0 comment Tuesday, August 19, 2014 | admin
At the blog The West's Darkest Hour, blogger Chechar weighs in on the ongoing discussion of women in ethnonationalism. It's a very interesting read.
He quotes from the discussion at the Counter-Currents blog on the subject of women, and he quotes mostly from a commenter named Karsten, who makes very good points, which I generally agree heartily with. This part in particular:
''Focussing on attracting women (or any minority) is the standard recipe for how a movement kills itself. It�s how traditional conservatism was distorted into the abomination known as "neoconservatism." First, it too asked, "Where are the women?" and became pro-feminist. Then "Where are the Jews?" and became philosemitic. Then "Where are the blacks?" and became "anti-racist," and so forth, until this more "inclusive" conservatism hadnothing conservative about it, and was just another kind of leftism.
It was the Janelle Antases and their equivalents among Jews, blacks, and other minority groups that destroyed the Old Right, because they whined and whined and wanted the Right to change to suit them, and sure enough, it did, until all of its principles were gone.''
This is such an important point. It's what is weakening, and threatening to destroy, any kind of dissident group in our society, from even the mildest dissenters like the Tea Partiers (with their 'diversity' mania, and their fear of being 'racist), to the nationalist political parties in Europe. And now even the harder-core right is succumbing to this desire to 'expand the base' or bring in more warm bodies, or whatever. In the effort to become all things to all people and thus attract more support, and with it more respectability if not power, the ethnonationalist right risks becoming an empty shell.
And the very fact of needing and craving the support of minorities (or indifferent women) is in itself a symptom, a sad indication of how lacking in confidence most Whites are these days. The apparent need for validation by having minorities on board with us, or even speaking for us, is sad and disheartening.
However, the situation between men and women is a different case.
The difference between the male-female divide and those between races and ethnicities is that to state the obvious, men and women need each other. We can have, and did have, our own societies divided along racial/national lines. But men and women cannot form separate societies and survive, although some fanatical feminists believed that total separation of the sexes was the ideal. But that is not a natural or healthy situation.
My only problem with Chechar's post was nothing to do with the ideas he expressed; it was simply that at times, as I read it, I was confused as to where Chechar's comments stopped and the quotes from Counter-Currents began or ended. Otherwise it is a very thought-provoking post, and you may want to follow the link to the discussion from which the quotes come at Counter-Currents.
I do think it's crucial that people on our side accept that we will likely never be a majority; to attract real mass support would necessarily require a loss of our very identity and an assimilation to the prevailing corrupted society around us.
Pandering or accommodating to women (or minorities) is a losing proposition, in the starkest terms.
And I do have to agree with many of those who say that it should, it must, be men who constitute any kind of ethnonationalist movement. Women can act in supporting parts but 'putting a feminine face' on it would compromise it and render it useless.
He quotes from the discussion at the Counter-Currents blog on the subject of women, and he quotes mostly from a commenter named Karsten, who makes very good points, which I generally agree heartily with. This part in particular:
''Focussing on attracting women (or any minority) is the standard recipe for how a movement kills itself. It�s how traditional conservatism was distorted into the abomination known as "neoconservatism." First, it too asked, "Where are the women?" and became pro-feminist. Then "Where are the Jews?" and became philosemitic. Then "Where are the blacks?" and became "anti-racist," and so forth, until this more "inclusive" conservatism hadnothing conservative about it, and was just another kind of leftism.
It was the Janelle Antases and their equivalents among Jews, blacks, and other minority groups that destroyed the Old Right, because they whined and whined and wanted the Right to change to suit them, and sure enough, it did, until all of its principles were gone.''
This is such an important point. It's what is weakening, and threatening to destroy, any kind of dissident group in our society, from even the mildest dissenters like the Tea Partiers (with their 'diversity' mania, and their fear of being 'racist), to the nationalist political parties in Europe. And now even the harder-core right is succumbing to this desire to 'expand the base' or bring in more warm bodies, or whatever. In the effort to become all things to all people and thus attract more support, and with it more respectability if not power, the ethnonationalist right risks becoming an empty shell.
And the very fact of needing and craving the support of minorities (or indifferent women) is in itself a symptom, a sad indication of how lacking in confidence most Whites are these days. The apparent need for validation by having minorities on board with us, or even speaking for us, is sad and disheartening.
However, the situation between men and women is a different case.
The difference between the male-female divide and those between races and ethnicities is that to state the obvious, men and women need each other. We can have, and did have, our own societies divided along racial/national lines. But men and women cannot form separate societies and survive, although some fanatical feminists believed that total separation of the sexes was the ideal. But that is not a natural or healthy situation.
My only problem with Chechar's post was nothing to do with the ideas he expressed; it was simply that at times, as I read it, I was confused as to where Chechar's comments stopped and the quotes from Counter-Currents began or ended. Otherwise it is a very thought-provoking post, and you may want to follow the link to the discussion from which the quotes come at Counter-Currents.
I do think it's crucial that people on our side accept that we will likely never be a majority; to attract real mass support would necessarily require a loss of our very identity and an assimilation to the prevailing corrupted society around us.
Pandering or accommodating to women (or minorities) is a losing proposition, in the starkest terms.
And I do have to agree with many of those who say that it should, it must, be men who constitute any kind of ethnonationalist movement. Women can act in supporting parts but 'putting a feminine face' on it would compromise it and render it useless.
Labels: Ethnonationalism, Ethnopatriotism, Feminism, Inclusiveness, Wn