist, and the Acorn Society.

In the second hour, Patriarchy is the subject, and whether it can return as the new social order.  Carolyn discusses it’s history and the way it is embraced by homosexual men, including at the Counter-Currents website. Matt Parrott’s article Patriarchy and Apprenticeship is reviewed; also mentioned is New Right, Old Bottles in which Parrott reveals his inherent traditional conservatism and that he considers himself a member of the “New Right.” But how does he square his Orthodox Christianity with his homosexual partners, Carolyn asks.


51 Responses

  1. Hadding

    October 2, 2012 at 2:31 am

    I wonder why they stop at removing the foreskin to reduce penile cancer. Removing a testicle would probably cut the risk of testicular cancer in half. Wouldn’t it?

    I’ve never had problems getting along with women in the WN milieu. A lot of the guys that complain about the lack of women in “the movement” actually drive them away when they do encounter them. I’ve seen it firsthand. My lack of misgyny distinguishes me to the point that women have sometimes commented on it. Hadding is a guy that actually likes women as people.

    But, as a result of experiences, even though I like women and women like me, I have become a fairly strong critic of the regime of “equal rights” that started in the 20th century.

    Women have a great deal of power through the fact that men love them and want to take care of them. A woman can generally expect that somebody will help her if she has difficulties. A man in the same situation is always expected to deal with it himself. “Women and children first!” is what they say when the lifeboats are being loaded. It is also quite common for opportunities in various spheres, social and professional, to be handed preferentially to women, partly because men just like women more than they like their fellow males. On top of that there is feminism.

    I think that if you add to the naturally occurring preferential treatment some guarantee of equal opportunity, so that the ability of men to surpass women as breadwinners, and to show their love for women by taking care of them, is curtailed, it creates a gross imbalance of power that I think ultimately causes tons of frustration for both sexes.

  1. Carl

    October 2, 2012 at 2:58 am

    By the way, speaking of Hadding’s reference to the notion of “Women and children first,” did you hear about the Concordia disaster off Italy early this year? It is rumored that there was no regard at all for the principle that women and children should receive first attention. (I wonder if the race-mixing doesn’t partly contribute to this. Why should I want non-White women to go first? If there are only one or two per thousand, and they are honorable guests, sure. But when they are swarming around and breeding like bunnies, I have to say that I’m not so sure.)

    Hadding is quite right. Feminist power has left everyone drained and deluded. But Carolyn is right also, that the Third Reich is a wonderful model. In so many ways, getting people to see that period clearly is the most important thing. It was in many ways a fine example of how White people can live well, and, instead, it has become a tool of brainwashing and erroneous embarrassment.

  1. Konrad Rhodes

    October 2, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Good show!
    I am sorry if this is too much explanation but I wanted to point out that Orthodox Christians are definitely not open to Queers! When a defrocked Russian priest performed a “Homo-sexual Marriage” in an Orthodox chapel in Moscow, Russia, a few years back, the late Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II, head bishop, of Moscow was so incensed that he not only immediately excommunicated the two queers and the defrocked priest he actually had the chapel that the “marriage” took place in demolished! Russian Orthodox were so upset by the Gay Pride parade that they had the Mayor of Moscow abolish all Gay Pride parades for the next 100 years! That is the kind of response to homosexuality the Western Christians need to take. The Manhattan Declaration, as E. Michael Jones has criticized simply does not go far enough in condemning this “sterile intercourse”.
    This may sound like simply a “cop-out” but I tend to just go with the natural roles of men and women that I see played out in the rural areas. The rules of Patriarchy, as you explained, are primarily concerned with who has the power and the property. In small towns, like where I grew up, and where Adolf Hitler, Der Fuhrer, grew up, women naturally have a kind of role that is based on their feminine merits as wives and mothers but also based on their role as the authority who oversaw the home. For example the man may be the King of his Castle but the Queen is usually the one who rules the roost! I tend to think that all this “war of the sexes” came from a laziness of men in the U.S., I don’t know much about Europe, who during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries adopted the daily use of alcohol % tobacco, got fat and lazy by middle-age, think of Archie Bunker, and did not take part at all, usually, in the daily maintenance and chores of the household. And this created a real resentiment in women, understandably. In smaller towns, country or rural areas, men tend to do a lot more daily work required by farming, for example, or even in small towns, people have larger homes with larger yards, land, and the men have to do regular landscaping work, usually white men take initiative and annual improvements of the landscape continue throughout life, and this creates a better balance. I also have noticed rural women tend to be stronger, more out-going, often do some of the work out doors, and are much more trust-worthy, tough working women who make dependable, loving wives! I guess I am just biased in favor of the rural life because I see it as fulfilling instead of abolishing the natural roles of men and women and allowing for a healthy, more normal way of life. Compared to the city I now live in it feels like the difference between being very healthy, rural life, and being riddled with cancer, city life. My radicalism is not purely blood and soil opposition to the city but I agree with Hitler that the modern cities really are sprawling cancers on the planet harming the people and the environment and we need to radically re-orient and cure the modern, urban illness to have truly healthy beautiful cities that are works of art that testify to the greatness of our Race!
    Basically, another cop-out I guess, whatever the National Socialists did, lets do that!
    Traditionalists are not really any specific ideology or movement and Conservatism really has not ever been a real formulated ideology either. Most people that I know in Orthodox Christian Churches who believe in Orthodox Christian Traditionalism would NEVER called themselves Conservatives because they believe strongly in Autocratic Monarchy as being the only legitimate form of government. However the Conservative Catholics tend to view Monarchy and Republic as both legitimately traditional. Then you got the super Traditionalist Catholics, (SSPX and Sedevacantists) such as the French Legitimists, who view Monarchy as the only truly Catholic government. This is only the beginning of a long list! I could go on and on. There is NO agreement between people who call themselves Conservative and/or Traditionalist because of both having a wide variety of religious differences and ethnic differences.
    The New Right are really intellectuals who dwell almost entirely in some mystical ether which is way beyond the “Proles”. But really concrete Theory AND Practice which is the only way, I believe, either have any real existence, seems to be too much for the far too intellectual geo-politically minded New Rightists.
    To answer your question about Matt Parrott, let me say I liked his humorous comments on the Friday Show back when it was on, but he really needs to finally make a decision. He didn’t go far enough in condemning James O’Meara’s filth. I don’t like hating others but what James O’Meara writes and promotes, “rainbow thongs on young boys” (vomit) , which came up in his interview with Robert Stark on VOR, is just as filthy, I think, as what the Jew-Commie-Hippie-NAMBLA supporter Allen Ginsberg used to write. That is why I say Matt Parrott needs to make up his mind. NO COMPROMISE with Queers. They are a worm in our apple.

  1. Hadding

    October 2, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    I tend to think that all this “war of the sexes” came from a laziness of men in the U.S., I don’t know much about Europe, who during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries adopted the daily use of alcohol % tobacco, got fat and lazy by middle-age, think of Archie Bunker, and did not take part at all, usually, in the daily maintenance and chores of the household. And this created a real resentiment in women, understandably.

    Archie Bunker only looks lazy because they only show him at home sitting in front of the TV. Only Edith Bunker as the obedient servant, never Archie Bunker as the workingman, was portrayed. In some of the seasons of All in the Family he was said to work on a loading dock; later he was a taxi-driver. That’s hard work. I unloaded trucks myself for awhile; what I did was not only exhausting; it left me with mild joint-discomfort. “Get me a beer” and “What’s for supper?” after eight hours of that is not unreasonable.

    Of course, in spite of such details Archie Bunker was represented in the show as an unreasonable buffoon and treated as such by other characters.

    This has been a very damaging anti-male, anti-patriarchal, and anti-White propaganda. There are few strong White fathers now, I think largely because in the 70s and 80s nobody wanted to be regarded like Archie Bunker. This has ramifications like children not being told that they must not date outside their race.

  1. Carolyn

    October 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    You said yourself, Hadding, that alcohol use (alcoholism) has played a large role in the abusive male and abusive husband syndrome. Archie Bunker was not by any stretch an abusive husband or father, but just a kind of frustrated guy. Archie appears very different to us today than he did back in the 1970′s, knowing the direction society has gone. He’s actually a good husband and father, since his daughter married a liberal (Jew, haha) who can’t provide a home for her, and his wife really is a ding-a-ling who is “too nice.”

    But in judging our “war of the sexes” we have to acknowledge that both males and females have an inherent “conflict of interest,” and cannot therefore give a completely impartial opinion. You will always be on the side of the men.

  1. Hadding

    October 2, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    But in judging our “war of the sexes” we have to acknowledge that both males and females have an inherent “conflict of interest,” and cannot therefore give a completely impartial opinion. You will always be on the side of the men.

    You’re trying to invalidate my view based on the fact that I am a man saying it. But that was not always my view.

    I used to be more partial to the women’s side, because I very much preferred my mother over my father. My basic attitude was (broadly speaking) that all women were pure and good and wise. When I grew up I realized that the situation was a lot more complicated than I had thought. I began to understood the problems that my father had faced. To this day I continue moving ever farther away from my original naive view.

    There is a strong and widespread tendency to presume women as the innocent victims in any conflict with men. Men as well as women will do this, and it is very wrong.

    That’s only one of a range of such things that is very wrong today, and a reaction is inevitable. Anger at those women who are still complaining is the least reaction. The pickup-artist subculture is a more extreme reaction, but its theorizing about how men should relate to women in a world where women have all the advantages is logical. The fundamental insight of the pickup-artist seems to be, since women nowadays don’t need you, make sure that you don’t need them. No particular woman can be allowed to become indispensable, which means always having several girlfriends or by avoiding intimate relations with women altogether. I am sorry but this is a logical response of individual males to the state of affairs that feminism has created.

  1. Jay

    October 2, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    Didn’t James O’meara say that Homosexuals were the natural elite?

  1. Carl

    October 2, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    I have a confession to make.

    I used to read feminist books. I read “The Women’s Room” several times. I liked to read Dale Spender.

    I hereby apologize to the world and to the White race for my transgression. lol

    It was a long time ago!!!

  1. Konrad Rhodes

    October 2, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    Well let me just say I only mentioned Archie as an example. That was a show I remember watching with my Dad well. I occasionally watch re-runs for a laugh and I always chuckle a little when I notice how Archie used the word ‘fag’ in a number of episodes. Today that wouldn’t even make it on the air. Norman Lear really seemed to know what he was doing with that show and I agree, and my Dad and I noticed it on several episodes, that the story line on All in the Family was often ripe with thinly veiled contempt and hatred for “old-fashioned whites” AKA racially-conscious Whites. But it is still amazing to see how even a character created for ridicule was at least free to say and behave in a way closer to reality rather than what is on TV today. You’d never hear a guy on TV today saying “Geez, that shirt looks like the wall-paper in a fag bar,” or “Our world is coming crumbling down! the Coons are coming!” I liked the character of Archie mostly because I saw my paternal grandpa in him a lot. But that gets to my point. My paternal grandpa was not really lazy, he was a combat vet of the Pacific War and certainly worked hard when he got out of the Navy but I saw him as lazy after becoming middle-aged with his health and at home. He really was badly overweight by the time he was fifty years old. He also smoked his whole adult life and died well before his time due to the smoking, obesity, and alcoholism (at least a glass of whiskey every evening without counting the cans of beer during the day).
    The working man deserves admiration and I always appreciated that being one. One of the seminal works that brought me to see National Socialism and Hitler as great was the excerpt from Leon Degrelle’s Memoirs called Hitler’s Social Revolution. Bailing hay at ten really broke me in to just how tough and physical ‘men’s work’ can really be. Nothing against women and I did see women de-tasseling corn in the field and working hard too but bailing hay was just not something for women because of the heavy emphasis on upper body strength. I had friend who did un-loading like you mentioned having done, Hadding, and he observed the same thing, that it is just not fair to force that kind of work on women. When I worked twelve hour shifts at a steel mill I more than understood the temptation for a cold one and a smoke and I did this for a time before I met my wife. But once I settled down I quickly saw how bad of a cycle booze and smoke and lounging can get you into. My father-in-law is dying, probably twenty-fives year too early, because of his having basically fallen into this bad cycle by his own admission. He worked hard at his repair shop but never did any work at home, at all. He ate what tasted good to excess and developed hypertension and diabetes by his early-forties and now is almost gone living a miserable life waiting for death, barely able to walk, and his poor wife is in great shape and will be a widow for probably the next thirty years. When I look at the men in my family who were farmers or who took care of themselves, usually one-in-the same, they all lived into their nineties, did landscaping projects and home renovations, took their wives out regularly and generally were happier and got along well with their wives and kids.
    Just to add a bit more, men and women having conflicts of interests just sounds wrong to me. I tell my wife, not bragging at all, that after only five years of marriage and our two sons, so far, that I can’t imagine my life without her and the boys. It just seems to me that men and women have far too vital interests in common for our differences to be sources of conflict. I will say though that I’ve never seen house-wives as ‘just house wives’. I like the title ‘home-maker’ because that is damn important job that working men and women are just supposed to make families and do without and most of learn pretty quick that it just doesn’t work well. It really is tough when the Mom & Dad work full-time and then have to work full-time at home. I know that once the kids get old enough to do chores that things get better but when the children are little it is really tough at times and I know from my own wife and other women telling me it is emotionally painful for women to watch their babies grow up and see those years go by while all the while they have to spend most of their time at a full-time job away from them.
    Sorry! know this was a lot!

  1. Carolyn

    October 2, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    One can just as easily say that Feminism was the logical response to what Patriarchy created.

    I only said that since everyone is either a man or a woman, there is nothing/no-one else apart from that with a neutral viewpoint.

    You said yourself that since women are physically weaker than men, there was never a time when they “ruled.” Men could always overpower them. Now you want to deprive them of sympathy or kindness from men too? Everything has to find a way to survive and women are smart and do what they have to do. You blame them for that?

    In addition, I read that the Greek and Roman men “wearied” of Patriarchy because of all the responsibility and began to prefer to lounge about at the public places and night spots, getting into bad habits. This is the way the “gays” see it as being, and what they like. Also no doubt a large number of normal men want to do the same. Something has happened to men, as well as women, in our time, but maybe the pendulum will swing back again soon.

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 12:06 am

    I detassled corn, Konrad, starting when I was 12 until 14, three summers. Talk about miserable work! But it was the only way to earn any money then, and at that age. It was 35 cents an hour and lasted for about 3 weeks, so one ended up making around $33 or so. I remember thinking about that sum of money and thought it was worth all the heat and sweat and bugs to make that much. But the seed companies were getting off cheap! In my last year at it, I was chosen to be a “Leader” or Captain, and I made 50 cents an hour! I was a good one, too.

  1. Konrad Rhodes

    October 3, 2012 at 2:57 am

    It is nice to know I’m not alone! I share your feelings as when I first started it seemed like such good money but really it was a pittance for the company. Carolyn I think this is why I liked your podcasts when I first heard you on VoR. You are a regular person with real life work experience and a truly German work ethic. This is also what I picked up about Hadding from your interview with him where he talked about his family and background. You are the kind of regular people who understand theory has no value unless it can be put into practice. But I have to disagree with you a bit here, I actually liked being in the field. Yes, at first I thought it was misery getting up at 4:00 AM to work in muddy fields pulling the tops off of corn going down a row that went half-way to the horizon but after a few days it was a fight that I felt I was winning. I liked pushing my body and sweating and aching and the feeling of the endorphins kicking in. It is a real feeling of accomplishment. It has been a long time since I read any Nietzsche but if I recall this is somewhat like self-overcoming he described. It is to embrace adversity and to love the struggle for its sake for only through it can you reach triumph and glory; only through fighting can you assert your will. Yes, it is just pulling corn but it is real. You are performing a task that has a real purpose and you are in a natural environment where life is springing from the soil! Work really can make you free! When I look back on the work I did when a kid I am glad because it got me in really good shape and made me feel confident and comfortable at an age when many kids feel awkward and terribly self-conscious. Since this is the White Network let me just emphasize and help people to understand why I am so fond of reminiscing about my rural upbringing: ALL OF US WERE WHITE! The town, the farmers, every kid, and most of us were of German descent. This is also why I praise the tough, outdoorsy working rural women. Every girl and woman I know from rural areas of the Midwest, mostly the heartland states, are entirely or mostly of German descent and have pretty Aryan features. Many when their skin tans it takes on more of a golden hue rather than just brown. And for the women let me tell you that all us guys where I’m from are the same, most are like me with hair that is somewhere between blond and brown with blue eyes, though many were totally blond and/or had grey or greenish eyes. Basically we were all normal, healthy Whites the way it should be.
    Sorry for the personal tangent but I hope this pleasant image of what all white society is like helps others understand why and what we fight for: the 14 words! Frankly, and not to upset or offend anyone here, but I just am about as tired of endless political theorizing. It may be fun to work out your mind and imagination when you are someone totally of an academic bent and it is not totally useless but when it is a distraction, arguing about Patriarchy when no one on the New Right discussing this is going to have the power to decide this anyway, it is pointless. It is scary to contemplate but what we should be discussing is how to form networks and get out of society and obtain the means to defend ourselves while having operatives in society infiltrating the centers of power. Forming our own separate communities/compounds and para-military organizations like knightly orders of the past. That is real and has high idealism associated with it. We should talk about how White men who say they are White Nationalists need to get off the internet, get a wife, and start pro-creating. This is not upset or dump on my own people and I know it is hard in this brainwashed society. Yet, we need all the people, all the soldiers, we can get for this battle. And really children are such a joy. You sacrifice for them, you change and become a better person for them, you pour your love and work into their upbringing. You feel what Tradition is all about, transmission, handing-down, taking part in this chain of time and life of your people.
    Just one last thing, I mentioned this in my last post and to anyone reading this one if you have not read Leon Degrelle’s “Hitler’s Social Revolution” read it! Hitler and the National Socialists were not politicians or anything like the political class of scoundrels who make up Western Dumbocracies. They cut through the nonsense and reasserted the value of labor. This is what I hate about a lot of the defeatism I hear from White Nationalists like, “Oh, America is already gone! We are just holding on to its last gasps.” BS I say! But even it that were true the Spaniards retook Spain from the Muslims after hundreds of years. Even if America is gone which I don’t think it is, lets buck up and take it back!
    Thanks for letting me post. Hope I didn’t make any enemies!
    P.S. To the question about James O’Meara, yes, he thinks the Queers are the ‘great culture creators’. Carolyn did a great job exposing their nonsense in her shows about the Homosexual Menace.

  1. Hadding

    October 3, 2012 at 11:33 am

    One can just as easily say that Feminism was the logical response to what Patriarchy created.

    Yes, some feminist could say that, but it’s shortsighted. There is no perfect world where all individuals are treated perfectly fairly all the time. Patriarchy though is a much healthier condition in terms of survival of the race.

    Men could always overpower them. Now you want to deprive them of sympathy or kindness from men too?

    Civilization has largely nullified the advantage of physical strength in relations between men and women, especially in the past few decades. I don’t want to deprive women of sympathy and kindness. It’s the insistence on equal rights that deprives them of it. Why should a man open the door for a woman that displaced him from a job? In fairness the overprivileged female ought to take over that responsibility.

    That doesn’t really work either though, because it isn’t natural. The whole situation of “equal rights” (which really means putting women into competition with men, with the competition rigged in the women’s favor) is unnatural and probably in the run long untenable. If nothing else, the people that live this way will dwindle until they are replaced by people that live a little more naturally.

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    I can understand, Hadding, why some people on forums complain that you don’t answer the matter that they brought up. For instance, I answered you appropriately with:

    One can just as easily say that Feminism was the logical response to what Patriarchy created.

    You replied to me:

    Yes, some feminist could say that, but it’s shortsighted. There is no perfect world where all individuals are treated perfectly fairly all the time. Patriarchy though is a much healthier condition in terms of survival of the race.

    This is more of an avoidance than a response. I was countering what you said about the new young male “pickup artist” method of dealing with young women. You said: “I am sorry but this is a logical response of individual males to the state of affairs that feminism has created.” Your answere is that what I say is shortsighted, but when you said the same thing (turned around) it is not shortsighted. This is how men try to trick women with faulty intellectual arguments.

    Then you say (white women) should not expect to be treated fairly all the time, while at the same time you complain that white men are not being treated fairly NOW (for the first time in their history). I agree that white men are getting the brunt now, but you would like to shift it to white women getting the brunt. That is a “healthier condition.” I think this argument is a bit shortsighted. How about taking it to a higher level of racial solidarity instead of male solidarity? What are women going to get for stepping aside and letting men have the jobs?

    Why should a man open the door for a woman that displaced him from a job? In fairness the overprivileged female ought to take over that responsibility.

    To me it’s strange that this is so often used. If a man can fulfill his manly role by opening doors for the woman who can easily open them for herself, then being a man doesn’t take much. Of course, it looks better in public than if a woman’s companion just stands there while she opens the doors, but in reality women are doing all kinds of physical work at home that men don’t help them with, and no one is worried about it. I not only can open my own doors, but I do all the work around my house and have for a long time, since there is no man around to do it and I don’t want to pay for it (I am starting to now). It’s not about what men pretend it is about – that the govt. takes care of women and gives them everything they need. Not white women anyway, and white women don’t particularly ask for govt. help.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like when men open doors and when they stand aside to let me pass. It’s wonderfully chivalrous and it’s a part of Aryan society. There’s just a lot more to consider than that … too much for a comment, so I think I’ll wait for Monday night’s Heretics’ Hour.

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    It’s all about “manism.” Counter-Currents has become “the man’s place.” Men are going to learn about being a man there. Unfortunately, the teachers are homosexuals, so they like to accompany the lessons with pictures of naked or semi-naked men.

    I would also say the money they’re getting comes mostly from queers, probably, so the homo-friendly atmosphere is there to stay.

  1. Hadding

    October 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Your answere is that what I say is shortsighted, but when you said the same thing (turned around) it is not shortsighted.

    No I didn’t. I don’t admire the pickup-artist way of life and I don’t say that it isn’t shortsighted. But I do say that it is a response to a problem that feminism has created. A friend of mine calls it feminism for males.

    The best option for a man these days — if he doesn’t want to be a user and manipulator, or just resign to being alone — is to try to find a woman relatively uninfluenced by feminism.

  1. Hadding

    October 3, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    What are women going to get for stepping aside and letting men have the jobs?

    Potentially they will get what they used to have, which is a stable family-life and the opportunity to raise their own children, and have more of them than they could ever have as a working mother.

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Well, that sounds better. But you forgot to add “white”, as in “try to find a white woman relatively uninfluenced by feminism.” If young men want to live in L.A. or Boston or San Francisco (god forbid), they’re making it hard for themselves.

  1. Carl

    October 3, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    I continue to believe that it is a big help, and no cop-out, to illuminate the examples of the Third Reich for people. I don’t know how much theorizing was needed for men and women to do what was best there, but the whole thing seemed to work out beautifully. Theorizing can sound harsh, but in truth I think our best nature is written in our hearts anyway, so all we really have to do is learn what really happened, and remove alien influences. Then everything will be fine.

    Hadding’s point that women competing with men will result in extinction by replacement, exactly describes a feature of today. But Carolyn has solved it. Just make a sensible system that recognizes the contribution that women make, and provide a rational encouragement.

    Don’t we pretty much all agree on this?

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Not enough. I brought up the subject of money in my Monday program. Women give up a lot of money, and under even a moderately patriarchal society, money is power and those without the money are powerless. Women should be paid by the government to stay home and have children; men should not be paid for having children if they have the jobs.

    How does that suit you? You probably don’t like that because that would give women too much power and the idea is to keep them totally dependent on men. There could be the rule that if the wife leaves the marriage (taking the children) or if she kicks the husband out, she no longer gets the money … unless she can show real abuse has taken place. In that case though, some counseling with the goal of reconciliation would be the usual procedure. But if it fail, even in the worst-case scenario the children will have been born.

    The system we have now – the divorce laws and all – are anti-family.

  1. Etienne

    October 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    There are strong women in classical Greek drama, Clytemnestra and Antigone for example. Also, it’s not fair to quote characters from Plato when all the ideas are torn to pieces in the course of the dialogue. The characters who represent conventional opinion end up speaking against themselves.

  1. Hadding

    October 3, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Who the hell regards Clytemnestra as an admirable figure? She has an affair with her brother-in-law and murders her husband while he’s taking a bath. This is what feminists consider a role-model for women?

    As for Antigone, she is problematic.

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    Last I knew, Etienne was a man. So quit blaming feminists for everything; it’s looking a little lame.

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    I continue to believe that it is a big help, and no cop-out, to illuminate the examples of the Third Reich for people.

    Carl – We can’t forget that the people who made the Third Reich work were Germans. The people make all the difference, not only the system. People are not all the same, not even European-derived people. Not that others can’t make it work, but it probably can’t be simply transferred over to ‘White Nationalists’ in the USA.

  1. Carl

    October 3, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    Correct about the people– I would add that German ancestry is the bulk of White ancestry here. I think these ideas work for all White people. Lots of Europeans volunteered to help the SS or other branches of the Third Reich, and also, there were movements across the Anglo/Scandinavian/Germanic world, to understand and use eugenics, to have co-operative enterprises that would refashion the notion and use of profit, and all of that became national socialism. So these ideas are basically White.

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Well, you get it going then. :)

    Anglo (English-Scottish etc.) is the bulk, by far. Many Americans have “some” German but it’s mixed with a lot of other stuff. I would not say that Hitler’s National-Socialism was “basically White.”

  1. Carolyn

    October 3, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Etienne – You are right about Plato’s dialogues. But this is the way the “Gays” present Greek thought, including Plato’s, as far as I have seen it. Most, or at least many, WN’s too.

  1. Jay

    October 3, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    Greg’s response to the picture from Jack Donovan’s article was:

    “It is a picture from The Washington Times about the Herndon climb. Naval Academy plebes finish their first year by working together as a team to climb the Herndon monument, an obelisk which is covered in lard. The aim is to remove a “dixie cup” hat placed at the top and replace it with an upperclassman’s hat. It has been a tradition since 1940. Soon, I am sure, they will have to include women so that people don’t think it is “gay.”

  1. Jay

    October 4, 2012 at 12:03 am

    Another thing interesting about CC is they posted that San Francisco is the 3rd top source of hits in the entire world after New York and London, while its only the 13th largest city in the Nation.

  1. Carolyn

    October 4, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Reading the comments for this article makes me want to puke. Truthfully. It is not encouraging for so-called White Nationalism. How about this:

    Roissy Hater
    Posted October 3, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    I despise the current definition of what makes an ‘alpha’. It implies that men who excel at mediocrity (modern activities) and espouse confidence as a result are somehow laudable.

    Most ‘alphas’ and ‘betas’ make me want to puke … their confidence is rooted in nothing but social competence and juxtaposition (boys who are stilled tied to the social matriarchy).

    Junger, Bowden, Jeffers, and yes, Greg Johnson, are rare specimens worth emulating because they stand for an ideal, execute tasks that few can even think up, and work independently against a tidal wave of public opinion or adverse circumstances.

    My definition of alpha: “One who is not among the pack, does not lead the pack, does not know the pack. One who is so far beyond the pack, he is invisible.”

    Greg Johnson
    Posted October 3, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    It is always awkward to approve comments like this. But thank you.

  1. Carolyn

    October 4, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Where did you find the info on the hits?

  1. Hadding

    October 4, 2012 at 2:22 am

    Yeah that’s right, Etienne is French for Stephen. But surely he’s been influenced by feminism or he wouldn’t be offering up examples of “strong women” headed by a name primarily associated with husband-murder.

  1. WhiteLurker

    October 4, 2012 at 6:15 am

    Greg J. just posted the stats. Very odd. Over 60,000 unique visitors in September but they don’t seem to read much. The most reads for a September article is 2223. Looking at the reads and podcasts, there seems to be about 2000 regulars, and another couple of thousand less-than-regulars.

  1. Hadding

    October 4, 2012 at 9:14 am

    My professor was a notorious feminist, and when she asked me what I was studying and I mentioned Clytemnestra in Iphigenia at Aulis, she replied, “Ah, Clytemnestra! The first feminist!” [Kathleen L. Komar, “Reclaiming Klytemnestra”]

    Et voilà. My description of what kind of person must have invented this glorification of Clytemnestra was censored from my previous post, but this little quote says exactly the same thing in less colorful language. I used a term that expresses what “notorious feminist” connotes to me.

  1. Etienne

    October 4, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Hadding, the point of invoking Clytemnestra was that she stood up for the values of race and family piety, not that she murdered her husband. The story is that Menelaus murdered her daughter Iphigenia in a sacrifice to the Olympian Gods so the Gods would help the Greek fleet sail for Troy. Clytemnestra murdered him on his return in revenge. Antigone also stands for family loyalty against Kleon. It is well known that the Greek women had other Gods than the Olympians, i.e. Dionysus, and the men had the Mysteries, that may have been similar. The Greek tragedies show the values of the family contending with the public life of the State. These two women were standing for the value of family piety, so implicitly race, against the dissolution of Athenian public life.

    That is not the same as the feminism that Carolyn seems to be recommending, which is equal access of women to the public realm, rather than defending the private realm of women and family piety against the public realm.

    The problem with trying to make having children profitable is that the state would find it difficult to fund the equivalent of a full-time woman’s wage for every mother, up to half the population albeit not all their lives. So women probably have to see motherhood as sacred, in some sense, rather than profitable, or at least there has to be some compromise in that direction, compensated by recognition and public esteem. The Germans didn’t study the Greeks for nothing.

  1. Carolyn

    October 4, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Just one correction out of many I will make, Etienne:
    The state would not fund every mother, but only those who can show they are capable of earning a certain wage in the public sphere. This would be the more intelligent and educated women, not the ones who have no valuable skills to begin with. They will be happy to have a husband and home of their own.

    Naturally, you certain type of men will try to solve that by not allowing girls/women to be educated in the first place … which is the male problem we are dealing with.

  1. Hadding

    October 4, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    Etienne there is no clear right and wrong in the Oresteia. The trilogy resolves into a conflict among deities: Apollo vs. the Erinyes.

    The glorification of a figure like Clytemnestra who murdered her husband expresses hatred of men, no less so if the deed was done “in revenge.”

  1. Svitjod

    October 6, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Carolyn: In an earlier show you said that you think a country’s leadership should be male… Have you changed your mind about that?

  1. Carolyn

    October 7, 2012 at 10:52 am

    This is a loose and poorly phrased question. What is a country’s leadership? What country?

    Yes, I think the top political positions [president, chancellor, governor, etc] SHOULD BE male. That’s the ideal. But they should also be competent and serving their public, not private interests. Our male leaders have done a poor job overall; in some cases disastrous. Just because a person is of the male sex doesn’t make him intelligent, competent, moral, decent, honorable, committed to his people, or capable of sustained hard work. Many of these male “leaders” are LAZY. And, of course, corrupt.

    So what is to be done? Certainly, these men must be criticized. There are some women that would do a better job than many men who are currently holding office. [But the problem of the quality of women is the same as the problem of the quality of men.] If men will not hold their fellow males accountable, but protect them because ‘anything is better than to let the women in,’ then such men deserve to be held in low esteem.

    You, whoever you are, appear to be more worried about women than about the state (condition) of men and their weaknesses that put us all in danger. We need the best people to lead, and if men are not seeing to it that that is what we have, what are we to do? That would be the better question to ask.

  1. Carolyn

    October 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    For those who like to repeat that women have all the advantages in Western society now because of “Feminism”, how about this?

    Women have always been raped … always. I think maybe we need to look at the exploitation of sex by the “sex industry” for the root of the problem.

  1. WhiteLurker

    October 13, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    The whole patriarchy thing sounds very Islamic. In fact, your description of women’s rights under patriarchy sounded just like Saudi Arabia.

    Greg Johnson’s and the NANR’s view on homosexuality is more like Ancient China than Greece/Rome:

    Homosexuality in China at Wikipedia.

    For example: “The political ideologies, philosophies, and religions of ancient China regarded homosexual relationships as a normal facet of life, and in some cases, promoted homosexual relationships as exemplary. Ming Dynasty literature, such as Bian Er Chai (弁而釵/弁而钗), has been argued to portray homosexual relationships between men as more enjoyable and more “harmonious” than heterosexual relationships.”

    The ancient Greeks and Romans frowned upon a man who was submissive since sex had a power angle: “Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role” (from Wikipedia.

    Also, note this from the same article: “By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.[194] “Death by sword” was the punishment for a “man coupling like a woman” under the Theodosian Code.[195] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology.”

    So, homosexuality in Ancient Southern Europe was completely different than what NANR is supporting. And it wasn’t just a “Christian-thing” to look down on men who behaved like women.

    Also, Romans/Greeks expected men to marry and have children regardless of whether they enjoyed dominating other men on the side.

    The NANR’s view on homosexuality should be considered Oriental or Modern Liberal.

  1. Hadding

    October 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    For those who like to repeat that women have all the advantages in Western society now because of “Feminism”, how about this?

    “Gang rape” in “a tough neighborhood outside of Paris” means MUSLIMS.

    The overprivileged status of women in Western society today is based on the persistent chivalrous tendencies of White men and the exploitation of that by White women.

    I was discussing the matter with a feminist a couple of days ago and she also found it necessary to seek justification by referring to the behavior of Muslims. It has no relevance to the fact that White women today are overprivileged relative to White men, who do not act toward women in any way like Muslims.

    Feminism and the lenient sentencing of those Muslim gang-rapists (not to mention their presence in France) are in fact different aspects of the forfeiture of White male dominance.

  1. Carolyn

    October 13, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    You better believe the judges were not Muslim!

  1. Hadding

    October 13, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    So? How do you make leniency toward MUSLIM gang-rapists into a counter-argument against the perception that White females are overprivileged relative to White males? I bet if White men ever did such a thing (which essentially never happens) they would get no leniency.

  1. Hadding

    October 13, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    On average a woman who goes to prison will be sentenced to about 40% of the sentence that a man would get for the same crime.

  1. Carolyn

    October 14, 2012 at 12:29 am

    You don’t seem to “get” that my brain is not obsessed with the idea that “White females are over-privileged relative to White males,” as yours is. Saying that White men “essentially never” rape White women is downright stupid.

  1. Hadding

    October 14, 2012 at 3:14 am

    The story was about GANG RAPE.

  1. Carolyn

    October 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    The point was the lack of justice these women received. You are the one who turned it into a white women’s privilege argument.

    Men’s egoism knows no ends, and must be assuaged at all costs. Your comments here are an example: You have stated that white women are over-privileged; you now insist on that in any and every example, with no exceptions. Now you say that white women get shorter prison sentences than white men for the same crimes. But you don’t say how often white women are the victims of violent crimes against them by white men. Yes, it happens. To you, rape doesn’t count. White women are way behind white men in committing violent crimes, and when they do the crimes are usually family centered, meaning they are not a threat to society. While white women in academia and the corporate world may be somewhat over-privileged now due to the influence of social engineering giving preference to minorities, that takes place more in the hiring than in the treatment they receive after being hired.

    White men need to put forth their “male dominance” against the enemies of our white societies, not against their own women. What a wimp-out that is! The days when that could be done, when White men ruled all civilized societies, are over. It wasn’t White women who brought about the change – they are just pawns in the game. I say the responsibility lies with White men and all the addictions they have allowed themselves to fall into – TV sports watching, pornography, homosexuality, drugs, alcohol, rejection of religion, living in mother’s basement unmarried.

  1. Hadding

    October 14, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    The point was the lack of justice these women received. You are the one who turned it into a white women’s privilege argument.

    That was the issue. You brought up that gang-rape case in the attempt to dispute my assertion that White women are overprivileged in relation to White men.

    I promise you that leniency for Muslim gang-rapists does not help the average White male in the slightest. On the contrary, it’s one more way in which the White male is disadvantaged under the current order. Those non-White males are as overprivileged as women.

    It’s probably not a coincidence that the last woman who tried to argue that women were not overprivileged also had to resort to talking about Muslims. If that’s the best argument that you can muster, then you have no argument.

  1. Carolyn

    October 14, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    That was the issue. You brought up that gang-rape case in the attempt to dispute my assertion that White women are overprivileged in relation to White men.

    I did not. Your idea that I was disputing your assertions is just another example of your attributing most comments as being directed to yourself. If I pointed to this as an instance in which white girls and women were given a raw deal in “White” courts, it is because there are a number of people who have commented on “Feminism” on these pages, and blame every ill in the world on “Feminism.” You say I have no argument, but you are arguing with yourself and your own phantoms.

    If I wanted to argue, I would ask where are the blameless white men who are supposed to be protecting their girl children and holding their families together? Maybe at work, or maybe at the Pub? When journalists try to explain these crimes, they say the British people are too scared to say anything for fear of being called “racists.” My God!