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.
What This is Not About
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.
Women in the West
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.
Women After the West
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.
Women of the Right
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.
Barriers to Involvement
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.
Some Fallacies and Counter-Arguments
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.
A Way Forward
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?