Dear Alex: Since comments don’t seem to be allowed here, I chose to follow up by email. The subject is too complex to completely cover here, and I may write several articles on the issue, but, basically, there are several problems that, without consideration for them, make your assertions — even if taken extremely to heart by white traditionalist men — mere window-dressing on the wound. Our people’s problems began, not (gasp!) with Marxist feminism in the 1960’s, but with forced European Christianity (key word being “forced”). And the true beginning of the crisis was when the patriarchal construct was used to “brainwash” European families into believing the breakup of the family — separating all the men from home life to work in fields and factories for elites during the 17th to 19th century Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions in Europe. That artificial adoption of alien Semitic gender roles is what has driven everything to date, including inciting the 1960’s version of American Marxist feminism. Had Europeans not adopted Judaic gender roles, the natural order of European ideals would have remained, to organically morph into modern versions (descriptively, not prescriptively) through a natural process. It is very short-sighted — and very convenient, considering arguably natural male tendencies and unique interests — that traditionalist white men in our circles choose to see the reaction — Marxist feminism — but never choose to see the cause that prompted it. It is impossible to properly address the latter without understanding and addressing the former. And our circles don’t — men here, much like you — although you’ve done it in a kinder form — attribute everything to women being brainwashed by Marxist feminism. Heaven forbid it might occur to the intellectuals in these circles that there is no brainwashing, and women’s understanding might be intact and the correct one? There is no painted caricature of what the role of women was before the 1960’s. Women don’t learn what it is to be a woman, or of what life was in the past, from Women’s Studies classes in college. They learn it — like men — through and from their mothers and grandmothers, listening and watching. And those women learned the same way. And what is passed down, I assure you, is a legacy of limited horizons that would shatter your rosy-eyed view of a nostalgic past. You don’t have to be the victim of physical domestic abuse to be affected — just like men today are censured through fear of divorce in this system, women were censured back then for fear of lack of recourse. Occupation has always been a primary factor driving education — women were limited the same way working class young men were limited. Why prepare and send someone clearly destined to be a bricklayer to university? There were very real social and economic glass ceilings and second class citizen-hood for women, and feminism had nothing to do with the reality — only by showcasing it later. When you have had a chain of women in your own line, who never heard of Gloria Steinhem and never attended college, come to you with burning eyes and voice, telling you of the times past and how they went through what they did so their children — their daughters — would not have to live in the confines of their world, you would understand. Putting up with philandering because there was no birth control and a wife had several children, and she was socially and economically tied to her husband. Putting up with male ego and posturing and milder forms of vice to keep harmony at home, covering for an absentee man with a view of fatherhood as a limited parent. When their eyes and voices tell you they worked so hard to make certain their daughters would not have the same environment and choices, you realize that you are handed a torch, not a gift. The price tag is that you must make the most with what you’ve been given, and do more and go farther than the small periphery of the lives and world they experienced for themselves. Add to that what you’ve seen with your own eyes concerning how men “value” motherhood and keeping a household by the way they talk about women and women’s work, and how everything was left as the woman’s responsibility, even if she worked outside the home as much as her husband did, and you see, very clearly, what to expect in the event you want to have children. The very different fertility rates of countries like Sweden and Norway, where gender roles in terms of childcare and home chores are much more egalitarian, compared to those of Spain and Italy point to where the real issue lies. The Siamese twin of Marxist feminism — Judaic patriarchal gender roles — is why the older order was indeed “stupefying, mummifying, and … a serotonin suppressor”. If traditionalist white men truly “actually respect and admire women who…exercise and cultivate their talents, wherever these may take them”, then our circles will foster a male social value system that encourages and rewards men in doing everything they can to support women continuing to exercise and cultivate their talents through parenthood, and work to provide infrastructure and incentives that promote men stepping up to hands-on parenting and household chores. And not in a supporting role, but in a leading, responsible, ownership role, which puts fatherhood — the moment to moment parenting, hands-on experience, etc. — on a par with motherhood. Words are empty — circles can say all they want about how much motherhood was lauded in the past and valued. Only it wasn’t, truly — it was just window-dressing to make second class citizenry more palatable and justifiable. Let’s truly make it so by lauding quality parenthood — the promotion and encouragement of both parents, along with financial and other infrastructure incentives — as the ultimate value. It wasn’t Marxist feminism that lowered the social standing of stay-at-home mothers, it was our own society that lowered the social standing of women to justify that they should be nothing else. It was the foreign hostile influence of Semitic patriarchy that altered the prior conception of women as allies and partners, turning them into competitors and opponents, who must be controlled to mitigate the extreme influence they can have over a man’s mind, heart and body. Documentation on the ban of early Catholic church on married priests sheds much light on the “competitive” role of women as channels for sin and ruin. Judaic social mores as handed down through the concept of headship, used and misused in its many flavors, set the stage for the very valid malcontent of which Marxists later took advantage by hijacking what was a valid European-based feminist women’s rights movement. White traditionalists make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and rejecting all that occurred as invalid, entirely dismissing the prior situation and stating that women are “brainwashed” by feminism. Does it not seem obvious then, that no thinking woman would throw in her lot with a crowd bent on restoring that social order, dismissing all its issues as feminine delusion, basically? How can such men truly value women, and truly support, respect and admire women who exercise and cultivate their talents, wherever these may take them? They can’t, and they don’t, and women very clearly recognize this. That fact (and a secondary issue concerning disparity in expression of whiteness that I cannot cover here) is why there is such a lack of women in this movement. If you want more women involved, then don’t pretend to value, respect and admire their choices and abilities, but actually do so by supporting and promoting a modified social framework that bolsters them and ties men into parenthood as well, when the qualities men bring to parenthood are just as necessary moment to moment, and just as unique. Motherhood isn’t a woman’s job, it’s a couple’s job — we need to push back further to the past before the Industrial Revolution pushed many of the fatherhood responsibilities into the sphere of motherhood. We ought not promote even the most diluted version of alien gender roles — they ought to be considered trappings left behind as Judaic cultural mores inapplicable to gentiles just as are Kosher dietary laws, a Saturday sabbath, and other clearly ethnicity-specific cultural practices. Why not really restore original Western civilization gender roles and then compare them to those of other nations? Make hands-on fathering a competition. White Nationalists should be clamoring that subsidies and other incentives given to stay-at-home mothers ought to be given to stay-at-home fathers. Not only is failure to do so sexual discrimination, but, especially in this economy and the “He-cession”, men should have the same educational opportunities that will strengthen their practical or job market skills that women do, and be afforded the same opportunities to spend hands-on time with their children. It ought to be a mantra to White Nationalist men that they must have children, and in order for that to happen, they must be willing to do everything they require from a perspective mother in order to be a good parent, not just a traditional view of good fatherhood. This means refocusing on the spiritual and emotional nurturing that a man provides his wife and children — a warrior or traditional father headship role has to be modified to include these skills and aspects being as valuable and necessary as leadership and self-defense. In fact, they are indeed just other aspects of leadership and self-defense. When the rest of the world, including the Asian and Islamic cultures you mention, emphasizes the role of women to be stay-at-home motherhood, I can’t help but think it isn’t the role of motherhood per se, that defined Western Civilization. It was the hands-on, unique involvement of Western fatherhood that truly differentiated us and continues to do so today. There were circumstantial and environmental factors that divided labor, certainly, but most of those areas have been addressed by technology. And despite the differences and how it seems, Western men and women are human beings that are much more alike than different. Dr. Kevin MacDonald alludes to that here in his comparison of the Western high-investment parenting, monogamous, high-compatibility, and high-status of women marriage to the Judaic model: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/West-TOQ.htm In our modern times, most families can’t get by on just one income. We ought to promote flexibility in our solutions, so that both parents are acknowledged and included in part-time income, childcare, maternity/paternity leave or subsidies, educational subsidies, or other collective arrangements. If a man is unemployed in this economy, he should take up childcare so his wife can concentrate on her job, and use it to also go back to school to make the most of his down time. It beats wallowing in imaginary decreased masculinity. Had men not been so divorced from home life, they might have lent their voices to the struggle women are making now to integrate work and home life, and most workplaces might have started as family-friendly — family bolstering mechanisms spawned from a family-centric society, instead of sweatshops created by an exploitative hostile corporate elite. If we focus on what men are doing, and need to be doing, instead of on what women are doing and buying into what the media and Marxist feminists tell you women “think and believe” (taking the word of consumerist media and advertising is its own form of brainwashing you know), our circles will foster a male attitude of fatherhood excellence. That carries over directly into attitudes of spousal excellence. I know that today’s men are lost, and latching onto a past model of manhood is expected and understandable. But let us recognize that the past model had its alien influences and bad aspects in the same vehemence and scrutiny used toward Marxist feminist redefinitions of womanhood. And let us not be so fearful — and exploited by — the bogeyman of feminism that we don’t correct the very necessary issues of the past by focusing on a better, newer model. It was, indeed, those past aspects that led to the fertile ground for Marxist hijacking of the women’s rights movement in the 1960’s. We need to restore the hands-on, spiritual and emotional nurturing of fatherhood and the husband role to the modern equivalent the old European versions would have evolved into naturally had Semitic influences remained in the Fertile Crescent. Sincerely, L.C.