Make Coney Island infamous so that they will close it down, after somebody's skirt gets blown up in the funhouse or the bearded lady scares the children... Share this pointless piece of crap to remind all your stupid Facebook friends that you still exist and are capable of doing more than posting pictures of your lunch or playing Farmville.

Jaenelle instigated an epic firestorm with her recent article, "Where are All the Women?" Whether her position is correct or incorrect, she deserves credit for stepping up and starting the discussion. She's correct that the overt hostility toward women in some circles is an impediment to progress and she's also correct that women are generally less inclined—both by nature and nurture - to be a bit less politically vocal and comfortable with the concomitant competitiveness and hostility that comes with it.

Unfortunately, she leaves one with the impression that Women,  the identity group, are boycotting the good fight for our people and our future until a list of conditions are met. If a cause is both righteous and existential, then those who are awakened to the necessity of that cause have a moral obligation to fight for it regardless of what challenges they face from either their enemies or their "allies". To take up dissident political work is to be goaded into arena by spectators who are content to clap and cheer as the lion chases you in circles. It's not easy, but matter how off-putting some creeper bellowing about how you ought to shut up and make babies can be, it's not that guy's fault if women fail to do their part.

One might conclude if one didn't know better that Jaenelle is liable to run off and whimper on Morris Dees' gaudy red velvet sofa if we men didn't "shape up".

Her own actions contradict that interpretation. Jaenelle has been at the forefront of public advocacy, tirelessly working to organize and mobilize real world White Advocacy. As a co-founder of Hoosier Nation, she's played a pivotal role in building one of the most active and effective activist workshops in America from scratch. As the sole proprietor of Lighthouse Literature, she's doing as much as anybody to help spread the ideas behind our movement. She's faced down the illegal immigrant protesters and "antifa" thugs on the statehouse steps, choked on pepper spray, been kicked out of venues after bricks were thrown through the plate-glass windows,  had credible threats on both herself and her loved ones, and paid for much of that experience out of her own purse.

The real question is the very opposite of Jaenelle's. Men are the ones more or less absent from the struggle to preserve our White American heritage and way of life. Sure, there are relatively few women involved in the so-called "movement". But this struggle shouldn't be defined in terms of the "stuckment", but in on who is out in the real world struggling for White American interests and goals. By that standard, most hobbyists (and women are generally not hobbyists) who call themselves pro-White would barely qualify at all, and the vast army of moms, wives, and sisters keeping America segregated one neighborhood at a time would qualify.

Our enemies are quick to confirm that "racism" in America has taken on a softer, more subtle, more insidious tone. In other words, it's become more feminine. America's women are the ones putting their kids in "good schools", bothering the Homeowner's Association about all the cars parked next door until the Mexicans are forced out of the neighborhood, lobbying for zoning policies that prohibit lime green houses with purple shutters, championing the fascist zero-tolerance and anti-drug policies that make excellent proxies for race, and smirking warmly when their real estate clients propose to move into "that" neighborhood.

Had White America's women faltered to the extent that we men have in the past century, there would be nothing left for us to preserve. Where are all the men at? Had our women not found hundreds of millions of clever little ways to resist the federal government's tyrannical social engineering campaign, America would be a Brazilian circus by now. Had they contented themselves with bestowing grandiose titles upon themselves in the humid confines of their parents' basements and calling it "pro-White", we would all be hosed.

Steve Sailer has demonstrated that the phenomenon of "White Flight"—the first thing our opponents point to when attempting to name examples of Whites acting in their group interests - is driven almost exclusively by women of child-bearing age. Even the most confidently pro-White men find themselves going for the cheaper apartments that are closer to the office. Even the most liberal soccer moms find themselves going  for the lily-white subdivision. If, as Jaenelle suggested and many commenters put in more blunt terms, the men's work is overt political struggle and the women's work is practical local and familial toiling, then there's no contest.

Our birth rate is hovering below replacement-rate, now. Feminists are a big part of the problem. Heidi Beirich is still stomping around college campuses in search of "racism". There's much more that women can do to help, and I hope Jaenelle fleshes out her proposal for more female-friendly outreach and advocacy options. As a society, both sexes are failing to measure up to the legacy we inherited from our forefathers and pioneer mothers. If we're to earn the rich inheritance we've been entrusted with, both men and women must stop playing by the enemy's rules and thinking of our separate genders as competing identity groups. We must start thinking of ourselves as complementary halves of a singular tribe joined in a united front against the globalists and their third world minions.

It’s a question one cannot avoid asking or avoid hearing in this movement: Where are all the women? Females are noticeably absent, save for the wives who get dragged along to events by their husbands. Being female myself, people often ask me why I think this is or what can be done to change it. I don’t consider myself an expert on the subject, but since I have been asked about it frequently, it is a question to which I have devoted some thought.

The main factors that I believe result in a lack of female participation are a generally hostile atmosphere in the movement, minimal or non-existent social acceptability, and an excessively political orientation.

The overall hostility towards women is, in my view, probably the biggest factor. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not a bra-burning feminist nor do I hate men. In fact, some of my best friends are men (all of them are, actually except for two) and I don’t approve of the way modern society tends to build up women at the expense of men.

But there are a LOT of bitter men in this movement. I’m sure you know the type: The ones who blame women for all of society’s problems, as well as for their own personal problems; the ones who view women as little more than baby-making machines and are resentful of women who do anything besides raise children; and the ones who think women are inferior to men (intellectually or otherwise) and therefore have nothing useful to contribute.

I can’t say if these people are in the majority or not, but it doesn’t matter. They are so vocal that one cannot avoid hearing them and any woman who encounters this, particularly one who is on the fence, is likely to be put off by it, if not driven off completely. No one wants to participate in an activity where they are being put down, denigrated, and criticised at every turn. Most people’s participation in anything is contingent upon feeling valued by other members of the group. This kind of anti-female language that is so prevalent does not make women feel as though their contributions toward activism will be valued, nor does it give the impression that this movement has something better to offer the average woman than does modern society.

But it’s not just men! I’ve encountered some pretty hostile language from other women, too, who believe that any woman who isn’t having a million babies and keeping house for her husband is a radical feminist. That is also extremely off-putting and sends the message that any woman who wants to be involved in this movement is expected to give up her own dreams and aspirations and focus only on having a family. However, having children is not activism. It is important and necessary, but it is not activism. Most women were born with a uterus and a brain and we are capable of using them both. Currently the face of this movement is entirely male and until there is a noticeable female presence, it will fail to mainstream.

That leads me to the next factor, the lack of social acceptability. Contrary to popular belief, women are not all that left-wing. In fact, women tend to become more conservative as they get older and have families. There are a lot of right-leaning women out there. And they are not participating in our movement. Why?

Most people do not seek out ostracism. Participating in this movement, especially openly, means having all sorts of unpleasant labels attached to one by default. Guilty by association. Many of our men may not have a problem with that and feel that they can “go it alone”, if they must, but women aren’t hard-wired that way.

To date, very little has been done to mainstream the movement. It has remained on the fringes, primarily attracting fringe individuals who cannot find social acceptance in other circles. This is starting to change, slowly. When women can join this movement without fear of ostracism and loss of their entire support network of friends and family, they will flock to it. It’s not that women don’t care. It’s just that there is not much in this movement as a movement (as opposed to a set of personal beliefs) that is worth potentially placing in jeopardy one’s reputation, livelihood, or physical safety.

This goes back to what I said about offering women something better than does modern society. Promising a woman that her only reward for participation will be becoming outcast in regular society is not particularly enticing (especially if it comes with a rigid enforcement of gender roles). But if and when the movement mainstreams, it will be in a better position to offer something more attractive and beneficial to women. Men can afford to hold to impractical ideological principles like multiculturalism and diversity, but women will almost always break ranks when it is in their or their children’s best interests.

Lastly, current means of activism offer very little that is of interest to the average woman. Most activism is centered on political activism. Conference, rallies, blogging, etc. are not activities that appeal to women, on the whole. Women generally are more inclined towards social causes.

Political causes are largely a man’s game. Politics requires a level of confrontation and competition with which many women are not comfortable, either because of their own gentler nature or because they have been socialised not to be aggressive in that manner. I get the impression sometimes that men expect women to be as enthusiastic about political causes as they are, not realising that by offering no other options for participation, they get either half-hearted efforts from the women who do participate or they attract Sarah Palin types who think they are honourary men and are generally an embarrassment to the movement. The remainder of the women just sit on the sidelines, not knowing how they can help and feeling generally useless and left out.

There is no organisation in this movement that focuses on the social problems of our people and no one coordinating efforts to solve those problems. It’s not that we don’t think political causes are important. We know they are, but they don’t engage our sensibilities. We derive a lot more satisfaction out of helping someone in need than in writing letters to our senators and the results of social activism are usually more immediate. I engage in political activism because it is essential, but I much prefer opportunities to help our people directly and in a tangible way.

Social causes are something women are historically very good at taking charge of and turning into a success. Our movement could benefit a lot from organisations whose focus is on helping people and the existence of such organisations would attract more women by offering them activism options that are interesting to them and give them a chance to utilise the talents they have. Women tend to be community builders and would excel at providing a framework in which we can offer services and support to our people.

Additionally, having groups whose purpose is to help others can put a more positive spin on the movement, helping to debunk the myth that we are all just haters. Any serious political movement should have an arm whose purpose it is to improve the community and the lives of the people in it.

So how do we put this into action and start attracting more women?

First, negative attitudes about women have to change. Make the movement more welcoming to women. Get rid of the He-Man Woman Haters Club- it is toxic to our movement and serves only to feed the stereotype that we are made up entirely of older, reactionary men who are living in the past.

Second, get those new women (and the older ones, too) involved in social activism for our people that engages their sensibilities and makes use of the talents that come naturally to women. Put them to work as the new face of the movement and they will not only attract more women, but also more men, increasing our overall numbers and the amount of talent available to us.

Once these things have been achieved, mainstreaming this movement will come much more easily, but until then, we will continue to have very little political power and our influence will remain limited. Women are essential to the success of this movement. Anyone who is serious about the future of our people should be making it a priority to reach out to women and make them feel welcome.

When a chubby man in a Phoenix diner offered to buy me dinner, I had no idea of who he was or of the consequences of chatting with him for another hour. The internet rumours, the blogs, the newspaper articles, the phone calls at all hours of the day and night, the death threats, the mace, and more . . . none of it was on my radar screen. I had been driving all day and I was starving. Club sandwich, please, and hold the tomato.

I assumed him to be a customer of the diner who was simply curious about what was going on, especially as the antifa protesting outside had drawn everybody’s attention. It's not unusual to encounter curious bystanders while on a book tour. The result of that conversation was not one, but three, sleazy articles about me.

The man was a journalist, though he did not disclose it to me until afterwards, when someone confronted him. As it turned out, he had come at the invitation of the antifa.

Call me naïve (which I certainly was), but I tend to take people at face value. There is something about two-faced people that doesn’t compute with me. How could this person be so nice to my face and then turn around and write nasty articles about me? Did I really deserve that? I had been kind to him and remained courteous even after his admission to having engaged me under false pretenses. I couldn’t understand where the rabid hatred had come from.

Yes, David Irving is controversial and I was aware of that (though when I first got involved with him, my awareness of that was marginal), but until this point, his enemies had left me out of the fight. Some people might say I should have expected that not to last, but I was new to it and no one ever warned me of what I might be getting myself into. I don’t think I could have been reasonably expected to anticipate it given my limited knowledge of such matters at the time. And because I would never stoop to such tactics, the thought that someone else might do it, and do it to get to me somehow, never crossed my mind.

Eventually, I learned that almost all journalists are like this. Oh, a few I’ve talked to have been okay, but at the end of the day, most of them are subject to their editor’s demands. The story that gets printed is never the story you gave them in the interview. A sensationalised story sells better than a balanced story, after all. After David Irving’s emails were hacked, the UK’s Daily Mail ran a story on me (complete with my copyrighted pictures, which they had stolen and used without permission) based on snippets of these emails, which they twisted in order to create a story where there was none. Not once had they attempted to contact either of us for clarification prior to going to press. It’s just another example of how the media makes the news, but rarely reports the news.

It is thanks to journalists that the antifa came to know of me. They targeted me initially because of my association with David Irving. Because they had decided that they don’t like David Irving, they declared me guilty by association, playing judge, jury, and executioner. That I look “sufficiently Aryan”, as one newspaper described me (was it supposed to be an insult?), is apparently further evidence of my guilt. Were I a dark-complected Latina, like David’s previous assistant, I doubt they would had paid nearly so much attention to me. But my genes dictated that I be born with fair skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. Mea culpa.

As anyone else who has been the target of Left-wing hatred knows, it is more of an annoyance than anything. I am not easily offended. Posting on the internet that I should be raped and murdered does not make me cry myself to sleep at night. Leaving me voicemails saying that I am a “racist whore” does not drive me to overdose on Prozac. I roll my eyes and I move on. You see, I’m a busy person. Unlike antifa who are usually unemployed and unemployable, I don’t have time to sit around being offended. And I don’t have time to be offended on behalf of anyone else. The antifa, on the other hand, seem to spend their entire day feeling offended by the existence of people who think differently than they do, but who otherwise don’t bother them. I cannot imagine a greater waste of life, nor can I understand what motivates them to exist in a state of perpetual outrage.

The antifa don’t understand the real effect of their efforts to “name and shame” me. Sure, I got a few prank phone calls and I lost some friends, but that’s trivial stuff. What they have given me is a wider platform and greater networking opportunities.

By publishing my telephone numbers, the antifa caused me to receive numerous calls from fellow pro-white advocates who were concerned for my safety and well-being. I made several new local contacts and I expanded my network of friendly faces across the country. The phone calls I got from concerned strangers far outnumbered the ones I got from people who wanted to tell me they hate my guts even though they don’t know me.

By publishing my email address, the antifa also facilitated the involvement of several people new to the movement who write to me asking how they can get involved. Most of the time, I can direct them to someone in their area who runs an active group.

Additionally, by outing me, the antifa have made it easier for me to be active in the pro-white movement. I don’t have to worry about anyone finding out about me. This means I can take on a greater role in organisational and street activism. I can start an openly pro-white business. I can write articles and sign them with my real name. I can more easily network because people can Google me and know that I am genuine in what I do.

Had I not been outed, I would have continued my quiet existence and avoided any real involvement for fear of being discovered. I neither regret nor relish having been exposed. It is what it is and I can’t undo it. Yes, there are some things that are better accomplished by people who remain in the shadows, but there are also things better accomplished by people who have gone public. We need both kinds.

So this is my advice to anyone who finds themselves targeted by the enemy: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Look for a way to turn the inconvenience into an opportunity to help the movement. Do not be intimidated.

In his comments on my discussion of alternate modernities, Paul Gottfried observes that in our present situation there's no educational program, system of alliances, or political and cultural strategy that seems likely to get us out of the hole we're in.

I agree. If we start with what I called the modern "attempt to base social order simply on this-worldly empirical man," we can't get anywhere, because we can't escape the problem of conflicting wills fighting over who gets what. The only way to deal with that problem is by some combination of force and fraud, and any new combination of programs, alliances, and strategies is just going to be one more configuration of force and fraud. Why should our force and fraud work out better than everyone else's? Haven't the possibilities been tried and found wanting?

The problem, it seems, is the basic modern understandings that make our present situation what it is and so condition all the programs, alliances, strategies, and so on that now seem reasonable and practical. Things won't get a whole lot better until those understandings change, and that won't happen because some group of activists and theoreticians puts together a system of understandings that's more to their liking and tries to get them adopted by the dominant forces in society.

In particular, as Paul notes, right-wingers aren't going to create a better world by getting together and aligning themselves with selected religious institutions, "command[ing] the political class and its allies in the media, the entertainment industry, and public education to change their worldview," and educating the masses into an outlook more to their liking. Among other problems, religious institutions themselves are affected by the dominant understandings.

But what then? If we don't like the way things are there must be some response--alcohol, skydiving, suicide, whatever--that makes sense even if political maneuvering is not likely to do much for us.

My proposal was to "go back to first things." What defines the political situation is what seems best and most real to the people involved, and if the situation is impossible those things must change. Current understandings have basic problems that (among other things) lead to a view of man as essentially asocial and eventually mean various forms of tyranny as well as "mindlessness and incompetence on the part of rulers and ruled."

It follows that the dissatisfied need first of all to understand the world better, and in a way that enables them to live in a manner more worthy of human nature. That, of course, is a prepolitical issue. It's worth dealing with in itself, since doing so will help ourselves and our families and friends. It's more than just a personal matter, though, since such initiatives can spread and transform social life. At some point some initiative will--it's happened before and will happen again--so why not ours if it's superior?

The present setup has basic contradictions, and won't last forever any more than other social arrangements have. With that in mind, those with an outlook and way of life that is more true and more worth living by should make their pitch and see what catches on and endures. As I commented, "revolutions begin in thought, and the way of thought that makes people most functional and enables them to deal most intelligently with the world has a good shot at winning eventually."

The proposal sounds impossibly conjectural and long-range, but when there is no obvious quick fix you drop day-to-day events as your reference point and do what you can for what could work in principle. If what's needed is a change in basic understandings then that's what you should pursue. Modernity makes effectiveness the measure of thought, but to deal with the world effectively you have to deal on their own terms with issues that precede effectiveness, like what is real and good.

Such an approach might get results soon: things might be better than they seem, late modernity might be a bubble about to burst, the Church (which like everything else has its own characteristic way of functioning) might be about to revert to type, or something nobody has thought of might happen. Or it might take effect slowly or not at all. The same is true of every approach, though, and the basic point is that this approach--unlike others--could work in concept, and is worth pursuing on its own terms even if it does not.

The big question is what a superior way of thought would be. On that point opinions differ and discussion is necessary. In order to deal with man as he actually is and the problems politics actually present we need an outlook that's adequate to the world as we experience it. It seems clear, to me at any rate, that such an outlook requires an understanding of practical rationality not limited to technology and of knowledge not limited to modern natural science.

Otherwise we cannot, among other things, understand people. To understand and deal with life and human beings as we find them, I suggested that "something like the Christian soul, or at least a human essence that by nature is oriented toward the good" is necessary. Whether I'm right on that is a matter for discussion. Still, each of us in his manner of life displays what he thinks is most real and most worth living by. We're more likely to make progress on basic issues to the extent we articulate and examine such commitments. Our problems today really are that basic, which is the reason there seems to be no exit from them.

Recently, I have had strange longings to be a policeman. It is a phase which passes as swiftly as it comes, but for seconds at a time, I daydream of being a part of the thin blue line, civilization’s helm and hauberk, ensuring order on the streets, face-to-face and unflinching with the malodorous and the many-headed. You may have guessed that I have been watching the footage of the British students rioting at the prospect of having to pay for their own education.

The selfishness of the cause is the most annoying characteristic. This is no well-intentioned idealism, like the march against Iraq—this is about the high-earners of the future moaning that they cannot be expected to help defray the costs of the vastly expensive education from which they will be the only direct beneficiaries. And few things could be more guaranteed to raise the warning hackles of sensible observers than tidings like these, culled from a BBC report on a sit-in at University College London—

Philosopher Noam Chomsky has sent his regards from the United States. Billy Bragg, whose albums are older than many of his audience, has put in an appearance.

Leaving aside the shabbiness of the cause and the awfulness of its celeb supporters, I have been unusually irritated by the nauseating sight of vast numbers of Tarquins and Aramintas punching the SW1 air, waving Socialist Worker Party placards, spouting ignorant clichés, spitting and throwing fire extinguishers and masonry at police, smashing things that don’t belong to them, rocking Charles’s and Camilla’s car while shouting “Off with their heads!”—and then running whimpering to the media because they had to stand around for a couple of hours in the cold, or one of their number has unfortunately put his egg-shaped cranium into the path of a descending baton.

You are but one man. Yet you are reading this website, so you are likely to be computer-savvy, verbally capable, and highly politically motivated. You have read innumerable diagnoses and predictions of a gloomy future, many of them all too accurate. But amidst this abundance of prophetic reaction, you have also observed a distinct shortage of feasible plans of action.

We have a plan. We have begun doing something which is both perfectly legal and astonishingly effective. Here is how you can join us.

1. Get a government, media, or nonprofit job, ideally as a system administrator

2. Obtain emails and files demonstrating wrongdoing

3. Upload them to the Internet as an anonymous whistleblower

4. Only quit a few months later, well after the firestorm

To understand why your actions will be so devastatingly effective, we begin by acknowledging that America as we know it is not salvageable.

I recently read James Edward’s book, Racism, Schmacism: How Liberals Use the 'R' Word to Push the Obama Agenda. I was quite interested in it because in his three-hour weekly radio show, The Political Cesspool, James’ treatment of the racism smear is not dissimilar to my own.

The book is – as you might expect from its author – a short, easy, and especially funny read, being comprised mostly of James’ witty commentary on the last few years’ worth of news stories covering alleged White racism. Said stories are discussed very much like in James’ show, and an abundance of internet sources are provided to facilitate independent investigation. Needless to say that the stories are absolutely ridiculous, defying belief in some cases, even for someone whose inbox is flooded daily with the reports of White ‘racism’ collected by Google’s news alerts. A reader can expect to roll his eyes, shake his head, and / or find his trachea rippling with laughter practically on every page.

There is the case, why not, of the federal hate crime investigation triggered by a ham sandwich; and there is the case of a mayor’s lengthy written apology to a Black citizen for allowing police officers to eat bananas in public. There are also several examples of White so-called conservatives being far more paranoid, obnoxious, and vociferous in their denunciations of supposed White racism than the usual liberal suspects. I was astounded to read, for example, that in at least one case, said conservatives even complained about their not being condemned vigorously enough in the liberal media; and that a conservative radio talk show host branded high gasoline prices racist because they encouraged farmers to use corn for the production ethanol, when that corn could be going to feed African children.