Based on the feedback to date on Jaenelle Antas's and Matt Parrott's articles, the topic of women in “the movement” is pregnant with interest. I myself found much to agree with—and room for criticism.
I will quickly address a criticism towards Mr. Parrott's article before moving on. I reject his thesis that women have been somehow the silent heroes of our culture by the guileful manner in which they have maintained segregation within society during the tumult and physical dislocation of the last 60-odd years. I'm not going to engage in some kind of tit-for-tat, who-did-what-to-whom argument, in the completely fabricated "War of the Sexes" that has caused so much irreparable harm to our society. The stake should be driven through the heart of this beast—and now. But it needs to be pointed out that much of the social engineering that encouraged “White Flight” was made at the behest and with the wholesale approval of women—whose ideological tendencies are evident enough in any election cycle.
I think a good deal of white flight was actually not—as many would suggest—a pattern of scared Whites running from Blacks. Rather, there was a legitimate “American Dream” that emerged in the 1950's... with the automobile, cheap gas, a booming economy, and all these soldier boys back home. The idea of having a piece of the countryside—a back-yard to call your own—BBQ'ing with the neighbors, etc.—the typical home in the 'burbs. This was all part of the dream. That it allowed one to get away from the “inner city” problems (to be euphemistic) was a convenient accident. Woman's non-confrontational nature and willingness to live an open lie (i.e., explicitly promoting integration—while living segregation) encouraged her to contribute to the development of and make use of proxies for race, etc.
To suggest men were absent is to ignore the realities that a) men were typically making this facade financially possible; b) were often unable to be more overt in their opposition due to their financial vulnerability (e.g., risk of losing a job in corporate America due to association with politically-unacceptable beliefs); and c) were and remain constantly on the defensive—as the policies (often supported explicitly by their own wives, sisters, and mothers) were expressly intended to disenfranchise THEM.
History will reveal that the period stretching from the 1950s until the collapse of Western economies in this decade are basically defined by the unspoken, though real and often frantic, efforts of atomized Whites and White families to preserve their shrinking, economic and cultural inheritance. That individuals did so by trying to move ever upwards on the education/career ladder and that families did so by moving into newer and often abstractly-segregated communities is an historical reality, but no evidence of valor on anyone's part. The fact that brave souls are emerging now is largely because a) the idea of taking out $250K in student loans and studying 12 years in university in order to get a doctorate—so that you can make cappuccinos in Starbucks, and b) the possibility of moving into a suburb two hours away from said Starbucks—and commuting there daily in your SUV—are no longer viable options. But the problems of our wider society as they relate to the sexes are well beyond the scope of this article. The point is to simply not portray acts of duplicity and passive resistance as heroism.
The most significant criticism of both articles is that they talk about a movement that in reality doesn't exist. There is no “movement” in the singular sense. There is instead a relatively loose-knit body of bloggers and political activists (more or less active in various, largely-ineffective, fringe organizations), representing a spectrum of political and ideological belief systems that literally span the considerable gulfs between monarchism/autocracy and libertarian individualism and between global pan-Europeanists/advocates of “whiteness” and ethnonationalists/separatists of a very local order. These incredibly diverse (to use an overused and abused term) parties – who are in reality often fundamentally at odds with one another - are united solely in the fact that their political and ideological convictions lie to the right of the right-most boundary of acceptable political discourse (which itself is effectively left-wing). So to even discuss the absence of women from “the movement” is to discuss an absence of X from some body Y, which itself does not exist.
I do not think this is abnormal or entirely unpredictable. Europeans have always been a rather heterogeneous lot. To expect us to be otherwise today, when we are scattered across the globe and separated from one another by geography, language, and history, is to expect too much.
I also do not think this is a bad thing: We are right now at the “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” point in our shared struggle. We have been essentially in disarray since the end of tragic, fratricidal wars that defined the first half of the last century. And the second half of the century was spent under the cultural and political domination of our enemies. I am of the opinion that this is changing. Indeed, I am a fairly optimistic fellow and I believe the tide is turning. We are in that nebulous period on the field of battle between wholesale retreat and stabilization of the line. Gains are being made here and there. Losses are still occurring. The ultimate outcome rests firmly in doubt. However, the idea that some actual movement (or rather movements, united by a shared “Europeanness”) will emerge is beyond doubt.
So what Jaenelle and Matt refer to as a movement—and criticize in singular terms when discussing the lack of inclusion of women within it—is in reality (and logically so) precisely the kind of thing women are, as a whole, completely uninterested in: political and ideological abstractions in a formative state, with little tangible, physical evidence of existence, much less success.
In this regard, I think it is too early to determine if the movement exists at the exclusion of women. Jaenelle is not a typical woman, and her presence (and the explicit involvement of other women) in the movement is an anomaly. Indeed, my impression when reading Jaenelle's article is that she projects her feelings and concerns onto women as a whole, while at the same time explicitly acknowledging that what the movement is today is not of interest to the typical human female. This does not mean I disagree with her criticism, but I think she (and many others) actually put the cart before the horse (or the result before the action).
Yggdrasil has in conversation made the following point clear enough. And he is not alone—virtually any advice to a man regarding attracting women makes the same point, and what is relevant to the man trying to attract a woman is equally relevant to our nascent, male-dominated movement:
Quit worrying about “the girl.” Work on yourself (or the movement). When you achieve success, the women will be there.
Some people might find it crass or cynical—or a comment in the mercenary nature of the fairer sex—but it is, I think, a fundamental tenant of the relationship between the sexes: our females will be there for us when we have forged something of value and meaning.
More specifically: women as a whole are not interested in a political/ideological cloud of debate and abstractions existing largely within the world of ideas. Women have never historically been part of any kind of ideological or revolutionary movement. How many formative members of the Communist or Fascist parties in any country were women? Upon reflection, 99 white guys—and Jaenelle—is pretty much normal odds. The aberration here is that she's hot...something that probably couldn't be said about Rosa-Luxembourg.
What we need to accomplish—and Jaenelle addresses this at length in her article—is the “normalization” of our movements. They need to become part of a culture...part of a community. Women are social creatures. The pain Jaenelle feels (and I think it is a fair characterization of it) is that her adherence to what she believes to be morally right is actually causing her to be ostracized from that which is of paramount importance to women: human society, friends and family. For many of the males, the existence as physically and emotionally isolated individuals is more bearable (although I do not think it is beneficial). For women, the difficulties arising from it are magnified beyond our ability to comprehend it.
So in summary, we need to a) bring “the movement” into being in tangible, concrete form; b) integrate it within the fabric of our communities; and c) define it in terms of positive outcome and success, instead of in terms of negation and opposition.
Here are some ways we can:
- Take action to create local, physical connections with those of like mind. Get away from the computer and interact with local activist organizations (or form them yourself). There are a lot of points of entry that exist at the interstice of acceptable political discourse: the Tea Party movement and various immigration-restrictionist movements. These are often openly hostile to right-wing “fringe” groups – but frankly, there is a body of shared concerns and as always, the membership of a political body is typically more extreme than official positions of the body.
- Shift the discussion from political, ideological, economic, and historical subjects to questions of culture, art, aesthetic, spirit and emotion, the environment, etc. The greatest flaw of the conservative movement (in the United States especially) is that it became defined almost exclusively in economic terms. I think this was not entirely of their choice: Conservatives “lost” the culture, and eventually, the only morally-acceptable basis of advocating conservative positions was economic. However, the left's grip on culture is weakening. As Richard Spencer mentioned in a telephone call recently; to pretend that advocating leftist ideology is in any way “cutting edge” or risky or rebellious is to live in a fantasy world. The real rebels are on the right. We need to make people aware of this.
The importance of this last point cannot be overstated. The enemy is in control now. They are the mainstream culture. But they still promote their ossified, pathetic, discredited, and disproven pablum as “counter-culture”. We are the real counter-culture. We have the real ideas. Here is where dynamism, interest, debate, liveliness, change, action lie (or where their potential exists to an explosive degree). If the younger generation figures out who the real rebels are, then Hollywood and the vermin pulling the levers behind the curtain will be up shit creek.
A quick comment on cultural integration of the movement. This is easier for some sub-movements than others. For some of the separatist movements, it is a cake-walk—in large part because these movements are predicated on the preservation of a culture...so the celebration, inclusion, and enjoyment of culture and its artifacts are an inherent part of it. I have been fortunate enough to have been invited to attend “right-wing” events twice in France. Frankly, it was remarkably difficult for me to differentiate these right-wing gatherings from any normal, French social activity (so much so that I broached overt political and historical subjects with other attendees with some degree of hesitation). The events were populated by men and women, children and grandparents, dogs and cats, and the highlight of the events were not dry, lengthy speeches given by elder males on arcane subjects—but rather, socializing; the breaking-of-bread together; the celebration and enjoyment of shared culture; singing, drinking, and dancing. In short, everything “normal” in a healthy, human society.
We need this. It's good for us all. And the girls will be there.