1. James Dunphy
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Most of the jobs you can do after being doxxed are really tough manual labor jobs that women typically don’t do, so doxxing harms women’s earning potential more than that of men.

  2. Posted October 5, 2018 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    A compelling testimony from Laura, glad to see her here.

    The following is crucial:

    “What I remember about this encounter was the following: If I, as an open nationalist, had to pluck myself up in order to embrace the onslaught that followed, how uncomfortable must questions like this make apolitical females feel?”

    The taboos must be broken.

  3. Miha M
    Posted October 2, 2018 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    The purpose of this whole charade is to lower white birth rates. Naturally this isn’t good for women, but the purpose isn’t to harm women or to wage war on women.

    Woman that can break social conditioning can lead a very satisfying life. But biggest enemy to achieve this are women themselves. Most women know that feminism is hurting them in the long run, but they just cant resist the benefits of feminism when it suits them, they just cant resist the temptation. Even the “woke” women will make up some rationalization when it suits them.

    • E
      Posted October 3, 2018 at 8:21 am | Permalink

      In my country a housewife gets 60% of her deceased husband’s pension for 1 year only. After that, it’s about $100 per month. Only the underclass and the very wealthy “break social conditioning”. In many countries even getting basic health insurance is tricky.

      Have you ever tried researching a topic before you form an opinion about it?

      • Miha M
        Posted October 3, 2018 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

        The sad situation you’re describing is result of feminism. And the $100 sounds like you live in Serbia or some developing country where economic standards are extremely low. Because this is most definitely is not the case in developed western countries. Traditionally elderly widows would subsist on savings and with assistance of her sons. I dont need to be “educated” on the legislation in each and every country to know that.

        But other than that you make great case in point. Seize the benefits, but shun the responsibilities that come with it. Modern feminism.

        • E
          Posted October 6, 2018 at 9:11 am | Permalink

          The sad situation you’re describing is result of feminism.

          It’s the result of highly efficient, mass producing capitalism, which moved the production of goods, and later services out of the homestead.

          And the $100… most definitely is not the case in developed western countries

          Pensions in Germany. (Image originally from Bild magazine.)

          Savings? When raising 3+ kids on a single salary?

          No, I would not want to live on the money of my children. They would need that for their own families.

          Traditionally elderly widows would subsist on savings and with assistance of her sons

          Traditionally people owned property, that is, independent means that could sustain them in illness or old age. People without property often didn’t marry, they lived as servants in other people’s households. Today, almost no one owns property. People barely own the roof over their head.

          There were of course poor people who owned nothing but their workforce, and they married and had children. But that was always considered a threadbare existence, worthy of pity and charity.

          Seize the benefits, but shun the responsibilities that come with it.

          Please explain how to live as a housewife, and at the same time get full health insurance and pension, when all meaningful social security benefits are legally tied to jobs, not kids. (Again, not because of feminism. This is how social security systems have always worked, since their beginning in Bismarckian Germany.)

  4. Posted September 29, 2018 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Pretty good, but flogs the white genocide fallacy.

    “. . . we are merely a few decades away from becoming minority populations . . . orchestrated by a rootless clique of international businessmen.”

    Why would international businessmen want white populations to become minorities? How would that benefit them? White people have willingly gone along with consumer capitalism for decades, producing, buying and borrowing. Those Nazi types who blame Jews ignore the obvious fact that Israel depends on white Western support for its survival.

    “Native fertility rates in white countries are being lowered by the continuous promotion of feminism, abortion, promiscuity, and mixed-race relationships . . . These four tools, which are being used to speed up our demographic replacement . . . No account of the war on white women would be complete without me addressing the mass-marketing of interracial relationships which we see today in the West . . . The clear aim here is to normalize certain attitudes and influence public behavior.”

    Promiscuity lowers the birth rate? Anyway, race mixing is a result of immigration plus cultural assimilation – many people are naturally liberal and do not have strong racial identities. And children who grow up in mixed populations will regard it as normal by adulthood. For mixing not to eventually happen there has to be major cultural barriers (e.g. religion). Advertisers include racial minority people to maximise customer appeal – money, money. You’re on firmer ground with regard to programme makers, quite a few of whom probably do have an anti-white agenda. But do soaps and Doctor Who have a big influence on partner choice? I doubt it. Simple physical and cultural proximity are the main things.

    It is easier to go off on witch hunts than accept the fact that most people just don’t care strongly about identitarian issues.

    • Thomas
      Posted September 29, 2018 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

      We don’t have to answer why certain things are happening to know they are bad and against the interests of white people. Whatever their motive, international businessmen and government policies put into effect policies and programs that dilute and displace whites in their own lands. Asking a rhetorical question about their motivation is not relevant. You are correct that white people have been their own worst enemy in pursuing consumerism and individualism to the point of near racial suicide, but it’s not an either/or decision between blame. There are elements of both.

      Yes, promiscuity in a world of free or cheap birth control and pleasure worship diminishes birth rates.

      Anti-miscegenation laws were on the books in America at least up to even one lifetime ago, and it had nothing to do with religion or anything else you were talking about. Racial identity existed implicitly, even for many liberals, until the programs of cultural Marxism in academia and popular culture poisoned and deconstructed that implicit identity for many whites.

      Answering the question of why most people don’t care about identitarian issues, which you are right about, will.lead you back to the money, efforts, and especially ideas of Jews.

    • nineofclubs
      Posted September 29, 2018 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

      ‘Why would Internatinal businessmen want white populations to become minorities?’

      A good question – and one without a simple answer in my opinion.

      During the late 20th century large scale (mass) immigration into Western countries proceeded on a scale not seen before WW2. Initially, some of this movement was simply for humanitarian reasons. But in time, it became clear that newly arrived migrants – particularly those from non-European sources – were generally less picky about wages and working conditions than local white workers.

      During the 1970’s trade union power and the labour share of GDP were at their peak – and business was looking for ways to roll back the clock. By importing a competitive workforce that had few cultural ties or bonds of social solidarity with organised (white) labour, this was quickly achieved.

      By the 1980’s, for example, the Australian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) were crowing about mass immigration ‘dampening wages pressure’ and calling for more of the same. Of course, in time some of the migrants from earlier waves were recruited by the union movement, so it was clear that fresh arrivals would be needed on an ongoing basis to keep the pressure on labour.

      In addition to the expansion of the labour pool and the division of organised labour, mass immigration had the extra benefit for business of rapidly growing the local population; faster than would be possible through natural growth. This provided bigger domestic markets for businesses and more consumers in markets where affluence and consumption were the norm. An endlessly growing population also means endless economic ‘growth’, propping up the unsustainable Ponzi scheme that passes for our western finance system at present.

      As even Noam Chomsky has said, modern capitalism doesn’t really care whether it’s customers or workers are black, white or other. It wants profit, that’s all. Individual global businessmen probably give little thought either way to the fate of white nations. But the system they rely on (capitalism) works remorselessly against us. Those who come to nationalism from the pro-business Right seem (in my opinion) to struggle with the idea that it’s capitalism, itself – rather than some crusty misfits on the left – which presents the greatest long term threat to our survival as white peoples.


      • SO
        Posted September 30, 2018 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        I agree with your assessment of capitalism to a point. The thing with modern capitalism (in white countries of course), is that it’s free market competition for small time white businesses and lawyers, while the most successful businesses and non whites get ridiculous protections and concessions. Remember, intense competition *between* white nations (and individuals through market competition) is what drove Europeans to become the dominant cultural, political, technological powerhouse on this planet. This is why China or India did not come to dominate the world as Europeans have done; they never had the level of internal competition that Europe had. This is why China, in particular, stagnated after the Song dynasty.

        Capitalism has def outlived its usefulness, though, at least as we have it today. Or I’m totally wrong. Lol

  5. sylvie
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    “…our long-term fulfillment – is nationalism … homogeneous, secure environments, … healthy traditions, and natural order, all of which can only be achieved … among our own.”

    Imagine the awakening, when the British realize that they fought a World War fiercely opposing precisely these concepts !

    And that without that bloodshed, today London would be British, Paris French and Berlin German …

  6. nineofclubs
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Your example of social conditioning/pressure to do with Anthony Joshua is interesting.
    I had a similar encounter in a group setting where I expressed – very politely – a view about the actual value of mass immigration for Australia. The group reaction was a mixture of nervous giggles and attempts to change the subject. Later, however, more than one of the group told me individually that they agreed with what I’d said. One went further, wondering aloud how to reverse the effects of 40 years of bad immigration policy.
    It seems that despite what people know and believe, we’ve become socially conditioned to respond in ‘acceptable’ ways. The white Australian working class is not immune to this process, but being less concerned about maintaining a respectable image, is more likely to speak its mind.
    Great article. Hope to see more from Laura on CC in future.


    • Wanred
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      Very interesting to read a woman’s point of view on these matters. I hope to see more of these writings in the future.

      My personal experience with dating is that the women who expressed a desire to also date other races (or ended up doing so) more often than not had mental issues, came from a broken home or generally had very low expectations of the men in their lives.

      What always amused me were the self-proclaimed open-border feminists who expressed their desire for exclusively having children with a white man and did so with a straight face. Shit-eating grin usually ensued.

  7. John Carter
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    Great article. The psychological warfare being waged against White women is very real, and very evil. To retain social acceptance, you’re required to act contrary to all your instincts: to be a wife and mother; to date and marry within your tribe; to avoid dangerous foreigners.

    The flip side of this is that White men are to be prevented from protecting their women from aliens, and are furthermore socialized to behave like utter betas. Go to the night club, and you’ll see negroes shamelessly grinding up against White women while White men stand on the sidelines. Our own instincts tell us to deal harshly with Interlopers who would take our women, but we understand too well that any intercession will be met by those same over-socialized women with cries of racism … just as, if we emulate non-Whites in their behavior towards White women, we will be accused of sexism.

    White women understand that we’re supposed to protect them. We don’t, and they hate us for it, deep down where in the parts of their souls they have been conditioned to pretend don’t exist.

    And then there are the night clubs themselves, where the dance floor – with its overpowering rhythmic noise, its gyrating bodies, its drunken abandon – replicates the natural mating environment of the African, and has nothing in common with the dances that Europeans require to evaluate their partners as a whole individual rather than just a piece of ass. We’re being forced to mate like negroes and are miserable in consequence.

    • Rob Bottom
      Posted September 29, 2018 at 12:10 am | Permalink

      Even in the absence of large numbers of foreigners, women’s lib does enormous damage to the traditional gender balance. Just look at Japan, where women were also encouraged to join the workforce but there has been very little immigration. They don’t have as much of an issue with foreigners pissing in the gene pool as we do, but the women there are materialistic to a fault and, empowered by their financial independence, many admit they refuse to marry a man who earns less than $70k a year.

      This attitude consigns a large portion of Japanese men to a life of permanent bachelorhood. In contrast, the women can enjoy flings when they want to, have abortions on demand, and if they miss the boat on having children they can always just buy a puppy. And we know what that has done to the Japanese birth rate.

      When given the option, it seems the majority of high IQ women will choose to pursue some shitty office job for the joys of financial independence rather than be a pregnant housewife with a couple of children to look after. The solution is to take the choice away from them. Perhaps employers should not hire a woman under the age of 35, with the expectation being she will spend her most fertile years finding a man and starting a family. By that time the kids should already be going to school everyday, so most of her work as a mother will be over. With the divorce laws the way they are, I’d say that’s a fairly good compromise.

2 Trackbacks

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace