|
Would Y'all Quit Ghost Dancing?!: Welcoming Women into
the White Movement
by Angry White Female
Ed. Note: The following article contains constructive
thoughts on incorporating women into the White Movement. It uses the analogy of Ghost
Dancing (a last-gasp, half-spiritual, half-military attempt by Indians to ward off their
final defeat at the hands of Whites) to describe to-date-unsuccessful White-nationalist
tactics. The author is right: we on the right have failed to adapt to new conditions.
The terms of the engulfing race war have been set by the Jews directing the left:
win-at-all-costs/anything-goes -- resulting in the tricky, deceitful, underhanded, lying
deviousness characteristic of, to take two from a million examples, Dick Morris speaking
sideways on the Televitz, or Alan Dershowitz speaking on anything anywhere. They may be
Jews, they may be liars, but they are effective, and they are winning. We must study their
M.O. in order to defeat them.
'Wordscrew,' 'mindscrew,' framing and reframing the debate -- as AWF emphasizes, these are
the elements of leftist success. Well aware it can't defeat us with swords or honest
arguments because its cause is, were it to state it openly, the cultural erasure and racial
genocide of Normal White America presided over by a perverse and jealous self-Chosen
minority, the left employs professional deceivers -- agitprop masters -- Ehrenburgs -- to
devise labels to predetermine the outcome of spurious 'debates' over equally spurious
'issues.' All of a sudden, like Mexican invaders, these labels appear and are everywhere.
They explode in the media, on campus, from government publications. Soon enough
'undocumented immigrants' (to take one of a million examples) has replaced 'illegal aliens'
on the lips of our coworkers, and we even find it coming from our own mouths before we
catch ourselves. Social change is catalyzed by pre-empting reality through euphemisms for
leftists and their causes (civil rights, gays, affirmative action, pro-choice, etc.), and
dysphemisms for rightists (hate group, hate crime, hate [X], homophobes, racists, sexist,
etc.). Labels kick off the process, laws (America, Germany, England) or lynchings (South
Africa, Zimbabwe) end it. Menticide precedes genocide. The left starts by demonizing its
target, ends by banning it or at least passing laws against it. You aren't someone with a
different opinion, you are a 'hate criminal.' All of a sudden the police are knocking at
your door in a pre-dawn raid because you are an Englishman, and someone tipped the police
you were reading The Turner Diaries (illegal in that nation of stalwart freemen). That's
the way the game is played, but the right pretends not to notice, pretends that politics is
a gentleman's game where nothing's really at stake and we're all jolly good chums who
convene at the bar at the end of the day, divisions forgotten. But politics to the Jews
who are murdering the White West is entirely different. To them it's warfare, preferably
by words, but when needed by weapons. They have millenia of struggle as despised minorities
in hostile host nations behind them, we have armchairs behind us. We laugh and lose. They
lie and win.
Where were you when you first heard 'hate crimes,' Daddy? Do you remember? Yesterday
nobody'd heard of a hate crime. But Jewish blacksmiths in the bowels of ADL, driven by
hate and fueled by government grants, went to work, shaped and forged the brand, shipped it
direct to the queer editorial artists at New York Times, the producers at MTV, the
"civil-rights" barrators at the Justice Department. All of sudden we hear of nothing
else. That's how social change happens. It seems to come from nowhere. It seems to be
inevitable. But it doesn't, and it isn't. It is created by a tiny minority trying to push
things in a certain direction, whittling huge arguments into tiny and diamond-hard
bite-memes, and passing these on to brethren in the media for amplification, and repeating
and repeating and repeating the message until it finally starts echoing back from the lips
that swallow Bud Lite. And as the Jews well know, Bud Lite drinkers eventually will
swallow anything. Give me Hollywood and I'll rule the world, said Joe Stalin. Uncle Joe
understood reality. Do you, White man? Read this article and get a bit closer...
A.
The White Ghost Dance...
I must warn you reading this right now -- it contains "progressive" material and constructive
criticism of the current structure, strategies and composition of the pro-White movement.
It is written from a semi-liberal (by liberal, I mean its former meaning of progressive and
open-minded) racialist woman's point of view. I see women (and progressives) as the
"missing link," and I will try to explain this in terms which will not offend our cherished
men. The theme is that using retroactive antibiotics will not eradicate the resistant bug
unleashed against our people.
A word on retroactive traditionalism...
Europeans have a sense of honor and fair play. Our famous battles involved two opposing
groups of warriors gathering on one battlefield and duking it out until the stronger
prevailed. The movement, I believe, has continued that tradition, hence has not adapted to
the enemy's non-traditional alternative warfare strategies by utilizing all the weapons at
its disposal.
The enemy we face today is not fighting with traditional weapons, and his warfare is
anything but honorable. The fight today is not against the Mongol Army. It is against
those who have evolved the talent of using WORDS combined with PSYCHOLOGY to destroy their
foes. In short, the weapons of war have changed -- but we have not. We have stuck to the
traditionalist ideas and battle strategies of 1950s America, and that just won't cut it in
the 21st century. I will attempt to demonstrate that our failure to adapt to changing
conditions has kept the movement stagnant for decades. We have yet to scratch beneath the
"skin" of the problem to uncover the bare bones. To do that, we must adapt to changing
conditions and reexamine the elements of the struggle.
Redefining women's roles...
The movement speaks often of sex differences, but we have never really discussed, in depth,
sex differences in terms of utilizing them beyond the return of nurturance and commitment
to family first. The sex differences I want to utilize are the "other" psychological
qualities that can and must be employed in the struggle. Many of those qualities are
present in the enemy, but not in our men. They include a talent for "wordscrew," eliciting
sympathy in the masses, the cunning of a cat, the ability to appeal to a wide audience and
the tact to pull it off.
The enemy has intelligently used his knowledge of psychology to turn White women into
weapons of the anti-White crusaders, while the "right-wing" movement has been "Ghost
dancing" to make it all go away. Past use of the Ghost Dance in America culminated in the
slaughter of the Lakota Indians. The soil, White man, will not bury the enemy in the
Springtime. Going back to "traditional roles" will not win this war because the soldiers,
the battlefield and elements of the war have changed. Most notably, the war is being
fought with words, and our traditional soldiers, men, have not been trained to fight this
type of enemy. That is why the role of women must expand greatly in the movement if we are
to move forward.
White diversity as strength...
Diversity is the enemy's term, but we have it right here in the movement and IT IS OUR
GREATEST STRENGTH. Each difference (sex, class, ideological, religious, ethnic origin) is
a STRENGTH. The movement sometimes views "difference" as a weakness and something
undesireable. But the rules of the WAR have changed considerably as noted above. One
cannot win a battle against tanks, automatic weapons, fighter planes and missiles
(representing diversity) by chucking spears. Sticking to the old rules of war is a
reactionary tactic, and one of defensiveness rather than progressiveness. A multi-faceted
problem cannot be solved by single-faceted approach. We cannot win if our face is solely
Christian, middle-class, middle-aged, male and patriotic. I am none of the above! I am a
woman, Hail Odin, am not middle class, not middle-aged, and frankly I take delight when
someone burns the flag. Hence, an obstacle facing us is the lack of "tolerance," and
failure to utilize the greatest weapon at our disposal, diversity. I am not putting down
the traditionalists, they have a great role in this battle, but thus far, they have been
the sole grunts, and they have not been reinforced at the flank.
Separation of church and race...
Unlike the traditionalist Christian, an Odinist can appeal to an atheist, evironmentalist
or a "Skraeling-o-phile" because the Odinist feels more of a kinship with nature. He can
see things the Christian may not. He has many non-traditional arguments. He has no
problem being compared to nature because he does not believe he is separate and superior to
it. He often uses nature correlations to explain our present situation. He is a
"generalist," which means an animal that adapts to changing circumstances. The Christian
may be a "specialist," which is an animal that does not adapt to changing conditions. In
all probability, the Odinist is an evolutionist, while that line of reasoning goes against
the fundamental principles of Christianity.
If we were to choose an enemy, whom would we pick? I would pick one who never changes his
arguments, strategies or politics. He is predictable and non-progressive. In other words,
he is a non-moving target and an easy mark for the vultures who are circling above. The
enemy knows this and uses it to his advantage. He becomes alarmed and hysterical when
women begin gravitating toward their people, not because of sheer numbers, but because the
mind of a woman is a necessary element for success. He gets very alarmed when
non-Christians make their presence felt. This is why his attention has turned to Odinism.
He becomes alarmed when he sees non-"right-wingers" descending on the movement, because
they represent progressiveness. Diversity in the movement makes his job tougher because he
cannot put us into an ideological pigeonhole.
A progressive racialist can employ psychological mindscrew better than a conservative, by
reframing the debate and redefining the issues. He can adapt their arguments to suit
changing conditions. Example: A conservative will say "I oppose abortion because the
Bible says life is sacred." A progressive will say "I oppose abortion for the same reason
I oppose animal abuse, because it HURTS and the victim cannot articulate his pain." Another example:
A conservative will say "I oppose immigration because the aliens aren't assimilating into
Christian American culture." A progressive will say "I oppose immigration on environmental
grounds and out of concern for working Americans." A conservative opposes bilingual
education, while a progressive racialist gladly funds it because it maintains the
separation necessary for our survival. A conservative will try to outlaw flag-burning.
A progressive racialist will say "Screw the flag, burn it, it does not represent the
interests of my people."
Adapting to change...
Whether we like it or not, conditions have changed, and our society has become feminized.
The response of the movement (and some men in general) to this phenomenon has been to start
"Ghost Dancing" in an attempt to bring back the woman of the 1940s. But as I stated earlier,
women are a necessity in this battle because their minds are more akin to that of those who
are trying to destroy us. Pigeonholing women into a single role has served the enemy well.
He correctly predicted White men's response to feminism and used it to his advantage by
VALIDATING our feelings and creating the image of the angry white male. He used his
cunning (as well as a few valid issues) to drive a wedge between White men and women. Some
men have suggested we are the problem (rather than the solution). But how can a man find
the key to re-open the hearts and minds of women when he doesn't understand their true
psychology? The enemy made it a point to understand the hearts and minds of women. He did
not place a negative spin on the qualities of women. He saw a great weapon in women's
intelligence, and used it to fight an enemy (White men) who hadn't ever faced this type of
opponent before.
It is the KEY we must find to open the door. Ramming it in will not win over the womenfolk.
And winning over the womenfolk is a necessary task, not simply for reproductive reasons,
but for those other things we do so cunningly well, not the least of which is determining
the psychology of the enemy and using it against him.
In closing, might I suggest that in every successful movement the energy and dynamism come
from the unconventionals, the progressives? What revitalizes a movement is passion -- new
ideas, philosophies and strategies. For lack of better terms, our problem has been
intolerance of new ideas and diversity within our own movement. Dinos go extinct, and so
will we if we don't stop believing the bullets will not pierce our bodies if we all just do
the Ghost Dance.
--
Winning over women to the racialist cause....
So how do we win over White females? Consider something a winning soccer coach once said.
When coaching males, he said, you can kick 'em in the ass with criticism to get them to
respond. With females, you have to be more patient, gentler -- explain to them why you
need them to do something. What we need to do with women is not whine about the feminized
times we live in, although that certainly is an apt complaint, but to show them where and
how the current situation is not in their AND THEIR HUSBANDS' AND FAMILIES' long-term best
interests. This will work with women of all classes, because almost all women, married or
not, envision a future with husband and kids. Women tend to be myopic -- most concerned
about and focused on what is closest to them. Principles mean less to them, generally,
than people. This general truth must condition our approach to winning them for our cause.
Lay out the facts for them about racial crime, but focus on what it means to them, their
sons and daughters and their neighborhood. Lay out the facts for them about affirmative
action, but again, start with its immediate effects on their husband and their son and
their schools and workplaces -- and then build outwards. Same arguments, different
approach.
I once had a long interview with the professor who wrote "Invisible Victims: White Males
and the Crisis of Affirmative action," one of the very first studies of the effects of AA
on White males. He told me that, perhaps surprisingly, in many of the instances of
discrimination he studied, the wives were actually angrier about the injustices visited on
their husbands than the men themselves. There lies an avenue for us. Although certain
professional women do benefit from AA, most women are married, and as half of a team
depending on income from a discriminated-against partner, they present fertile soil for our
arguments. Even in these Jew-feminist-suffused times, women care about their husbands and
families as much or more than they care about themselves: they are their life. Tie our
arguments to the threats against both these things that Jew-led "diversity" and
"immigration" and genocidal egalitarianism pose. Bring home to them the real-world
consequences to them, their kids, their husband, their bodies, their neighborhood of
Jew-propagated lies about race, crime, immigration, etc. Once persuaded, these women will
propagate the White message through their own society in their own ways, which are
different but no less necessary or effective than men's. Women and men together in the
movement can play good cop/bad cop and together get the job done.
As a closing note, time is not on our side. Every trend is running against us. Yet most
on the right assume that all this negativity will culminate with a bang in an apocalyptic
battle. That is, in a curious way, comforting. If things must get worse before anything
is actually done about them, that absolves us of the need to fight now. But A) it doesn't,
and B) there's no guarantee at all that what we read on VNN daily will result in a
revolution. Things might just as easily end with a whimper, a fading out that leaves the
White West a colder version of Brazil. No, if something is to be done, the only things we
can depend on are ourselves and our actions. Act up, speak out, donate time, donate money --
GET INVOLVED. It will change you as a man, as a woman. It will make you more of what's
unique and worth protecting about our race. It may be sad, but it is true: The humility,
creativity and privacy and carefulness and equanimity that make what's outside Kiryas Joel,
Nigastan or Bolivia preferable to what's inside are not the virtues that will see us
through this night. We need the martial virtues we've put on the back shelf for far too
long now. We need to become fighters, and anything that makes our fight "cool" in the eyes
of young Whites and women is good. A.L.
|