Sunday, March 20, 2011

The Art of Strategic Citizenship, Part 4

Below is the first half of the fourth and final installment of Takuan Seiyo’s latest series of essays. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

The Great Wave Off San Francisco
Philippe Teuwen, The Great Wave off San Francisco (2007),
after The Great Wave off Kanagawa (1830) by Katsushika Hokusai

The Art of Strategic Citizenship
Part 4(a) — Exodus

By Takuan Seiyo

Observe and Orient

What would it take to tame the Yin tsunami wave that will smash, upon landfall, the lands of the legume Pods where Reality is optional? All hope abandon ye; it can’t be done. The front of the tidal froth rises to such towering heights that in California, which is America’s decomposing PIG in a worse way than Greece is Europe’s, the legislature has no more pressing tasks to consider than Bill No. 48: “This bill would require instruction in social sciences to also include a study of the role and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and other ethnic and cultural groups, to the development of California and the United States.”

What you do is: you get out. You get in a boat, you steer into the wave before it has broken, you row until you are numb. It’s dangerous, but you have a good chance; it all depends on the soundness of your craft, who else rows with you, how well your oar strokes are matched, and what’s your navigation plan.
Chuck Baldwin, the Baptist minister and erstwhile US presidential candidate of the Constitution Party has recently quit his longtime home and church he’d founded in Florida in order to move to Montana with his extended family. “God has led us,” Baldwin explained, “to the conviction that Montana (along with other Mountain states) is going to be the tip of the spear in the freedom fight.” In his recent column, “Identifying Our Friends”, he argued that "Not all Christians are our friends, and not all non-Christians are our enemies.” Being able to identify our friends, Baldwin added, is “more than half the battle.”

Baldwin’s political agenda would stop the tsunami. He wants to curb government borrowing and to dismantle the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the income tax, and much of the federal government besides. He wants to take down NWO, the global economy and America’s busybody Empire, to withdraw from the UN and to kick that hornets’ nest off American soil. He talks of blocking Mexico’s meddling in US demographics and politics, getting rid of illegal immigrants, devolving power to the states, domestic drilling for oil, gutting the Patriot Act, restoring the Bill of Rights, throttling multiculturalism, homophilia abortion rights and feminocracy, restoring America’s character as a Christian country, and beating back Islam. Alas, there isn’t a 0.01 chance that this agenda could be adopted by any conceivable American government, except the one after Armageddon whose parliamentary sessions would have to start with an appropriate rendition of Psalm 137:1, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.” That is perhaps why Chuck Baldwin has moved to Montana.

The American Leviathan is no friend of the Baldwin kind, and it has an inconceivable crushing power. It is the busiest busybody multiculti meddler in the world, a facilitator of Muslim expansion and a proactive dismantler of the West. Recent Wikileaks disclosed a “Minority Engagement Strategy” of the U.S. Embassy in Paris that might have been conceived by a fantasy Comintern Executive comprising Antonio Gramsci, Grigori Zinoviev and Frantz Fanon.

At home, Leviathan’s main occupation has been to flatter, spoil, bribe and endow the Black minority with funds and unmerited jobs financed by the White and Northeast Asian taxpayers at a catastrophic sacrifice of competence, work ethic, social capital and more productive uses (e.g. public infrastructure) for the enormous mountains of burnt offering dollars[1]. In Loon and Crook-run America (LACRA), insane daily headlines like: “African-American lawmakers blast budget plan as step back for civil rights” hardly raise an eyebrow anymore.

Simultaneously, the rulers have been electing for themselves a new people, imported mainly from the Southern corners of the globe and the left tail of the IQ Bell curve. This scam, in which the Left rulers get new client votes, and the Right rulers stream extra profits to Corporate Crooks through artificially depressed wages, is also underwritten by the supine American taxpayer: in this case, with uncountable billions in new social services outlays. The third effect of population replacement is that it allows Leviathan to gobble up civil liberties and grow into an omnipotent monster[2] under the pretext of protecting the people from unnamed “extremists” who are none other than the Muslims that the ruling Loons themselves have imported for no good reason.

Godzilla social bulldozing has been accompanied by Frankenstein Financing. As if it were a suicidal maniac, the U.S. government currently prints and borrows up to $4 billion per day to cover the difference between its income and its wild spending. It has betrayed the trust of generations of its citizens, pumping into the system designed-to-shrink dollars for which Americans exchange their unshrinkable toil and enterprise. Almost-free money from the Fed has enabled a cabal of Wall Street fraudsters to inflate successive asset balloons that each burst in turn, to devastating effect. Leviathan then printed more paper to bail out the banksters instead of jailing them for 20-to-life at hard labor, and to “stimulate” its own minority client groups. For that, the rulers have saddled the ruled with engineered inflation that may turn to hyperinflation, with sovereign debt that may turn into a sovereign default, and with a moral hazard that has corroded the basic glue of society: trust in its institutions. This is major history material.

The timbers are rotten on the inside too. The combined 2012 deficit of America’s 44 most Loon & Crook — infested states is $112 billion: practically all of that going to Looters in public employees’ unions or in enclaves of culturally enriching minorities. The more lunatic and “diverse” the state, the greater the looting: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey and New York lead the way.

So who is fit to be your oar-mate? 54% of America’s population either works for Leviathan (federal, state and local) or sucks easy money from its teats. Gary Schilling, whose 2007 study pegged this ratio at 52.6%, predicted 60% by 2040. However, with America’s jobs exported to Asia, its diversity cult “strengthening” it with two millions new third-worlder tax eaters per year, 47% of households already relieved of income tax obligations, and the Wall Street-Fed axis bulldozing away the economic foundations, that ratio may one day shoot toward the 70% level of banana republics that have no bananas. Your friends are not there, by definition, and the rioting $100k-a-year bus drivers and teachers in Wisconsin or the cops retiring at 50 with $150k annual pensions in utterly-bankrupt California are just a tiny peek into the syndrome.

From the remaining 40%, you have to subtract all Democrat voters, all neocons, all Muslims, 95% of the Black and Brown minorities that even at society’s apex identify with their tribes’ scowling-looting agendas, 85% of Jews, Northeastern Asians and young adults who support these agendas and Leviathan’s propulsion thereof, and 70% of registered Republicans. Deduct further 90% of lawyers, academics, teachers and other professions mired in leftist multiculti ideology. Subtract furthermore all American multinational corporations — an enormous power onto itself — and 90% of their U.S. employees, for that crucial sector has totally decoupled its allegiance from its country of origin. The potential pool of crew mates narrows down to less than 10%: maybe 25 million[3].

The rainbow Looter coalition destroying the United States from within can do so only because of the patronage, goading and sponsorship by powerful groups of Loon & Crook Whites. The Crooks require no further differentiation, for whether they are big business/ bankster entities, pols and executive branch pashas, or extortionist public employees unions — they destroy out of greed for money, or for power and money. But the Loons divide into two fundamentally different categories: Enemies and Pods.

Enemy Loons — people like Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, this Black activist who wants to kill you, and this White Loon (check the “Social Justice” store) aflame with indignation at your racism — are dangerous fanatics convinced that Whites, America, European-origin peoples, capitalism etc. are irredeemably evil and must be destroyed.

A salient example of open warfare on the United States and its founding ideas and population is in the Cloward-Piven team of radical Columbia University professors. Their eponymous strategy seeks to force socialist political change through an orchestrated crisis. The original idea was to recruit new applicants for welfare until the fiscal system is flooded and bankrupts the governing entity. The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by Black militant George Alvin Wiley, used Cloward-Piven to bankrupt New York City in 1975. But that was just the beginning.

In another application, the “minorities’” blackmail outfit ACORN and its linked subversive orgs like Voting Rights Movement have sought to swamp America’s poorly managed electoral system through the Motor-Voter Bill, invalid or otherwise fraudulent voter registration drives, frivolous lawsuits, false charges of “racist voter disenfranchisement” and intimidation of election officials and of White voters. With the 2008 presidential election, Cloward-Piven via ACORN finally broke the U.S. electoral system in order that a major Motor Voter Law activist and champion of the manufactured crisis — one B. Hussein Obama — get elected.

A third and much under-reported deployment of Cloward-Piven was in the campaign of rampage and intimidation that ACORN waged against banks to push them into the disaster of subprime lending, with major assist from Uncle Sam’s “racism”-sniffing legal hounds. This sabotage campaign is probably among the top five causes of the falling of the world’s financial dominoes[4].

The fourth Cloward-Piven plague was laid out by Bertha Lewis, chief executive officer of ACORN, in her March 25, 2010 speech before the Young Democratic Socialists conference.

“Immigration is the next big battle,” Lewis said, “Immigration, immigration, immigration. And the reason this is so important is, you know: (whispering) we’re getting ready to be a majority minority country [snip]. And how that’s going to change our psyche and our economics, this is why folks are grabbing so hard to change the economic paradigm. We gettin’ ready to have a majority country of people of color [snip]. The face of immigration needs to be a lot blacker than it is. [snip] So Young Democratic Socialists, join this immigration war [snip]. Because that will be the battle for our democracy. That will be the battle for the kind of government that we have. That will be an economic battle of epic proportions. Immigration, self-sufficiency, and the people united.”

The population that this war is being waged against is either kneeling in adoring supplication before its destroyers, or lying on the sofa with Bud, Doritos and the TV remote. The deselected rightful owners of America accept docilely announcements of their own doom, e.g. Texas demographer: “It's basically over for Anglos” even though this spells disasters for them, their children, their states (e.g. in Texas, just in education here and here), and their country. It is therefore a tragedy that the tiny group that has enough courage and anger to voice open resistance is composed mainly of Nazis[5] who suffer from terrible mind afflictions like psychotic Jew hatred, endemic prevarication of history, pitifully tautological White Supremacism, and a base, hateful manner of articulation replete with unnecessary lies, slander and insults. Although the fellow-traveling New Right is more genteel and intellectual in its approach, it too integrates a similarly distorted vision and debases it further by featuring Nazi contributors on its websites.

It is neither truthful nor moral nor wise to adopt such common denominators with Adolf-the-housepainter. A strong, unified White resistance to the remotely-controlled demolition derby cannot be forged by a fellowship of men that trades in coins of Nazi pathology and is hobbled by its refusal to discern and avoid a repeat of Whites’ own historical faults and errors[6] for which current generations are reaping an undeserved bitter harvest.

The psychotic antisemitism of the White Nazis-Without-Socialism, the dingbat Christian Identity Jew-wannabe Anglos, the White Nationalists and the more polished and intellectual New Right is particularly unfortunate because some credible entity does have to make the case against American Jewry’s 100 years of West-dissolving activism on behalf of mad egalitarian ideas and hostile non-White minorities. But that case can be made effectively only by a philosemitic — therefore all the more chagrined — party greatly appreciative of the major contributions that the Jewish people have made to America and to Western civilization.

The positives are many: In Part 2 we glanced at Austria, but every letter of the alphabet has copious similar examples. If having written the Bible were the sole entry on the credit side of the ledger, that alone would have sufficed. Still, no great effort is required to see the negatives. Just to follow Barack H. Obama’s career at Harvard, Chicago and Washington DC is to perceive a collective Jewish creation (Golem, for the knowing) that Freedomians cannot possibly appreciate. To come upon a news item like “German Communist leader demands an end to ‘white nations’” or “Democrat Compares Republicans to Nazis” or a book title like How to Change the World (While Disregarding the Unintended Consequences is my subtitle), is to face a 50%+ probability that it’s a Jewish voice behind the title, even though that ethny constitutes hardly 1% of the West’s population.

But even as Jews are disproportionately represented among the top theoreticians and activists of Enemy Loons[7], it’s clear to most anyone who knows them well that they are overwhelmingly Pods, not Enemies, and largely identical in outlook to gentile Pods[8]. Podism, the mental furniture of the Equalitans, is the Yin creed par excellence, hence overweighed with females, practicing Christians, Jews, the young, idealistic and gullible. This is even more salient if one accounts for intervening variables such as university education and urban domicile.

The Pod Loons are mostly well meaning and confused humanitarians. Like French puff pastry horns stuffed with cloying cream custard, they are filled with the sweet goo of peace and justice, moral “progress,” equality, caring, charity and tolerance. There are at least 100 million of them in the United States, and it’s a terrible strategic mistake to treat them as though they were Enemy Loons. Talking of them or to them in the base Nazi language of genocidal wholesale hatred creates enemies of potential allies and antagonizes a substantial fringe of fence-sitting Whites who vaguely see what’s going on but will never pour that into Nazi-tainted channels of action.

It’s just as great an error to treat Enemy Loons as if they were misguided Pod Loons. That’s the perennial error of the Republican Eunuch Party. Further out on the right wing, treating Enemy Loonism as a predominantly Jewish syndrome is a harmful evasion, minimizing the danger by omitting the Father Pflegers, Passionate, Progressive Presbyterians, the evil indigenous White disembowellers of Great Britain and Eurabia, the self-castrated 21st century Vikings, and so on.

So much for the Observation and Orientation stage of the OODA loop. Now we can bring to bear a maxim from the foes’ premier tactician, Saul Alinsky: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”
The targets are all the racial, ethnic, gender, ideology, status and occupation groups iterated here, and the institutions they dominate jointly or severally. That is Sun-Tzu’s 1000-ft slope stacked against the Freedomian minority and the founding ideas of America. Tactics that differentiate between the distinct sediments can peel them off one by one and flip them to reverse the angle of the slope. The one common principle is that it’s best to follow the way of combat at its highest artistic level: the sword of no sword. And that implies wrenching Cloward-Piven from the foe and turning it around.

General Kutuzov, meet John Galt

If the Equalitans have their Cloward-Piven, Freedomians have their Kutuzov-Galt; they just haven’t deployed it. By ceasing to labor and support with taxes the Loons, Crooks and their client looters, they could invoke John Galt of Atlas Shrugged. By removing themselves physically from Loon and Crook territory, they could resurrect Mikhail Kutuzov. It was General Kutuzov who, by retreating from Moscow, left it to the Russian Winter to fight Napoleon’s army.

Behold major cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco. Citadels of White and Black Crooks, preaching platforms of the most hateful Loons, harbors of armies of minority Looters, shelters of a million+ strong occupying army of criminal minorities’ gangs, they are sustained by the tax base afforded by legions of highly-paid white collar White Pods, and the tax base and services provided by the instinctively conservative White middle class.

Small business owners, non-union blue collar workers, cops, firefighters and soldiers are the main occupational strata of the Fredomian faction. If the great majority of them pulled out of the bluest of the blue cities and resettled, like Chuck Baldwin, to a majority-White, conservative part of the country, they would precipitate a reverse Cloward-Piven in the places they abandoned, and plant a kernel of salutary self-government and renaissance in the places they have moved to[9].

Consider who the Equalitan Loons are and where they live. Suppose no White cops, firefighters and National Guardsmen are left to shield Jewish Loons in New York and Chicago or Lutheran Loons in Minneapolis and Milwaukee from the racial realities of violent crime, anarchy and terrorist activity. What if all the male cops and firefighters quit San Francisco, and left only their female, trans-sexual and “affirmatively” hired colleagues to stand in the breach against the M-13, the Muslim jihad material and other self-wrought cancers of the model Loon City. How about all Freedomians leaving Northern Virginia for Southside Virginia, or small business owners and tradesmen in a Looter state like New Jersey moving to a freedom-friendly, low-tax state like Wyoming?

Almost instantly, tax receipts plummet, civil order breaks down and major Loon groups, particularly Jews and females, become major victims of the demographics and policies they have championed: victims of their own stupidity. Furthermore, this experience could turn some millions of Pod Loons into Saul-turned-Paul Freedomians. And a persecuted faction deprived of all political power can use every genuine Freedomian it can recruit.

The Freedomians’ strategic task is therefore to remove themselves from their positions as the shock-absorbing layer between the Loons and Reality. This cannot happen neatly; for instance police and firefighters who would be among the most effective in this scenario will not abandon their $100,000+ sinecures in the big cities for an uncertain future elsewhere. Other people won’t uproot themselves because of family ties, lack of income sources elsewhere, age and so on. But each of these items can be addressed and alleviated to some extent; the greater the number of people who participate in the exodus, the greater the impact will be. This is the Decide and Act of the OODA Loop; everything else is theory.

Reality-based community

Freedomians live dispersed as a persecuted minority among the Pods and the Looters. They are governed and fleeced by the Loon and Crook coalition. They have to hide their beliefs at the workplace. Their children are surrounded by hostile mates and teachers at school. Their votes are so diluted, they don’t count. If they work for a living, they have to keep their convictions sub rosa, like Anabaptists in the Holy Roman Empire or Jews under the Iberian Inquisition. That is so even if they live in a “Red” Republican state, for even there resistance to Third World immigration may mean only illegal immigration, and resistance to jihad may mean only “shariah” or “Islamists” but never stopping Muslim immigration cold. The racial dimensions of America’s crisis are taboo, criticizing Empire equals “not supporting our troops,” and mentioning the decadence of 21st century American corporate capitalism will only get you ejected from the country club.

Self-preservation strategy for Freedomians requires that the destinations of a Kutuzov-Galt exodus afford maximum protection from the Looters, Loons and Crooks infesting through the core both Leviathan and state governments. Migration to the Mountain Northwest and the Dakotas would effectively create a 90%+ White region with few Blacks and Jews, and a Hispanic minority that would prefer to move elsewhere. That this per se generates social capital and prosperity, Reality reflects in the fiscal metrics: only five of 50 states have had consistent budget surpluses since 2009: West Virginia (93.3% W), North Dakota (89.1% W), Montana (87.6% W), Wyoming (86.2% W), and Alaska[10].

The contiguous states with White DNA and budget surpluses, i.e. North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming are prime destinations for a Freedomian exodus. North Dakota is booming, with America’s lowest unemployment rate and its largest city, Fargo, having grown by 15,000 to its current population of 106,000. Should enough Freedomians be found willing to pull up stakes and seek manifest destiny in the West, a more ambitious drive toward the Pacific Coast could be undertaken, first with Idaho (84.5% W), then Oregon (79.6% W) and eventually perhaps Washington (74.6% W) too. Thus a strategically and economically viable, Euro-American Freedomia could be reborn one day, after a hiatus of 100 years (11).

In a country that was polyracial at its founding, it’s ideological separation rather than racial apartheid that ought to be Freedomians’ main goal. “Diversity” is like Tabasco — add a ¼ spoonful to your grits and you have a more lively and interesting dish. But slosh in indiscriminately half a cup of the hot sauce, and you are fit for the morgue. Left to its own devices, the free market rewards communities that practice wise discrimination by accepting a limited number of creative, useful and compatible Mercurian minority individuals. It punishes inbred societies that reject all outside blood and influence. The disaster comes when a toxic ruling elite imposes social engineering through its coercive powers.

If Ludwig von Mises or Thomas Sowell were to knock (hypothetically) on the door, Whites’ current soi disant saviors see a Jew and a Negro. But genuine Freedomians would see in the one an officer (Austro-Hungarian Army), gentleman and founder of Reality (i.e. “Austrian”) Economics, and in the other an erudite economist and polemicist of freedom and U.S. Marine firearms instructor. On the other hand, statistical probability implies a greater likelihood of Progressive members in the Mises or Sowell families than in the Baldwin household. That too can be addressed with prudence and justice, as long as soul-sick Nazi branches are pruned from the Freedomian tree.

Freedomians nevertheless must live and die for the notion that self determination as a White, Eurocentric community, and suitable discrimination with regard to the demographic and cultural ingredients that such a polity requires are keys to group survival, just as the inverse is the key to America’s decomposition. Reverend Jeremiah Wright whined in one of his jeremiads: “White folk done took this country. You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it.” “Conservative” commentators described Wright’s statement as “racist,” which only underlines how clueless they are and how gratuitously wrong Wright was.

Racial minorities or even ethnic ones like Jews and White Latinos are indeed in the home of the “white folk” of Anglo-Saxon-German-Celtic provenance. If only the white folk “done took” the country and let the latter-day arrivals and the congenital malcontents know it in no uncertain terms. For the record, the good reverend made his speech at the Chicago Theological Seminary — as deep a cesspool of white folk masochist lunatics as there is.

There is no “white folk” in America; there are the mainly White Freedomians; different varieties of mainly White Loons; Crooks who come from all racial groups; and Looters who are mainly NAMs, i.e. non-Asian minorities. And yes, except for those imported by the Loon & Crook Club in the last 40 years as an act of sabotage, all are American too, and have a claim on the country. But not my country.

In a country in which a sane person of European stock can live, Rap is not music and Rap music awards are not celebrated in this fashion. A bad haircut day does not call for reaching for Figaro’s scissors, and when the hamburger don’t taste no good, a fellow citizen does not complain in this or this manner. In my country, this is a barbarian way of slaughtering animals, and this is not an acceptable way of eating fish. And I haven’t touched yet on the bigger topics of serious crime, major tax funds looting, fifth-column Muslim jihad recruiting, or Chinese espionage by “Americans.”

Needless to say, all such cogitations are anathema to Leviathan and its Equalitan majority supporters. The only way to withstand the enormous power of this combine is by community organizing. But before one opens Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals or calls President Obama for expert guidance, one must realize that Freedomians don’t have a community; there is nothing to organize.

When a Freedomian is being arrested for disrespect to a Muslim custom or failure to converse in Spanish, there won’t be a thousand mothers and children to stand between the suspect and the arresting cops. When a Freedomian is tried for racial or fiscal heresy, there is no possibility to mobilize twenty thousand neighbors to demonstrate in front of the courthouse. He will be tried, perhaps Nifonged in a Body Snatcher court whose officers will have had the contents of their brains pumped out and replaced long ago at one of America’s 200 Gramscian Law Schools. Moreover, Freedomians have no recourse to the Grand Federal Vizier, Eric Holder, for he works only for his people.

Community is not reading or writing or voting or holding placards once a year at the Mall. Community is living in the same neighborhood, bumping into each other at the local grocery, hanging out in the same coffeehouses, sharing duties on citizens’ security patrol and volunteer firefighting duty, deciding together the local school’s curriculum and the program slate at the local cable TV system. Community is bodies, linked in the tightest phalanx, where each man and woman stands for the life and destiny of the whole. Especially so when a persecuted minority seeks to leave the corrupted, maddened mother society in order to build a New Jerusalem on new territory. Secular though it may be, the situation is comparable to what drove the Pilgrims or Anabaptists out of Europe and how they became communities already in preparing their leave for the New World.

It’s not merely the relatively common matter of ethnic separation, such as has taken place, through various modalities, between the Czechs and the Slovaks, Serbs and Croats, Hutu and Tutsi, Flemings and Walloons, Russians and Uzbeks. It’s more like the separation that the American Revolutionaries sought from the British Crown, or the one that divided Germany or Korea into two countries. Your shipmates must be able to stop, repulse and replace within the territory of their settlement all the agents of America’s self-destruction: the putrid pop culture and the youth/ stupidity cult, ceaseless “celebration” of sexual and cultural baseness, predatory whore values across all ranges of society, crazed consumption on credit by a zombie population driven by manipulative messages of corporate peddlers, hard crime and soft punishment, open borders, rule of the incompetent, evil squid on Wall Street in cahoots with an omnivorous octopus in Washington, brainwashed meekness and resignation of Whites, global economy sham, Wilsonian world-cop madness, ugly shoddiness of bad workmanship and planned obsolescence, melting currency, vanishing real-jobs base, lousy public education and much more. It must resolve to undo all the damage that Body Snatchers have wrought over the last 100 years, while having the wisdom to keep such social norms and institutions that have changed America and Western society for the better.

Rolling back Roe v. Wade ought not to mean that back alley wire hanger abortions were better. Total rejection of Black-run America does not imply that slavery or Jim Crow were right. It does imply that histrionic White group self-termination in atonement for long-ago wrongs is psychotic masochism willfully ignoring the barbarity of nonwhites in contemporaneous periods, their continuing racism, and the enormous sacrifices in lives, treasure, cultural and social capital — by now to the point of forfeiting the future itself — that Whites have borne for the sake of that atonement. Criticizing and shunning Jewish progressive activism hardly calls for a single common thread with Alfred Rosenberg or David Duke. Rejecting socialism does not equal giving a free pass to Ponzi financial capitalism.

The job required is nothing less than constructing a new operating system, a Doors 7, for the Western mind and soul. White DNA, patriotism or redneck credentials are not enough, by far. To build such a community takes wisdom, knowledge and fine discernment. People of serious intellectual capital and personal accomplishment are required. Just the kind of people as abound among the urban Loons, but with the brain coils wound in the opposite direction. To start, there has to be at least one physical agora, one city, where relevant discussions may be carried out by personal interaction of many Freedomians, just as Philadelphia was such a place in the 1770s.

(The conclusion will be posted here next week.)


1. The article “Fareed Zakaria’s Mistake: Only Black Run America can explain the Rise of the Rest” in Paul Kersey’s blog Stuff Black People Don’t Like (SPBDL) expands on one of the related issues we cannot discuss here.
2. Since our look at the TSA was posted in Part 1 of this essay in December 2010, it transpired that the TSA has been shopping around for mobile body-scanners that would peer undetected under peoples’ clothes anywhere, anytime, at Leviathan’s sole discretion.
3. These percentages are the author’s educated guesses based on results of elections, public opinion polls, tabulating newspaper stories over several decades, readings and personal experience. No factual validity ought to be attached to the iterated percentage figures. Nevertheless, whether it’s really 77% rather than 80% of this, or 97% rather than 95% of that, the larger truths conveyed by these ratios are indisputable.
4. See S. Sailer’s writings on the “Diversity Recession”, and this author’s venture into the slippery area where subprime crosses with “racism.”.
5. The author was born in a dead Gestapo officer’s apartment in an ex-German city and grew up surrounded by German-speaking people all of whom, including his parents, had personally known and suffered at the hands of Nazis and their sympathizers. He needs no instruction as to what the Na and the Zi stand for, and considers the shunting off of Nazi-related discussions onto Socialist tracks a misleading diversion. The main distinctive features of Nazism were North European supremacism, a cobbling together of a concomitant racial science and mythology, and an obsessive hatred of Jews. All these traits are shared by Neo-Nazis, Crypto-Nazis, Non-socialist Nazis, Christian Identity believers, White Supremacists, KKK and skinheads. Since for all these groups a Jew is a Jew is a Jew and a Negro is a Negro is a Negro, they deserve no distinction beyond a Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi. The American New Right treads in the same tracks but more softly, so I consider it just a fellow traveler.
6. A poignant display of the Nazi mind affliction is in this neo-Nazi website’s comparison of the kitschy but gemütlichkeit paintings by Adolf Hitler, and the revolting crap by Hermann Nitsch that now passes for high art in Austria. “Who’s [sic] works do you want your children to see? Nitsch’s ‘arts’ [sic] or Hitlers [sic] ‘ugly scribbles’,” ask the superior Aryan geniuses, with not a clue that without Hitler (see that blond Baby Jesus) there would have been no Nitsch.
7. Even middle-of-the-road Jews seem to be irrational about these things. Here, Jeffrey Goldberg blames Glenn Beck because eight of the nine destroyers Beck mentioned in a program are Jewish. Seems to me, Goldberg is blaming the wrong side.
8. This is an unsubstantiated assertion, but pre-loaded with such a quantity of data — both from history and from the author’s personal research and observations — that it merits a book onto itself and is therefore beyond our scope here. The curious reader may surf onto any three random websites of American synagogues and another three of mainstream Protestant churches, examine Catholic initiatives like this one, and see for herself whether there is a whit of difference in the social activism demeanor. The term “Pod” refers to the giant pre-programmed legume pods that people morph into in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.
9. This treatment discusses only domestic U.S. options. While emigration appears to be the ultimate cure, it is hardly so for reasons we have no space to discuss here and is not feasible for the great majority of Americans anyway. Likewise, we cannot discuss here the specifics of the European situation, where the pathologies are largely the same but solutions like those proposed here may not fully apply.
10. All the bracketed percentages are “White Non-Hispanics” as per 2009 US Census Bureau data. Alaska is a special case because although Whites are only 65.2%, the indigenous population constitutes 15.2%. The minorities that break the taxpayer’s back in the Lower 49 constitute only 11.3%; moreover, given the remote harshness of the territory, they are likely to be the self-selected ones, motivated to work hard and move up on the social ladder. Jews are a paradoxical inclusion in this roster. Jewish presence is a sure sign of economic contribution, self sufficiently and low drag on the public finances. On the other hand, Jewish sentiments and activism ensure that demographic and fiscal policies be enacted that destroy the common weal. State budget comps for 2009-2010 are here, and for 2011-2012 here.
11. By 1913, the United States was still a Euro-American country, but with progressive income tax and the Fed having just been established, and Woodrow Wilson about to heap even greater calamities onto its people, it was no longer a free one.

Previous posts by Takuan Seiyo:

2008 Oct 14 The Real Mark-to-Market
  Dec 1 You Say Mumbai, I Say Bombay
2009 Apr 8 The Deadly Jive of Jiverly Diversity
  Jun 2 The American Press: The Unbearable Lightness of Treason
    12 Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald
  Jul 31 Sons of Onan
  Sep 2 Be the Change
  Dec 15 F Street
2010 Apr 25 Vast Canyon of Gas and Dust, Inshallah
  Jul 7 Vast Canyon of Gas and Dust — Progressive Progress Report
  Dec 12 The Art of Strategic Citizenship, Part 1
2011 Jan 7 The Art of Strategic Citizenship, Part 2
    31 The Art of Strategic Citizenship, Part 3


Professor L said...

Well, this is certainly interesting, coming in at the same time as the Shadow Knows series.

I might also venture a very European idea which may not be particularly popular, but which may also find itself particularly effective to get this Kutuzov-Galt effect - have one person build the village (the manor lord, as it were), and then offer incentives to the correct people to move there. This Daily Mail article is pretty much what I'm thinking about.

Zenster said...

Simultaneously, the rulers have been electing for themselves a new people, imported mainly from the Southern corners of the globe and the left tail of the IQ Bell curve. This scam, in which the Left rulers get new client votes, and the Right rulers stream extra profits to Corporate Crooks through artificially depressed wages, is also underwritten by the supine American taxpayer: in this case, with uncountable billions in new social services outlays.

One could not hope for a more tidy summation of how the Z Visa came about along with why Democrats are building mendicant voter plantations while Republicans are busy strangling America's economic profile into the hourglass shape it is with the entire $50K to $100K middle class income level necking down even as the minimum wage base and billionaire end cap continue to expand.

Another triumph, Taksan. Your screed inspires pages of comments. This is a superb consolidation of your "Meccania to Atlantis" series which I still hope to see continued.

Charles Martel said...

I'm very glad to see the earthquake/tsunami left you well and as feisty as ever.

Thanks for this fantastic series.

Haywire Dude said...

I'm not entirely comfortable with the white/Freedomia ideal. A growing percentage of a lot of races are mixing. What is an acceptable mix of Anglo/Germanic/Celtic or whatever?

There are righteous people of all races and philosophies. It is systems of thought and practice that can be evil. No one race or set of racial characteristics represent good or evil. Human nature is the same in all groups. It's a profound mistake to think otherwise.

Charles Martel said...

Dr. Michael, you did read the article, correct? If so, you should be quite happy with your 90+ percent crew mates.

Your obtuse distillation of TS's article does him (and quite frankly yourself) a disservice.

john in cheshire said...

Charles Martell - I fully agree with your comments.
I suggest that the first obligation of everyone is to protect their own gene pool. If that were done, most of what is being proposed would fall into place. Wouldn't it?

Zenster said...

Dr. Michael: I'm not entirely comfortable with the white/Freedomia ideal. A growing percentage of a lot of races are mixing.

Oh, really? Do you have any statistics or cites with URL links to back that up? Or was that just some random rectal fetch?

To be sure "a lot of races are mixing" here in America and Europe (or other largely White areas), but where else is this phenomenon happening to any substantial degree?

China? No. India? No. Africa? No. The Middle East? No. Russia? No. Japan? No.

So where, exactly, is it that all of this wonderful race mixing is happening?

Why, of course, almost exclusively in White cultures where we have spent more than a century attempting to bring about a truly "colorblind" frame of mind.

The trouble is, nobody else seems interested in this noble experiment save with respect to how they can cash in on it and set up their own undiluted genetic households on our shores while bleeding us … er, well … white.

Again, please be sure to share with the studio audience and all the folks at home just exactly which utopian place it is where all these "races are mixing" in such a jovial manner. I'm confident that more than a few of us would love to find out.

Takuan Seiyo said...

Good, evil and genes
@Dr Michael

Nothing I have written about race-related issues here or elsewhere assigns good or evil to any one race. Moreover, since I am half Jewish and know how my race-focused polemical antagonists feel about such things, I refer to myself as “bi-racial” [1st class mischling is the “scientific” term] and feel entirely comfortable with that. Furthermore, my wife is Japanese and I am, in a way, an honorary Japanese, hence there are three races behind what comes out of my pen. It would behoove you therefore to backtrack on your chain of thought and rework it.

The evil I do impute is to a ruling caste that deliberately hobbles the constituting population of any country, re-engineers or replaces it. I am happy with restrictions on racial aliens that exist in Japan, even though they apply to me. Races do have different traits. The post-Katrina New-Orleans scenario would have been inconceivable in Japan, and the way the Japanese conduct themselves, they way they work, what they create and so are inseparable from their genes and their bred-in-the-bone culture.

You cannot have Japanese behavior or culture, or the kind of industry Japan has, if you replace 50% of the population of Japan with Thais, Croats and Bolivians. Why would you think that it’s in any way different in America? For how long do you think providence can maintain those special provisions for fools, drunkards and America?

All this is the basic stuff or Reality that every 10-yr old used to know. Reality has not changed. It’s the mind infrastructure of most people in the Western part of the Western world (and not so East of Berlin) that has been replaced, so now they are no longer able to apprehend Reality. I do not believe there can be any doubt as to which side in this dissonance will come up upper hand.

Dymphna said...

@ LAW Wells--

The Daily Mail claims that page doesn't exist. Can you give us some key words for a search string?


@ Zenster--

"Race-mixing" isn't a problem if those doing the mixing have a firm grip on Western values, per Thomas Sowell, et al.

I have a younger member of my extended family whose genes are Black/Asian. He's adopted and his mother said to me once, "I look at him and am so relieved that he is free of our crazy Celtic genes. He won't have to suffer". She ignores the fact that her own gene pool contains large amounts of Eastern European blood; it ain't all Celtic. And her adoptive son is only partly black: I would hazard a guess that his black heritage is also mixed with a good amount of Celtic blood, but I wouldn't want to scare his mother. The son's VALUES are pro-West. He's a police officer now and would make a fine candidate for Freedomonia.

What is being described is the remnants of a millenia-old culture which cherishes liberty, the individual, and the rule of law. That doesn't take color, it takes commitment to a particular world-view that has been under attack for generations now.

[And that color thing is so pervasive. I just finished reading a book on/by the last remaining eunuch from the old imperial dynasty in China. Notably, when describing people, he attends to their color. The lighter the skin, the better, in that old man's estimate.

That is also the common, long-standing pecking order in black America. If you're light, you're right -- to coin a phrase.]

Look at Ben Carson to grasp how crucial it is to get high-risk kids to buy into the Western values paradigm.

His barely literate mother did it by turning off the TV and MAKING her boys read two books every week and write reports on them. A single mom with a moral compass that never deviated from true north, no matter the indignities heaped on her as a domestic worker. And in the 1960s, no less. She reined in a hot-headed latchkey kid who was going down the tubes because of his anger and the taunting of his white schoolmates who told him he was "the dumbest".

Defying the statistics, Carson made it big time with his fine neurosurgical skills. Now he helps other kids do the same. His scholarships are for the hard sciences and for technology, not for athletic prowess:

The ultimate goal of Dr. Carson, "is to have a Carson scholar in every school in the United States."

Dymphna said...


That should have read Freedomia, not Freedomonia.

The latter does sound a bit like a new element for the Periodic Table, though...

Zenster said...

Dymphna: "Race-mixing" isn't a problem if those doing the mixing have a firm grip on Western values, per Thomas Sowell, et al.

Where did I say that race mixing was a "problem"?

Race mixing is not, in and of itself, a "problem". I have had several inter-racial relationships myself. However, it becomes a "problem" if one one race is expected to bear the brunt of it while most others do not participate to anywhere near an equal extent.

That is my principal protest. Why should White culture be expected to embrace and mingle with all other races even as those same other races routinely exhibit the worst sort of xenophobia and racism? If there were total reciprocity — something that is lacking in a number of vitally important modern issues (e.g., Islam) — then race mixing would pose no greater or lesser threat to any culture around the world.

However, there most certainly is not the least sort of reciprocity and that begins to make it a serious problem. There is no finer example than xenophobic, racist Islam for a primer on why one-directional race mixing can be a form of cultural or genetic suicide.

Takuan Seiyo said...


The Baron can embellish this with the right formulas, my calculus being somewhat rusty, but to comprehend the logic of any discussion of race, or any Gaussian phenomenon for that matter, it’s essential that people have a fundamental grasp of the basic math of standard distribution. Unhappily, very few do.

If I’d say that the Chinese are a short people, would that be a racist statement? Would the fact –and it is a fact – that two of the world’s five tallest people are Chinese, and the tallest NBA player is Chinese, disprove the statement that the Chinese are a short people? Well, there is Reality to tell you. You can fly to China, walk on a crowded street in any city, and see for yourself. I have; of course there are objective statistics too.

Similarly, adducing cases of brilliant Black brain surgeons, or Black scholars of Latin, does not disprove statistical quantifiers of the mean physical, cultural and cognitive traits of Blacks and their variance allowed by standard deviation. And that goes for every other race, culture, gender etc. We are not equal as individuals, and we are not equal as groups, left-liberals’ dogma notwithstanding. And those group differences are highly meaningful, allowing that outlying individuals may transcend them.

Which does not mean that if there are such group differences, one group is “better” than another. Better for what purpose? Are we talking basketball or brain surgery? Oral expression or written expression? There are two conclusions to this train of thought:

1. A nation whose racial and ethnic composition is being altered can no longer remain the same nation. Whether it’s “good” or “bad” depends on one's point of view. My point of view is that flooding America or Europe with nonwhites is bad. Progressives think it’s good.

2. With respect to a nation that’s indigenously polyracial, such as the Anglo diaspora has been from the beginning, instead of fretting and lying about group differences it’s best to forget them and let each individual reach her maximum potential, whatever it be. The evil happens when the rulers look at the results of a free market meritocracy with a racial bean-counting lens and start re-engineering them. Overall competence then plummets, as it has in America.

Except in team sports. How come the DoJ hasn’t sued on behalf of a group of Jews and Armenians with respect to the blatant discrimination against them by the NBA?

jeppo said...

TS wrote: "Migration to the Mountain Northwest and the Dakotas would effectively create a 90%+ White region with few Blacks and Jews, and a Hispanic minority that would prefer to move elsewhere. That this per se generates social capital and prosperity, Reality reflects in the fiscal metrics: only five of 50 states have had consistent budget surpluses since 2009: West Virginia (93.3% W), North Dakota (89.1% W), Montana (87.6% W), Wyoming (86.2% W), and Alaska[10]."

Those five states are all part of 34 state northern and middle America (NMA), as opposed to 16 state southern tier America (STA), discussed earlier in this series.

Check out this table showing voting patterns by state in 2008 and 2010. The 7 most Republican states in 2010 (WY UT AK KS MT NE SD) were all in NMA. Of the 15 states that shifted their votes from the Democrats to the Republicans by more than 10% from 2008 to 2010, 14 of them (MA VT RI IL OH ME WI MO AR IN NH SD MT WY) were in NMA. Hawaii was the only exception.

TS: "The contiguous states with White DNA and budget surpluses, i.e. North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming are prime destinations for a Freedomian exodus. North Dakota is booming, with America’s lowest unemployment rate and its largest city, Fargo, having grown by 15,000 to its current population of 106,000. Should enough Freedomians be found willing to pull up stakes and seek manifest destiny in the West, a more ambitious drive toward the Pacific Coast could be undertaken, first with Idaho (84.5% W), then Oregon (79.6% W) and eventually perhaps Washington (74.6% W) too. Thus a strategically and economically viable, Euro-American Freedomia could be reborn one day, after a hiatus of 100 years (11)."

Of the 12 states with unemployment rates under 7%, 10 of them (KS IA MN NE NH ND OK SD VT WY) were in NMA, 2 of them (HI VA) in STA.

From a demographic perspective, there are 30 states that are more than 70% non-Hispanic white, all of them in NMA (the exceptions are AK IL NJ NY).

So all or part of NMA could be used for the rebirth of a Euro-American Freedomia. Takuan Seiyo has proposed a core area of the Mountain Northwest and the Dakotas, eventually expanding to the Pacific. Maybe this should be expanded to include 11 Northwestern states (AK WA OR ID MT WY ND SD NE MN IA) plus the four provinces and three territories of Western Canada. In other words the northwestern quarter of the North American continent, an area about as large as the entire US is today.

This northwest quarter, with a population of about 42 million, is about 80% white. The major minorities are Asians and aboriginals, not blacks and Hispanics. Jews and Muslims are relatively insignificant here. This area has a per-capita resource base at least as great as anywhere on earth, especially oil, gas and minerals. Future prosperity would seem to be assured for the northwest quarter, whatever happens to the rest of the continent.

So could this region ever become an independent state? Absolutely. If Quebec separates from Canada, the rest of the country will probably eventually divide into at least three other nations. One of these would be Western Canada, which would definitely be interested in expanding to Alaska and possibly the rest of the northwestern US. If there is a sufficient contingent of disgruntled white conservatives already in place in the northwest, fed up with the Mexifornication of much of the rest of the country, they might elect to join an independent Western Canada in an English-speaking and at least implicitly white Northwest Volkstaat.

Takuan Seiyo said...


Thank you for your contribution. It’s evident you’ve looked into the geographic issue in depth– and that’s precisely my point. You and I and many others should hash it out for days and weeks in a tavern, or taking walks along the river. That’s why it’s important to start from one state, nay, one city. I’ll explain more in 4 (b) why a city. So help me out in figuring out not only the single state but the single city in that state. From there, things may move outward, including first that entire state and then the other states you iterate: it all depends on the numbers who come over, on the capital invested and economic opportunities created.

N.B., you are right about Canada. I know from close Canadian friends that in its heart, Alberta feels much closer to Texas or Oklahoma than to Quebec or even Ontario. In an era of toilet paper money, the Mountain States plus Alberta would become wealthy beyond imagining, for their economy is based not on shuffling paper and electronic bits but on real and scarce stuff. Which is, in true Taoist fashion, the greatest drawback as well. For Leviathan would not let such a choice morsel of real estate just walk away.

Dymphna said...

@Zenster --

My bad. I apologize for not reading more carefully.

And yes, I agree with your basic point re the ugly reality of the dominant culture having to bear the brunt of endless calumnies from the professionally, eternally aggrieved. No way you can satisfy someone who comes to the discussion with an agenda...[which is why I think the Episcopal Church is morally corrupt with its endless "racism" workshops. As far as I can tell, having watched this phenomenon up close, it has resulted in a rise in black Episcopalian resentment.]

...just got finished reading Jay Nordlinger's essay/interview with Thomas Sowell. That man sees very clearly and doesn't flinch.

For example, he thinks Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for us (my words, but definitely his opinion). He also is positive that should Obama NOT be re-elected, there will be race wars for sure. He thinks the Aggrieved can't wait for the rioting.

I was going to include a link for you, but the darn thing is STILL behind the subscription wall & it's from the Feb. 21st edition. Poor business model, imho.

I never remember the darn password anyway.

Sowell also thinks that we may not survive. He says this in the context of a question put to him about Israel's survival and he interrupts to say both Israel AND the US are at risk from nuclear weapons, which are "...not just another variable in the equation..." In addition, he says, "I don't find it inconceivable that an American govt will surrender. The Japanese surrendered after two nuclear bombs. The Japanese were a hell of a lot tougher than Americans are today..." [Sowell's emphasis]

BTW (& OT) Sowell's personal favorite of the 40+ books he's written is this one, from 1987:

A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

Now that I've said all this, the Baron is going to be a bit miffed -- I run from the room when the conversation gets apocalyptic and here I am predicting race wars and nuclear destruction...boy, I'm gonna be in trouble...

Dymphna said...

@Takuan Seiyo --

Yes, I did go all anecdotal in my comment. It's the only coping mechanism I have to avoid the Slough of Despond when I contemplate your propositions.

[Or maybe it's a gurrl thing to do this?. I'm serious.]

At any rate, considering the fate of individuals humanizes the issue. The emergence of the USA from under England's wing was led over several generations by small groups of remarkable men, many of whom involved themselves only very reluctantly.

I understand that the individual and/or anecdotal are not part of your paradigm here. But they are crucial in real life. If they weren't then what choice do we have beyond despair as we see our current CIC beating a path to Death Row. Death Row for us, not for him and his cronies.

Thus, Carson's work with the younger generation (he's 60 now) might make a huge difference in the long run, as perhaps Baldwin's move to Montana may do also. People who rise above the expectations others have for them are a source of inspiration to be used as counterpoints to the awful statistics you enumerate.

If we descend into some version of Russia's tyranny over the individual then our heroes will be very thin on the ground. I want to point to them while they still exist and while it is still possible to do so.

However, I will admit that those I point to are exceptions to the statistically accurate picture you paint. Without such "exceptionalism" I couldn't get out of bed in the morning.

jeppo said...

@Takuan, thanks.
That's a great question, what city? There are 51 metro areas with populations over one million in the US. To beat this hobby horse one more time, 26 of them are in NMA, 25 in STA. Of the 25 whitest metro areas, 23 were in NMA (exceptions were Tampa and Jacksonville). Of the 26 least white metros, 23 were in STA (exceptions were Chicago, New York and Memphis).

Twenty whitest metro areas over one million 2007:

Pittsburgh 88.2%
Cincinnati 83.4%
Providence 82%
Minneapolis 81.9%
Buffalo 81.5%
Louisville 81.5%
Rochester 80.5%
Portland 78.7%
Columbus 78.6%
Boston 78.2%
Indianapolis 78%
Salt Lake City 77.8%
Kansas City 77.2%
St Louis 76.6%
Nashville 76.3%
Hartford 74.9%
Cleveland 73.6%
Seattle 72.7%
Milwaukee 71.8%
Tampa 71.2%

Whitest Canadian metro areas over one million 2006:

Montreal 83%
Ottawa 82.2%
Edmonton 77.8%
Calgary 75.3%
Toronto 56.6%
Vancouver 56.4%

For the "capital" of the remnants of white America, namely NMA, I would choose Minneapolis-St Paul, and Minnesota as the foundational state. It has a central location nationally and is also in the middle of the largely Germanic and Lutheran Upper Midwest, the heartland of the heartland. A high percentage of good quality white people living in a climate that helps keep the Sun People away, Minnesota rocks.

In a different geographic configuration, namely the Northwest Volkstaat, I would pick Calgary, Alberta as the "capital". Western Canada is likely to secede from a Quebec-less Canada, if and when that day comes, and Calgary is the obvious choice for national capital, due to its central location and not being an existing provincial capital. The northwestern US states would then be joining a pre-existing nation with a pre-existing capital city. Calgary is also the most conservative city in Canada, though that's like being the tallest guy at a midget's convention.

Takuan Seiyo said...


Sowell is tops. One may be antagonistic to the racial group he belongs to, by reasons of postjudice rather than prejudice in my case, but an individual at that level transcends race: it’s like Disraeli in Victorian Britain. I’d much rather have Sowell as my POTUS than John McCain, whatever entries I may have earned in the racism-sniffers’ notebooks. And if America settled for equal opportunities rather than faking equal results, I believe that we’d be a much stronger and better country and there’d be no need to contemplate such drastic steps as I delineated above.

I have a question to ask you, in all humility, because I turn it over in my mind and can’t settle on a rock-solid answer: What about women? Forget race; there are enormous differences between the genders. Do you perceive how the losers in the scenario you limned are feminocracies, and the winners are patriarchal societies where men wear the pants?

Can you see what three women plus a metrosexual plus his wife deciding on America’s military response to Libya is doing to us? What windup dolls’ – i.e. Boxer, Pelosi etc. – lording it over 4-star generals is doing to us? What sending women like Albright, Rice, Hughes, Clinton as America’s face in Muzlands is doing to us?

Check Washington Times, “Diversity panel wants military to look like U.S.” if you want to wade into a swamp of madness. A gender-blind “we are all the same and equal” military is a recipe for national suicide when dealing with such macho outfits like China’s, the NorKors’ and Russia’s. Have you noticed the difference in effectiveness between our interactions with Somali pirates and the Russians’?

Was it right to grant women the voting franchise? Is it beneficial that as a result, the POTUS contender with the 5-o’clock shadow was beat by the freshly shaved one, or the gorilla-chested, tough talking one by a slim metrosexual with a brilliant smile and a single mother story? Was it right to give women access to jury panels and to judicial benches, so that any perp with a good sob story get away with crime?

My answer to all of those is no, no and no. And like with race, there are outliers completely at odds with the general picture: you, Diana West, Michelle Malkin, Bachman, Palin: strong, smart, wonderful women. But that only proves that the whole idea of equality is a sham, and that privileges that ought to be accorded to some women ought to be denied to others.

Now I’ll tell you why I still hesitate and need your opinion: the last time men ran things in an exclusive franchise ended in World War 1: the most stupid, unnecessary macho-peacock disaster that Whites have ever inflicted upon themselves, and the event that really started the descent of the West. So how to resolve these contradictions?

Dymphna said...

Takuan --

First, three cheers for the patriarchy. May it soon return. Matriarchies, except under very defined terms, tend to be fragile and chaotic and short-lived.

Women (me included) tend to be communists - i.e., we want our strong children to help the weaker ones. If we prevail in this we wreak severe damage to our families but in our hearts we're know we're right because it's FAIR.

Jude Wanniski (before he went off the deep end in his last years) saw the two political divisions in this country as The Mommy Party and the Daddy Party. Unfortunately, the Daddy Party is looking more and more metrosexual with each election.

The Mommy Party wants the children to feel good about themselves and one another. They want harmony & kumbiyah, even if they have to force feed you...oh, and they DO feed you, but you have to eat nutritiously -- whatever their current idea of "nutritious" is. Mommies think that their rich kids should be generous to their less well-off sibs. The Mommy Party has a big heart, and as long as you agree with her she smiles on you.

When we did have a Daddy Party, it focused on the security of the children. Daddies thought kids should be understand the wisdom of enlightened self-interest. The Daddy Party used to have a spine; it had no compunction about making sure the kids weren't goof-offs.

The Mommies won. Now we're all heart and no spine. The Invertebrate States of America.


Women had to be given the vote. For one thing, they had largely organized the Abolitionist movement in this country. Yes, there were front MEN, but women were the force behind ending slavery. That was their training for the marathon they ran to get universal suffrage. They had no idea what malign forces they were unleashing.

Maybe we could go back to the idea of having to be a literate property holder in order to vote. It wouldn't have to be land, just enough accumulated money/wealth to make one prudent. IOW, inherited or borrowed wealth wouldn't count: you'd have to prove you'd earned it yourself.

Would this be "fair"? Heck no. But it would serve the ends of justice quite well if only those with a vested interest in the welfare of the polity could vote lawmakers into office.

So George Soros would have less power than he does now because it would be far more expensive to buy off the Voter Class than it is to corrupt the Doper Class.

* The notion of being in debt as a moral calamity would return.

* Affirmative Action laws would go by the boards in real life. Those what got the jobs get to vote. Get outta my way!

Maybe legitimate children would be considered as part of your wealth? Thus mothers (or fathers) who chose to stay at home and take care of their children would still have "earned" enough to have sufficient gravitas for full citizenship.

Just some's late. My female mind grows fuzzy and I probably didn't answer you. However before I go, I'll admit I'm a real traitor. While there are individual women who transcend their gender limits, for the most part men are smarter and quicker and stronger than women.

Women probably have more stamina as long as it doesn't require heavy lifting (a 20 lb kid and 2 bags of groceries carried five miles doesn't count as strength. That's endurance).

But men don't flourish when left to their own devices. They need women to tame & train their natural aggression as much as women need men to protect them from other men's aggressions.

Too bad this toxic culture has hollowed out so many good women and embittered so many good men.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: My bad. I apologize for not reading more carefully.

No harm, no foul, Dymphna. I long ago realized that we are both on the same side.

If we descend into some version of Russia's tyranny over the individual then our heroes will be very thin on the ground.

It is my sad duty to inform you that heroes are already so "thin on the ground" that we might as well be trying to fertilize forty acres with a fart.

Anonymous said...

Regarding women: I can't answer the question, but I can point out a few things. First, women can't be separated from men, in the same way races and political parties can be separated. So, no matter what, women will be part of our new social order.

So the question is, what has to be discussed, so the pods not enemy women will consider joining us? As a woman and feminist, I can tell you that women who think their hard-won rights will be taken away by male chauvinists will be on the other side, and I'll be with them. But this isn't necessary.

Is there a way to include women without enabling our yin tendencies too much? Of course there is. I know from talking with women in real life and on the internet, that many are starting to wake up, and are speaking out against open borders. Yet those women are hostile to misogynists who would take away their political rights.

So what those potential women allies need to hear is the same message Jews need to hear: you can have rights, as long as you clean up your act. I'm quite sure, from personal experience, that this message will be received well. Ditto for gay people, who are not the enemy. Homophobia keeps gays stuck as pods, but many can switch sides, if they can believe that not all pro-freedom people are to gays as Nazis are to Jews.

Anonymous said...

Takuan Seiyo: "Was it right to grant women the voting franchise?"

Takuan Seiyo, are you trying to give me a heart attack?! If my rights as a woman are to be abridged, what is the difference if my rights are to be abridged by one group or another? If a new system of governance would deny me the vote, then WHY would I or WHY should I vote to implement such a new system of governance?!

Only a man could make such a "fill-in-the-blank-with-a-pejorative-word" statement!

Anonymous said...

Dymphna, Yeesh! When women are allowed to attend school, women arguably outperform men - which makes women smarter in some way.

In addition, throughout history, women have been denied credit for their many and various smart and important contributions to humanity - contributions that occurred in spite of women being generally denied opportunity for advanced education, professional employment, and ability to choose compatible marriage partners.

As far as tasks that require speed and strength, robots increasingly make the issue moot of whether men or women are quicker and stronger.

Takuan Seiyo said...

@latte island

You are right, but the devil is in the details. Are there enough women able to accept and internalize the notion that their primary function in life is to run a household, bear children and nurture them, and be a sympathetic support for the man who has to go out there with his red cloak, shield and spear? Can they stop pushing to have the same combat roles and accoutrements (even if metaphorically speaking), and accept that their power lies in softness and that by ruling men at home, they already run things?

All that without denying equal opportunity to the unusual woman who has no maternal instinct, who has it in her to be a SWAT cop or a top level CEO, but at the same time not norming down any elevated physical or personality requirements for the sake of affirmative recruiting.

Can chastity make a comeback? Perhaps the biggest weapon that the left has is unlimited sexual licentiousness. Anything goes, from the time you are eleven. What can be offered against that that’s not uptight prudishness: a sure loser. What will make it attractive to hormonal young people to leave a life where a hookup is a matter of a wink, to a life where you don’t do it until you go steady with someone and, anyway, like with the Chinese, you are supposed to be too busy studying and improving yourself to have time for carnal pursuits.

Takuan Seiyo said...


We all know that women did not get their fair shake in the past, and that they have a similar intellectual capacity to men. But on the average, they don’t have similar personality traits, not to speak of physical ones. That makes women, on the average, more suitable for certain tasks in life, less so for others, and interchangeable with men in yet different ones. To affirmatively recruit women because they are underrepresented in fields in which biology wants them to be underrepresented is no different from recruiting racial minorities for top level universities for which they don’t have the aptitude or character (e.g. the Orientals’ discipline, perseverance etc.). It’s a sure road to civilizational perdition.

I raised the provocative question of women’s voting right for the same reason that I raised the provocative Jewish question. There is embedded yin in these two segments of the white population that has pulled the whole so far on the yin (i.e. feminine element) side that it’s toppling the whole works. Moreover, both segments are engaged in patterns of conduct that are dangerous to the rest of us but utterly suicidal to themselves.

It’s not in vain that Amy Biehl and Rachel Corrie are female names. If you follow carefully the daily man-murders-woman stories, you’ll find out that an astonishing number involve a young white woman who was dating a Black or Muslim man, or who opened the door to a stranger black or Hispanic male, or who went jogging alone in a park, or went out in a skirt and blouse in the middle of some Muzland. What causes such stupid insouciance? Why are women and Jews – of all people! -- in the forefront of the anti-gun lobby? And how can one be allowed to vote, and therefore determine the fate of the whole polity, whose internal mechanism works in such irrational ways?

Can defined groups of whites be entrusted with the vote who voted for BHO with such wide margins as Jews and women did? [It’s different for Blacks, for their wide margin was a matter of rational self-interest].

Just raising a question; I don’t pretend to have a satisfactory answer.

Professor L said...

Dymphna - here's hoping the second post works. And if it doesn't, NPinkPanther has it on his blog.

For those interested in more research or perhaps even visiting, the village is called Chettle, and is in Dorset.

I might also add that I agree that limited suffrage be given to those who have a vested interest in the running of the nation (i.e. its wealth makers). And I like your idea, Dymphna, that it be made dependent on self-earned wealth - no more rags to rags in three generations.

Dymphna said...

@ Egghead

Dymphna, Yeesh! When women are allowed to attend school, women arguably outperform men - which makes women smarter in some way.

My dear, look at the construction of your own thought here. Notice the verb you chose: allow?

Second, women "outperform" men in some areas. I never said we were stupid, only that IN GENERAL, men tend to be smarter. Women, otoh, are more clever than men -- which is a separate intelligence.

I am talking about intelligence along a curve. Women IN GENERAL don't do as well at math and technology. I can think of dozens of counterexamples to my contention...e.g., my daughter-in-law is a whiz and outperforms many men as a tecchie. When the Baron has questions, he calls her.


…throughout history, women have been denied credit for their many and various…contributions to humanity...

My point exactly. Outliers -- i.e., strong, super intelligent women -- rise like cream. And they aren’t anonymous, either. Read up on Catherine of Sienna. A doctor of the R.C. church no less. Marie Curie is another.

Show me women in equal #s in: musical composition, maths, hard sciences, or historiography. Yes, there are some, but those are the outliers. Check out the women who’ve won Nobel Prizes in science. You don’t think those Nobel folks aren’t beating the bushes for women? BTW, the “peace” prize doesn’t count. It's been trashed.

And so what have we done since universal suffrage to disprove my contentions? Women have been deprived economically, but that's no longer true no matter how the books are cooked. Despite George Soros' monstrous skewing of the stats, women end up with more wealth.

Study some un-p.c. social anthro. You'll see why women now outnumber men on college campuses and how this spells the doom for higher education.

...contributions that occurred in spite of women being generally denied opportunity As far as tasks that require speed and strength, robots increasingly make the issue moot of whether men or women are quicker and stronger.

I don’t have a robot so the Baron’s masculine strength has some appeal for me. I hope you find a robot to moot your men. Hope it’s not more upkeep than a man is.


You’ve missed my point entirely. So tell me, is the Western world in better shape now that women are equal? Is it a kinder, gentler world? Is the structure of the family in good shape? Has education improved or are the #s continuing to slide?

Lord, save us from the perils of diversity and the ghettoes of "Women's Studies" and that bizzare academic discipline known as "herstory".

BTW, women survive better on their own than men do. Men NEED women...

Sagunto said...

Egghead -

You raise some serious questions in your last posts and I'd like to second them. For the record, I think of the right to vote as a natural right, not in terms of progressive schemes like women's lib, and I reckon you don't either.

Dymphna -

I'm curious to know whether you'd consider the sex-ratio among Nobel laureates as an argument to grant or withhold women the right to vote?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Dymphna said...

@ sag:

I'm curious to know whether you'd consider the sex-ratio among Nobel laureates as an argument to grant or withhold women the right to vote?

I don't think I ever said women shouldn't vote. In fact, I demonstrated the fact that they led the Abolitionist fight, proving once again the moral force women can be.

What I did propose (for the purposes of discussion only) is whether or not the "right" to vote wouldn't be better based on other considerations besides being a warm body -- oops. That's no longer even a necessity as many of the dead vote in some of our larger cities here.

"Natural rights" are a priori assumptions and not everyone is going to agree that they even exist. You and I think so because we come from a Western culture.

"Equality" as a concept or as a practice is a dead-end eventually. OTOH, complementarity is a rich tradition that we abandoned, to our immense loss. Blame Descartes maybe.

No doubt we followed the Cartesian duality to its final reductio ad absurdum and now here we are, stuck in a cultural and intellectual cul de sac, polarized and afraid.

I'll repeat my questions and add to them: is the world you live in safer, more civilized, a better place since universal suffrage went into effect? Are families stronger and more resilient? Are the children abundant and flourishing - or are they disappearing? In fact, are women any happier at all?

I keep asking if women are safe because a main job for men is to keep their women safe. If women refuse to allow men this normal function, the world becomes more dangerous for us all. It's an unintended consequence – perhaps a result of many women believing that men can be replaced by robots? Watch your back in a culture where men have lost their function as protectors.

Universal suffrage=justice for women and other disadvantaged groups. However, we weren't wise enough to see that in addition to justice there must be mercy. We aren't merciful anymore...

...and I don't equate the quality of mercy with the silly notion of "being fair". Fairness as a doctrine is sterile, as Christ kept trying to show us.

Zenster said...

jeppo: For the "capital" of the remnants of white America, namely NMA, I would choose Minneapolis-St Paul, and Minnesota as the foundational state.

More important than being centrally located is the fact that ― unlike Idaho, Wyoming, Montana or the Dakotas ― Minnesota is NOT landlocked. Having a port on the Great Lakes and the headwaters of the Mississippi River make it a no-brainer.

In a different geographic configuration, namely the Northwest Volkstaat, I would pick Calgary, Alberta as the "capital".

Have you ever been to Calgary? I have and it is in the middle of effing nowhere. Yes, Alberta has some great natural resources which is nothing to sneeze at. All of that aside, regular Canucks are some of the best folk there are and I would have to take Calgary over über-Liberal Vancouver, regardless of my preference for the latter.

After reading James Rawles' most excellent SurvivalBlog the notion of moving North has taken on some serious weight. For anyone with even a slight concern over the looming crash ― variously known as TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It … pronounced “Tee-ought-walk-ee”) and WTSHTF (excrement meets whirling blades) ― should pay the site a visit.

Takuan Seiyo said...


Re: right to vote

Further to your reply to the Nobel issue, intellectual capacity has little to do with capacity to vote right (for the right thing). 90%+ in the best universities (I read about Yale and Princeton) voted for BHO and are in the most enthusiastic Loon Pod category (check out the stellar intellectual credentials of BHO’s czars). On the other hand, having run a grocery store for 10 years, or being a farmer or self-employed carpenter –male or female – does qualify you to be a competent voter. Alas, women in the workforce are hardly in hay-baling or trying to figure out daily how to survive against half price/ half quality Mexican competition. Another issue is that voting enfranchisement did not stop with women. The left drives hard to expand voting rights to those who can’t exercise proper judgment, e.g. teenagers, English-ignorant immigrants, or those whose votes may be bought as they do not care about the public interest, e.g. felons, illegal immigrants.

The way I see it, issues related to women, Jews, mainstream Christian denominations, sexual deviates and the young are not absolute. I introduced the Yin/Yang concept into the debate to show that we live in an era of toxic, perhaps terminal Yin overload. Unless we restore the balance toward the Yang, we are finished – it’s as simple as that.

In order to be able to curb the Yin metastasis, we have to either separate ourselves from the agents of Yin, or curb their political and cultural influence -- until such time as we have tipped too far into Yang. For each of the above groups different means are appropriate. Voting rights in general ought to be restricted as you outlined, but perhaps for women they ought to be even more restricted. The young ought not to have voting rights at all. Until you are 25 and have some positive net worth, there is an 85% chance that you have no clue what makes daily life and civil society tick.

After 20 years, when we are more Yang, I’d be for re-examining and perhaps striking down the extra voting qualifications for women, but never for the young. Teenagers don’t belong in the voting booth.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: I'll repeat my questions and add to them: is the world you live in safer, more civilized, a better place since universal suffrage went into effect? Are families stronger and more resilient? Are the children abundant and flourishing - or are they disappearing? In fact, are women any happier at all?

I keep asking if women are safe because a main job for men is to keep their women safe. If women refuse to allow men this normal function, the world becomes more dangerous for us all. It's an unintended consequence – perhaps a result of many women believing that men can be replaced by robots? Watch your back in a culture where men have lost their function as protectors.

I have been a staunch defender of Women's Rights my entire life. In an equal manner, I have also defended gay rights as well.

Recent events, such as imposing gay culture in primary school curriculum (e.g., "Johnny has Two Mommies"), has forced me to recalibrate my support for gay rights. Radical gay factions have really shot themselves in the foot and it is starting to hack me off.

In a similar manner, women played a pivotal role in getting Obama elected and this one stupendous betrayal of America is forcing another recalibration upon me concerning Women's Rights.

Dymphna, you being a woman and having the incredible courage to pose those questions above is something I have to admire.

Without a doubt, male chauvinism was an ugly spectacle at best. However, the feminizing of modern society and culture has wrought so much havoc whereby Women's Rights are now long overdue for some serious re-examination.

I think it would be a tremendous service to this forum if you, Dymphna, might take it upon yourself to compose an essay that opened some honest discussion of this whole matter. Taksan's points on this topic cannot be denied yet finding any middle ground on this issue continues to be a major third rail here and just about anywhere else.

It has been noted by others that women have traditionally been defended by men and, therefore, may be predisposed to big government in the form of nanny state type politics. The tendency to advocate Socialist-style governance is a common denominator in many pro-feminist cultures (e.g., Sweden) and poses a serious question about how reliable women are with respect to genuine support for human liberty.

My own mother is a picture perfect example of a Liberal loon, right down to having proven her lack of racism by marrying a Black freeloader that dragged her straight into endless poverty. American women have achieved a similar phyrric victory in electing Obama and I am more than a little disturbed at where all of this is leading.

Whiskey has time and again at GoV eloquently deplored the culturally disruptive effects of female domination in society, media and elsewhere. The continuing debacle of how women constantly select "bad boys" in favor of "nice guys" is a prime example of exceptionally poor decision-making on the part of women. That young women subscribe to rap and "gangsta" culture is another searing indictment of female judgment. It's long past tea to give this matter a thorough airing.

Dymphna said...

Teenagers don't belong in the voting booth...

Yes, I'd agree but with one proviso: being actively deployed in a hostile territory gives a teenager sufficient gravitas. Out in the "sandbox" life is dead serious and that sacrifice ought to be acknowledged with voting privileges. When the young soldiers return home, that would be re-negotiated.

In this country, the dead are enfranchised to vote early and often while military absentee ballots get ‘lost’. Until we clean up THAT corruption, our conversation will remain merely food for thought.

My remarks about voting weren't tied -- I didn't think -- to Nobel prizes and who gets them. My issue there was about gender and intelligence and the sham ideas of "equality" and making thing "fair" for everyone.

Unless we internalize that yin/yang complementarity, we're going to remain busy deflecting complaints about fairness and victimization and allotting out the goodies.

Don't like much about JFK, but he did lay out the obvious, which never should've needed articulation: "Life isn't fair". Period.

[He said that knowing full well that Mayor Daley had cooked the vote (small in-joke there: it's Cook County) in his favor which permitted him to take the Presidency. Nixon was urged to take it to court and probably would've won. But he thought it would damage the country at large so he refused and let JFK have the prize his daddy bought.]

Law WELLS has indeed found the perfect community. One has to ask how long the UK will permit it to exist, but the village of Chettle, in Dorset, sounds like what people are yearning for. Having been immersed in Anthony Trollope for a while, it is most disconcerting to see the 1850s right here on Planet Earth in A.D. 2011:

The Perfect Village?

Thank you for this glimpse, LW.

Takuan, notice the size of the place, not to mention the 'purely' English gene pool there. Or at least, that's my guess. They chased off some gypsies. Chettle appears to have a hierarchical system, but that hierarchy seems to be distributed, if such a system really can be such...and as the author notes, the place was saved by some strong women.

It would be a good place for survivalists to study. To see how rigorous are the rules and how pervasive the authority. The problem with modern survivalists (and nearly all moderns) is that they don't easily bend to authority. They are their own authority and might find it difficult to play well with others.

Underlying this discussion you've created, Takuan, is that problem: moral authority, or the lack thereof. If there is no consensus then there can be no community.

That's the modern day appeal, Lord help us, of Islam: it has moral authority, but not the kind to which any of us would give our allegiance. However, some folks yearn for the security a mindless minutiae can provide.

Dymphna said...


Wow. You sure tied up the loose ends of the issues here. Your momma and Obama's sound alike. However, O's mother eventually found a rich Indonesian sugar daddy and thus had the leisure time & money to pursue her studies in p.c. anthrolopology & communism....hey, I just googled this string: [Ruth Benedict Marget Mead scam] and the first hit is from Oz:
The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead:
A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research

They probably did to the author, Derek Freeman, what those Harvard Harpies did to Larry Summers for daring to suggest that women were underrepresented in maths and science -- i.e., sliced off his family jewels, stuffed them in his pocket, and then drop kicked him out of the Yard. 'Twas amazing that Obama took him in after that.

BTW, I'm not sure I could do what you suggest. That's a tall order. it takes a more syncretistic mind than I possess. Meanwhile, I am actually working on a post: a book review of a great piece of what Yale theologian (& Quaker) Sarah Ruden calls, in another context, "dick lit" (sorry for the break in rules. Her term, but it's perfect since she opposes it to "chick lit").

I hope my energy holds out long enough to actually get it organized and up for viewing since it's a long novel, self-published, about what terrorism is doing here and in the UK. i was drawn in despite myself.

DSS said...

One question for all of you. I am an american born in Cuba. You can't be more conservative than me, we do not vote for BHO or any other trying to make us into a herd. We do not like most of the other hispanics, they don't ike us either, because we do not conform with their ideal of a "minority". Where does that leaves us, we feel and act like the rest of freedomians but maybe we wont look like them.
Some thoughts please.

Takuan Seiyo said...

@bilbo 94

An intelligent forum like this one is aware of the difference between a Hispanic (note absence of my usual derision quotes) Cuban or Argentine, and a Toltec from Yukatan. This “Hispanic” idiocy is as great as including both the Japanese and the Pashtun in the “Asian” category. As far as I am concerned, you are my brother -- I just ask that you leave the Spanish language at home and in your private circle of Hispanic friends. I do not appreciate the neocon multiculti bilingual orientation of the so-called “conservative” Cubans from Miami, though I consider Bush @ Co. far worse because of pandering to that strain. To be American means to adopt the Anglo culture as the common denominator, with smaller denominators you are free to share in other compatible cultural modes, of which the Cuban one is perfectly all right.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

latte, considering that turning the ship around requires quite a bunch of loss of human life, which will be overwhelmingly male, the question is not what will get the support of us, women, but the support of men. The way I see it, a man has no reason to support Western civilization and if I was a man, I'd probably rather convert to Islam and get slave girls when push came to shove, rather than protect some entitled fruitcakes, which is what the vast majority of Western women are. In reality, all rights are built on the death of men.

It is sort of preposterous to have outsiders vote and women not. If blacks vote in the elections of my country and decide how my people should be ruled, then I better do it too.

Dymphna said...

This comment was sent by BL, who is unable to access Blooger:


If you want women to put their highest priority upon child-rearing and the care of family, then you must give it a high value in the culture, such that women who do a good job with it are esteemed as much as the men who who do a good job of bringing home the bacon. This has certainly NOT been the case in traditional, patriarchal cultures (in Muslim cultures, for example, but also to some degree even in western patriarchal cultures).

If you want Freedomia to succeed, you have to attract the kind of women who not only share your ideals but can also see a place for themselves in the new culture. You will not attract these women by attempting to restrict voting rights for women. In fact, intelligent women, even when they are in overall agreement with you, will be repelled. Instead you will attract women of lower intelligence who are motivated by their biological-instructual attraction to a "strong" male but without the intelligence necessary for discrimination and to mediate their biological-instinctual drives. In other words, you will lower the intelligence of your gene pool.

(Obviously, both men and women have to use their intelligence (as well as their cultural grounding, values, etc. to mediate biological-instinctual drives. But that's another topic).

You will also attract some intelligent women who are, psychologically speaking, "wounded birds," needing someone to take care of them. Just what you want as role models for the new generation, I say sarcastically.

I really appreciate what you and Dymphna have to say about a balance in the culture--a balance between yin and yang, between the mommy and the daddy.

Takun, I really appreciate your shedding light upon our understanding of the culture. And you propose some far-reaching, profound and necessary changes.

Please don't ruin it right at the beginning.

Anonymous said...

Zenster wrote:

I think it would be a tremendous service to this forum if you, Dymphna, might take it upon yourself to compose an essay that opened some honest discussion of this whole matter. Taksan's points on this topic cannot be denied yet finding any middle ground on this issue continues to be a major third rail here and just about anywhere else.

I'd also like to see a discussion about social issues such as women's and gay rights, and how that relates to the counterjihad and Western renewal. Since Dymphna is busy writing something else, why don't we have a topic without a whole essay, or a guest essay, or whatever. It's long overdue. To save time, it could read something like: Women. Gays. The West. Discuss. We all have lots to say, we don't have to wait for someone to write a whole essay.

Anonymous said...

Dymphna and Takuan Seiyo: Your responses to my comment contain so many logical non-sequiturs that Hesperado would be laughing if he were here instead of wherever he stomped off to in his recent fit of pique....

Unfortunately, I am fighting off a series of migraines lately - to which your murky logic and infuriating opinions contribute. Ha!

In any case, all questions such as those raised by both of you are fair game to be discussed. It's just a bad time for me personally.

Anonymous said...

Dymphna, I used the word "allow" because throughout the world throughout history as well as today, men and man-made laws have actively prevented women from participating in education, professional employment, and choosing a compatible spouse.

As far as your contention that men are smarter than women, you would need to provide more extensive and detailed information to back up your assertion - which I dispute on its face as patently absurd.

In essence, I would argue that men are afraid of how smart women are and thus seek to marginalize women when it becomes apparent how smart women are - as compared to men.

I do believe that humans live in a safer, more civilized, and a better place when and where universal suffrage occurs. If you cannot vote, then you are simply a slave to those who can vote. Good luck relying on the masters to "protect" the slaves.

Anonymous said...

Christianity first introduced the seminal idea that women could own themselves instead of being owned first by father and then by husband - thus women could decide to become nuns and serve God rather than the carnal needs of men.

Then, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine promoted the ideal of courtly love and chivalry in both France and England - this being the start of the notion that the role of men is to protect (versus own, use, and abuse) women.

Unfortunately, the forces of evil always work to subvert the common good. Thus, the New World Order and its plan to use both mass immigration and Islam to abridge God-given rights and re-institute slavery into the West need to be exposed and addressed in an open-eyed and rational manner.

Anonymous said...

Islam is a game changer BECAUSE Islam effectively disenfranchises people and enslaves people AGAIN - particularly women who are the most enslaved by child marriages, forced marriages, and polygamous marriages. In Islam, men merely own women and thus lose the chance to experience romantic love where partners chose each other based on mutual compatibility.

Takuan Seiyo: Men have ALWAYS controlled the vote despite being a minority compared to women. Perhaps if women denied the vote to men for the balance of history, the world would improve? Hmmm.

In any case, the right of suffrage derives from GOD rather than man or man-made governments - which makes the whole discussion moot IF women are willing to fight for their voting rights as our wise female forebearers did....

Takuan Seiyo said...


Thanks for your input. A culture that does not value, protect and reward its women cannot survive. So the idea, and it’s just a trial balloon, was never to impose voting restrictions on women, or prohibition from serving in certain occupations, but to select for Noah’s Ark women who see why such restrictions are necessary and agree to them a priori.

Remember what Wise Latina said, why she has those special qualities that would make her a better judge? Well, those are exactly the qualities we must run away from, post haste. If we were in the era of Roman jurisprudence, or under the sway of the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, the situation would have been opposite: nothing would then serve us better than putting some women or minorities (i.e. Christians and slaves in Rome, Jews and heretics in Iberia) on the bench. But those were times of yang toxicity, and these are times of yin toxicity: we are drowning in a sea of estrogen, and are contemplating with resignation the testosterone-rich barbarians who’ll be dancing on our civilization’s grave. If we manage to regain our balance, then all yin-related restrictions could be abolished, for the yin force is just as valuable as the yang, as long as it does not overpower.

This is a difficult and critical issue, for which my brain alone, or any male’s brain alone, is insufficient. That’s why I’ve thrown it into the pot here. There are half-way measures that might achieve some of the desired effect. For instance, we might make it mandatory that a parliamentary representative, male or female, who has not served in the military be prohibited by law from voting on any issues that have to do with the deployment of military force. We might completely separate the educational track for boys and girls, letting the girls be but working on those boys to grow up men; and so on.

Anonymous said...

We don't ever have to agree on social issues. States' rights, freedom of association, etc. is/are the cure for all disagreements on social issues.

For instance, if everyone on this blog lived together on our own planet without outside interference, how would we be happy? We would have a federation. In one division, women who voluntarily lived there would give up their vote. In another division, women who wanted to keep their right to vote, could. In another division, men couldn't vote, as long as they moved to that place voluntarily and agreed to the local rule.

This is so easy. The founders of this country already created something like that, but people are such natural control freaks, we can't refrain from imposing our ways on everyone else.

Sagunto said...

Egghead -

Hope you'll feel better soon. Good to know that we agree on natural rights when you say:

"In any case, the right of suffrage derives from GOD rather than man or man-made governments [..]"

And I certainly agree with you that Islam is the game changer, though I'd add wellfare state progressivism to the enslaving ideologies that we must fight and resist. Those two forces are the enemies of freedom loving people and we must keep our eyes on their balls. (ehm.. that's not what I meant ;-)

My general question would be, who is going to do the excluding? Who is going to broach the news to women that in some new shadow society, they are excluded from voting on the basis of group-membership (very bad way of granting or withholding rights, except when it applies to enslavers themselves, e.g. Muslims). Moreover, on behalf of what collective body would this exclusion become law? I read a lot about "cohesion" and "consensus" and - in that political context - it slightly worries me to read much less, if anything, about freedom.

My point is that though one might agree with some of the arguments put forward, that still doesn't mean that some new administrators should have the right to exclude women from voting. If all of the points would hold water (they don't), even then the natural right of women to vote should be respected and perceived disadvantages tolerated. I hope that even those who are strongly opposed to women in the voting boot could perhaps be persuaded to my point of view if I liken this to Thomas Aquinas' writings on the toleration of prostitution. Some things must be tolerated, if only for the reason that choosing not to do so - and acting on it - is even worse.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Professor L said...

Egghead - as I recall, while men, on average, are less intelligent than women, men stand a greater chance of prodigious excellence in a particular field (Mozart, Einstein, Beethoven, Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Winston Churchill, Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, etc). Women have their outliers, but not as many.

I also would point out that boys are boistrous and physical when younger, and girls are more demur. It's obvious which one will work better in the classroom (and which one will make the better explorer, adventurer and soldier, again, outliers excluded).

And frankly, I think all the talk of democracy somewhat misses an important point - whoever said anything about mass democracy. Why not balance it out with some hereditary political balance, be it in the form of an aristocracy or a monarchy or both. I must stress here that I am a Jacobite, not an Absolutist. The present reign of democracy has subverted and destroyed our institutions, which would be better served were the democratic house more effectively restrained (I shall stress an important point - it doesn't matter if the Lords is made into a democratic house in Westminster. The imbalance of power that created the present scope of parliamentary corruption will still remain, and the tyranny of the Commons will continue).

Like too much yin or yang, too much democracy can actually inhibit freedom, which Egghead rightly points out is derived from God (and in spite of what some may think, monarchs generally allowed a greater degree of freedom to their subjects than we enjoy today).

Sagunto said...

Egghead -

Just to make sure: the second, more general part of my comment wasn't specifically directed at you.

Kind regs (en beterschap gewenst) from Amsterdam,

Sagunto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sagunto said...

(because the feared Blogger-bug struck again, I'll just repost my last comment @LAW Wells).

LAW Wells -

You wrote:

"Why not balance it out with some hereditary political balance, be it in the form of an aristocracy or a monarchy or both."

I understand your point, for that's the current situation in Holland, though I can't say whether - in line with the important question posed by Dymphna - we have been the better off because of it. To me it seems that Western culture needs a strong enough power to instil the idea among ordinary people that there is something besides political power, that the state or "the nation" is not the be all end all of society. The Church was that kind of power.

I like Baldwin's agenda a lot, certainly the dismantling of the FED, but I'm less sure about the idea of America as a Christian Nation, and let me tell you why.
I can relate to the concept and its historical background because something along those lines has been said about Holland, the myth being that the Netherlands somehow are/were a "Calvinist" Nation, under the royal house of Orange. Luckily the Calvinists of the sixteenth century didn't succeed in achieving all their extremist goals, otherwise we wouldn't have had free trade and all that, because radical Calvinism has a lot in common with communism, as Murray Rothbard so vividly demonstrated in his work "Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, Volume I" (2006 Edition).

To repeat my point: instead of reinventing America as a Christian Nation, I'd like to see Americans (and inhabitants of European nations for that matter) returning to the time honoured idea that the Church is a force that demonstrates that the state should know its (limited) place in the lives of ordinary people.

To add to that, the historical record shows that some forms - or rather deformations - of Christianity have been political religions (or sects) from the outset and those are not the kind of Christianity that would benefit Western culture in this regard. If anything, progressive or "cultural" Christianity has been instrumental in lowering people's resistance against PC MC. That's were some commenters by the way, are in error when they see PC MC all around. The underlying source that feeds much of the deranged "altruism" of multicultural propaganda, is the kind of residual, progressive Christianity that Chesterton warned us about. So I'd say, not a Christian Nation, but a nation in which the state knows its place besides a firm and sometimes opposing Christian force, which of course should be the Church (don't know if it can be, since the abuse of Vaticanum II).

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Takuan Seiyo said...

I don't think that Baldwin says that Americans must practice Christianity, or that the US become a theocracy. I certainly don't. Christianity has taken many wrong turns, and it's paying the price for it now. Besides, except for esoteric Evangelicals, it has never admitted how much it has borrowed from the Jews -- including Christianity itself which was for its first 70 years a sort of Reform Judaism. The idea is, however, to say boldly that there is such a thing as Christian civilization, and the U.S. is part of that civilization, that in America Christmas trees may be on public property but Menorahs should not be, and the White House is expected to hold a Christmas dinner but not Eid el Fitr, and if Jews, atheists, socialists or Muslims don't like it, they don't have to live in a country founded by churchmen and intensely Christian throughout its existence. But to jump from that to obligatory prayer in schools or teaching creationism, or religious bigotry toward Jews or Buddhists is neither called for nor warranted.

Sagunto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sagunto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DSS said...

Thank you.
I agree 100%. Spanish as a second language as cultural knowledge and heritage but that's it. Do not like neocons that try to play us like a fiddle.
Thank you again.

Sagunto said...

TS -

I agree with the latter part of your reply (and its good to see the original order of comments restored, though I had to remove all of my subsequent attempts to get on the board).
It might be that the first part of your comment wasn't specifically directed at my argument, because I'm a little confused about the "theocracy" thing. That at least wasn't part of the point I tried to make. If anything, I thought I'd take the opportunity to warn for politically motivated cultural Christianity, not for any kind of theocracy. To better understand what I mean by cultural Christianity, or deformed Christianity acting as a political religion, one could make a brief study of the Social Gospel movement and its influence on the US Progressive Party of Wilsonian times past.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

1389 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
1389 said...

On a closely related matter:
Anti-jihadists vs. anti-jihadists: Something else at work?

1389 said...

For some reason, my last comment got posted twice. There may be some issues with the Blogger comment window.

Zenster said...

From "The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead":

Cressman later recorded that as a young graduate, on being shown by a colleague "with chapter and verse, that a conclusion of hers was untenable, Mead's defense would always be, 'If it isn't, it ought to be,' to which she would add, 'Well, what's so bad about that?'" [emphasis added]

Meade clearly indulges in Magical Thinking™. Why women seem more prone to indulging in this sort of irrational and frequently emotionally-based intellectual mode is something for the neurobiologists.

Meade's academic slight-of-hand has done incredible societal damage and all for the sake of childish "why can't things be the way I say they are?" sort of opacity.

The aptly named Freeman did our world a favor by deconstructing Meade's libertine rubbish. Too bad it did not happen decades earlier.

Zenster said...

UltimateAwesomeness: latte, considering that turning the ship around requires quite a bunch of loss of human life, which will be overwhelmingly male, the question is not what will get the support of us, women, but the support of men. The way I see it, a man has no reason to support Western civilization and if I was a man, I'd probably rather convert to Islam and get slave girls when push came to shove, rather than protect some entitled fruitcakes, which is what the vast majority of Western women are. In reality, all rights are built on the death of men. [emphasis added]

Thank you for being so brutally honest about who it is that typically ends up out at the pointy end of things.

To date, a majority of women show no inclination to ward off the encroachment of Islam. To the contrary, through their deafening silence, women are facilitating this existential threat to both themselves and Western civilization alike.

There is no reasonable excuse for this abject betrayal of the very culture that, literally, invented women's rights. Any further inaction by women will only serve to justify a curtailment of their rights and role in society.

By remaining silent on the issue of Islam, feminists are singlehandedly rolling back the clock in a manner that only Islam would normally dream of.

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
on-my-own-in-berkeley said...


This is BL. As I said in a comment on another thread: If the majority of men vote toward the right and the majority of women vote toward the left, then there is still enough overlap so that men and women who have similar voting patterns and who have similar political philosophies and counterjihad sentiments can find each other to join in a new community. People would self-select to join such a community. As Egghead (I think it was Egghead) said on another thread, if you want to restrict the franchise, You might consider doing it on the basis of age, such that no one under 21 or 22 would vote except for those who have served in the military.

There's probably not even a need to separate the genders in schooling (although one could experiment with that). How about a mandatory version of the Boy Scouts for the boys? Of course the girls would want their own version, which is fine I think.

As Latte Island pointed out in another thread, the absurd excesses of feminism and "gay rights" are probably a reaction to millenia of repression/oppression. The pendulum has swung--very rapidly, within a generation--to the other extreme in which, as Zenster points out, women and gays and minorities are not equal under the law but, instead, have special legal privileges.

Obviously, it would not be a good idea to try to shove the pendulum back to the 19th century.

(Of course it would be giving Muslim culture too much credit to suggest that they are even in the Dark Ages).

To paraphrase what the Baron said on another thread, the "yining" of our culture began before women had the franchise and was started by men. Hesperado, who has made a study of PC MC, finds strong elements of it in Montaigne as well as other influential Western (male) writers.

As I said in an earlier post, if you want women to have more children and to spend more time caring for the family, reward those who do that well just as men who bring home the groceries are rewarded when they do a good job. You really must bear in mind that women are only human and they appreciate being esteemed as much as men do.

Even in the contemporary social and cultural climate, more women would have more children and stay home to raise them if they thought they could afford it. In an agrarian society, children were an economic asset. In contemporary society, children are an economic liability. Currently, the costs of raising a child and seeing the child through graduate school are extremely burdensom, particularly for white, middle-class parents who do not have the benefits of special grants and scholarships available to those with more melanin in their skin.

Takuan Seiyo said...

@ Berkeley,

I am aware of past injustices, and point them out frequently in my writings. It’s the same pattern with women or Jews, gays or Blacks, atheists or sexual free spirits, etc. I also point out that it was right and inevitable for the pendulum to swing back – but never this far. I myself bear the burden of crimes and injustices perpetrated upon my ancestors; I understand what’s involved emotionally. None of this justifies in my eyes that the majority accept what the various “minorities” – whether you slice them by race, gender, values, lifestyle etc. -- are doing to the United States and to Western Europe.

There are two enormous fallacies in all that identity politics: presentism and relativism. The first fallacy is to judge the past in light of present standards. The second fallacy is to judge ONLY WHITES’ past or present according to this standard, or as I expressed it elsewhere, turning a mote in the White's eye into a beam, and the beam in the racial minority's eye into a mote. If it so was so bad for women in America of 1750, 1850 or 1950, feminists should have tried China, Libya, Greece, Peru or almost any other country in either period.

As to raising children, Hillary was right: it takes a village. It all depends on what kind of village. In the conclusion I’m writing now I’ll share more ideas about that village.

Watchful said...


I agree with everything you have written in this last post. I look forward to reading more.

Best Wishes,